Backyard accessibility in multi-family adaptable unit (CA)

[formdb]

I'm curious what this community's thoughts are on this. If I provide a private backyard to an adaptable multi-family unit on the primary entry level, do I need to make that private yard area accessible? If so, what defines the extent of that accessibility?

In my mind, controlling code section would be:

1102A.3.1, Item 3 - "All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route and shall comply with the provisions in Division IV. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms or hallways."

If I provided a single minimum dimension concrete landing at the exterior of the door, with a flush transition, would I be in compliance?

What is at stake is whether the exterior wall at the rear of the unit would need a concrete curb. Because if a resident in an adaptable unit wanted to have an accessible patio, we would want to provide a curb and plan for a weep screed minimum 2" above the flatwork elevation. But if we are not required to provide that patio, then we would not need to provide a curb in the wall. However, if we provided a curb without providing flatwork, the curb would be higher above the adjacent grade than the structural engineer allows.

Hope that's enough info, curious to get some feedback!

 

[e hilton]

If you have an apartment that has a high probability of being rented to a handicap tenant, why wouldnt you take the few extra steps during construction to make the back yard accessible? Wont be any easier a year from now.

 

[formdb]

If you have an apartment that has a high probability of being rented to a handicap tenant, why wouldnt you take the few extra steps during construction to make the back yard accessible? Wont be any easier a year from now.

I agree, but I’m not the developer. I’m trying to convince him to do it to make the backyard actually functional.

in reality, it actually has a zero probability of being rented to someone with accessibility needs. It’s a faculty housing development for a university, so it will be sold to a faculty member. The chances of it being sold to a faculty member with accessibility needs is very low.

I’m mostly trying to determine what the Code actually requires. From my reading of the Code, there doesn’t seem to be a requirement to make the rear yard accessible, only provide a path to it.

 

[cda]

I agree, but I’m not the developer. I’m trying to convince him to do it to make the backyard actually functional.

in reality, it actually has a zero probability of being rented to someone with accessibility needs. It’s a faculty housing development for a university, so it will be sold to a faculty member. The chances of it being sold to a faculty member with accessibility needs is very low.

I’m mostly trying to determine what the Code actually requires. From my reading of the Code, there doesn’t seem to be a requirement to make the rear yard accessible, only provide a path to it.

So the owner might have someone in the family with needs??? Or the university only hires non needs people??

Is the development in university owned property?????

 

[bill1952]

Tough question but if you go back to the basis - not discriminating based on disability - it sure seems denying someone using a wheelchair the same amenities could be a problem. I'd sure document the structural impracticality for the record.

 

[formdb]

So the owner might have someone in the family with needs??? Or the university only hires non needs people??

Is the development in university owned property?????

Sorry if my response wasn’t clear. It’s a zero probability these will be RENTED at all, as they are built for sale to faculty. And I was simply commenting on the likelihood of this adaptable unit actually being sold to a faculty member with accessibility needs. It’s low simply because it’s a limited buyer pool; it will likely be sold to someone without accessibility needs, just on sheer statistical probability.

But honestly, this seems irrelevant to me. I would absolutely believe the backyard should be accessible, or at least a larger portion of it than a tiny landing. However, the question at hand is, what does the code require? I’ll need to make a case to the developer that it is required by code or he will not want to do it.

 

[cda]

On University property??

Any state ada rules requiring it?

Guess we are talking about the great State of California??

 

[formdb]

On University property??

Any state ada rules requiring it?

Yes, this is on university property and the final result will need to comply with all applicable (CBC 11A) code requirements.


This is the exact question I’m asking Seems unclear in my reading of the Code. See the code references I included above in my original post.

 

[cda]

At a normal residential house,, not open to public access,, more than likely not required.

But talking about university property

 

[mark handler]

2010 ADASAD "Transient Lodging Guest Rooms"
806.2.2 Exterior Spaces. Exterior spaces, including patios, terraces and balconies, that serve the guest room shall be accessible.
Note: Transient Lodging Guest Rooms?

2019CBC 11B-809.8 Doors...Secondary exterior doors onto decks, patios, or balcony surfaces constructed of impervious materials (e.g., concrete, brick, flagstone) may have a maximum change in height from the interior landing of 4 inches. Secondary exterior doors onto decks, patios or balcony surfaces constructed of impervious materials (e.g., concrete, brick, flagstone) may have a maximum change in height from the interior landing of 1 inch, provided a ramp with a maximum slope of 1:8 is permanently installed as illustrated in Figure 11B-809.8(d).

