Accessible Parking and Access Aisle 2% tolerance

[ADAguy]

Given that vehicles parked in an accessible parking space sit on 4 wheels and that when parked the vehicle covers the majority of the space, of what then is wrong with a bump, hump or small rise exceeding 2% located within the 4 wheels if it is not accessible to the vehicle driver or passenger and does not overlap the adjacent access aisle?

Would this be an acceptable field condition, though a technical violation?

 

[mark handler]

Can throw off some lifts. So, impo, not acceptable.

 

[RLGA]

From ANSI A117.1:

“502.5 Floor Surfaces. Parking spaces and access aisles shall comply with Section 302 and have surface slopes not steeper than 1:48. Access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve.”

From the 2010 ADA Standards:

“502.4 Floor or Ground Surfaces. Parking spaces and access aisles serving them shall comply with 302. Access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve. Changes in level are not permitted.
“EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted.”

Since both include the parking spaces in addition to the access aisles, I would answer “no” to your question.

 

[ADAguy]

are you both missing the point? I know what the regs say but in an existing condition with all four wheels level, the lift landing on a 2% surface and the transition between the two surfaces being 2%, what then is the issue if there is no access to the surface beneath the van?

 

[RLGA]

are you both missing the point? I know what the regs say but in an existing condition with all four wheels level, the lift landing on a 2% surface and the transition between the two surfaces being 2%, what then is the issue if there is no access to the surface beneath the van?

So, you want us to say that installed field conditions should override requirements, correct? What if a handrail is installed at 33-7/8” because 1/8”-thick VCT was installed—should that be allowed to remain as an existing field condition? At what point is any violation considered a significant violation versus a minor “technical” violation?

Some requirements are just vague enough to allow variations in interpretation, which is then left to those in a position of authority to make the official interpretation, which can be challenged through an appeals board, court, or other approved process. However, in my opinion, this is not a situation that is vague, and seeking acceptance through a discussion forum is not an approved process to overturn a decision by an AHJ or waive a requirement.

The only thing in your favor is the ADA and ANSI standards’ statements on construction tolerances. How much does the slope exceed the 2% maximum, and is that within typical construction tolerances for that type of work? If within tolerance, then the situation is good to go “as is.” Otherwise, it has to be corrected.

 

[Yikes]

RGLA - - most of the contractors I work with now budget for portland cement concrete at ADA stalls instead of asphalt, even if the plans allow asphalt. The installers have greater control over slope when troweling and finishing concrete, whereas with the asphalt you are dependent on the accuracy of a giant roller to provide dimensional stability.

Note: even though a small rise is not allowed, the opposite can be allowed under certain circumstances: CBC 11B / ADA 302.3, "openings in ground or floor surfaces" allows for very tiny dips, voids, divots or openings (such as control joints or drainage grates) that meet the test of preventing a 1/2" diameter sphere from dropping through.

 

[ADAguy]

3.5% vs 2% in a vehicular way, not a walk as the adjacent access aisle is., difference is not more than 1/2" and it is sloped not vertical.
You don't believe it is justified if is existing ac and covered by parked vehicles?

 

[RLGA]

3.5% vs 2% in a vehicular way, not a walk as the adjacent access aisle is., difference is not more than 1/2" and it is sloped not vertical.
You don't believe it is justified if is existing ac and covered by parked vehicles?

Noncompliance is not justified. If existing and not part of a construction project, then the only risk is a claim against the owner for noncompliance with the ADA.

If the owner was a client of mine, I would advise them that it is noncompliant and that they could be subject to a claim, although the risk of such a claim is low; but the decision to fix it or keep it “as is” would be the client’s and not mine.

 

[ADAguy]

One of those cases where existing conditions , where logic is out weighed by technical language.

 

[mark handler]

are you both missing the point? I know what the regs say but in an existing condition with all four wheels level, the lift landing on a 2% surface and the transition between the two surfaces being 2%, what then is the issue if there is no access to the surface beneath the van?

I am not missing the point
Cars and vans are not self leveling.
If the tires are at different levels the lift or ramp can be offset, making it unsafe.
You don't know where in the stall the car/van is parked vs where the inperfectionin the level area is.
Yoh need to look at the most extreme. Not the best case.

 

[jar546]

One of those cases where existing conditions , where logic is out weighed by technical language.

The world is bigger than what you are aware of:

 

[mark handler]

Asphalt overlay or grind it.
A "technical language" violation is still a violation.


As always, "All dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances except where the requirement is stated as a range with specific minimum and maximum end points."
ICC A117.1-2009, 104.2;
CBC 11B-104.1.1 and
ADASAD 104.1.1

 

[BayPointArchitect]

Just to make the discussion more interesting, let me suggest an opinion that is contrary to the vast majority:

Parking stall dimensions = 9' x 18' = 162 square feet.
162 square feet x $6 per square foot = $972 required to remove and replace concrete.
$972 x 5 = $4,860

If we can call the small hump underneath the oil pan an "existing condition", I would say that the cost to alter the parking space is disproportionate to the overall cost of construction because the $972 required to fix the problem exceeds 20% - compared to the overall project cost of $4,800 (or less).

So... would that provide a technical exception to the technical violation?

If you were the one expected to pay out $972 (for whatever reason), how would you look at this from the other side?

reference: 2010 ADA; Title III; Section 36.403, Alterations to the path of travel, (f) Disproportionality exception.

 

[ADAguy]

Thank you Bay but would/could that also be seen as maintenance vs an alteration?

 

[mark handler]

Thank you Bay but would/could that also be seen as maintenance vs an alteration?

And you are required to maintain the Accessible features.....

 

[ADAguy]

True but often overlooked until a Drive-by occurs.

 

[mark handler]

True but often overlooked until a Drive-by occurs.

Drive-bys occur because of ignorance and indifference.

 

[Yikes]

ADAGuy,
Your originally posted question was not: "will this cause anyone physical problems in the real world?" That is a separate subject.

Your question was: Would this be an acceptable field condition, though a technical violation?
To which the answer is, "if it is a technical violation, then it is not an acceptable condition".

The are procedures for making the existing condition a non-violation of the code: BayPointArchitect gave one (findings of unreasonable hardship).
Mark Handler also gave a relatively easy fix: add more asphalt to the lower areas.

 

[ADAguy]

thanks