 

[ADAguy]

I agree, but I’m not the developer. I’m trying to convince him to do it to make the backyard actually functional.

in reality, it actually has a zero probability of being rented to someone with accessibility needs. It’s a faculty housing development for a university, so it will be sold to a faculty member. The chances of it being sold to a faculty member with accessibility needs is very low.

I’m mostly trying to determine what the Code actually requires. From my reading of the Code, there doesn’t seem to be a requirement to make the rear yard accessible, only provide a path to it.

It only takes one to require it to be and what about their kids?

 

[formdb]

It only takes one to require it to be and what about their kids?

Again, I'm not debating at all that it would be better to simply pour some flatwork in the backyard to make it more accessible and functional, and that's what I'm going to strongly encourage the developer to provide. I'm essentially playing devil's advocate here: if I were the developer, how would you prove to me that the Code requires me to install extra flatwork in the rear yard?

The part I'm not clear on is what the Code says about it. I have yet to see anything definitive in the Code that requires that a rear yard be accessible, or to what extent. @mark handler that section on transient lodging guest rooms is great, but as your question mark implies, I don't think that would be applicable for a single-family residence. And I don't believe the CBC section on doors would be applicable, as 11A has its own door standards. The door to the rear yard, from my understanding, would need to comply. But that still doesn't tell me if there's anything in the Code requiring the rear yard itself to be accessible, beyond the standard level landing at each door.

Perhaps another piece of the puzzle I didn't make clear enough: The University will retain ownership of the land, but the homes themselves will be sold to and purchased by individual faculty members. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the adaptable unit in question is purchased by faculty members without accessibility needs, and they occupy this home for ten years, and then sell it to a faculty member with accessibility needs. @ADAguy, are you saying the unit would then be required to have an accessible rear yard? Who is responsible for the cost to install ? I'm confused what you mean when you say, "It only takes one to require it to be." I know in commercial applications, under ADA the business owner would need to make reasonable accommodations for an employee with accessibility needs, but I'm not familiar with anything comparable regarding private residences.

Again, my main goal is to establish what specific code sections require a rear yard of a private permanent residence to be accessible.

 

[redeyedfly]

Again, I'm not debating at all that it would be better to simply pour some flatwork in the backyard to make it more accessible and functional, and that's what I'm going to strongly encourage the developer to provide. I'm essentially playing devil's advocate here: if I were the developer, how would you prove to me that the Code requires me to install extra flatwork in the rear yard?

The part I'm not clear on is what the Code says about it. I have yet to see anything definitive in the Code that requires that a rear yard be accessible, or to what extent. @mark handler that section on transient lodging guest rooms is great, but as your question mark implies, I don't think that would be applicable for a single-family residence. And I don't believe the CBC section on doors would be applicable, as 11A has its own door standards. The door to the rear yard, from my understanding, would need to comply. But that still doesn't tell me if there's anything in the Code requiring the rear yard itself to be accessible, beyond the standard level landing at each door.

Perhaps another piece of the puzzle I didn't make clear enough: The University will retain ownership of the land, but the homes themselves will be sold to and purchased by individual faculty members. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the adaptable unit in question is purchased by faculty members without accessibility needs, and they occupy this home for ten years, and then sell it to a faculty member with accessibility needs. @ADAguy, are you saying the unit would then be required to have an accessible rear yard? Who is responsible for the cost to install ? I'm confused what you mean when you say, "It only takes one to require it to be." I know in commercial applications, under ADA the business owner would need to make reasonable accommodations for an employee with accessibility needs, but I'm not familiar with anything comparable regarding private residences.

Again, my main goal is to establish what specific code sections require a rear yard of a private permanent residence to be accessible.

You potentially have several accessibility codes to meet. One of them, FHA, absolutely requires the door to a porch/balcony to be accessible.

Also, you seem to be missing the point of accessibility codes. They aren't necessarily for the tenant. People have friends and relatives who may have accessibility needs when they visit. Some aspects of accessibility codes are proactive, such as accessible doors, and some are adaptable provisions, such as grab bar blocking. There are far more people with mobility impairments than you think. Accessibility is not just about wheelchairs.

I highly recommend you spend some of your fee on an accessibility consultant or you'll be spending far more on legal fees and E&O claims.