Doors required to be accessible, or not?

[ADAguy]

Question raised: Name any and all doors covered by ADA, CBC 11b or ICC 11 that are not required to be accessible other than those with exceptions.

 

[classicT]

Considering that each of the code/legal provisions named deal explicitly with accessibility, the answer is none.

The premise of your question is asking what doesn't have to comply that is not included in the exceptions. Only the exceptions do not have to comply.

However, if you intend to state that all doors shall provide accessible use, then that is not accurate. Where not required to comply with ADA, CBC 11b or IBC Ch 11 (per the exceptions of each), a door would not be required to be accessible. See IBC Section 1103.2 for exceptions.

Example - Utility Buildings (1103.2.4), prison guard tower or other observation balcony (1103.2.6), highway tollbooths (1103.2.10), correctional facilities (1103.2.13), or walk-in-cooler/freezer (1103.2.14).

 

[ADAguy]

We are on the same page but another poster doesn't appear to be.
Those exceptions are understood, the point made by another poster was that there were "others" not requiring compliance. The majority of doors if/when provided, found in T-II & T-III facilities "must" meet ADASAD minimums.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Any door not on an accessible route does not need to be accessible

 

[ADAguy]

Barrier removal required "all" existing doors to be accessible unless specifically exempted.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The exemption would be the door is not on an accessible route
Example the door to access an unoccupied roof.

 

[mark handler]

All New doors, on an accessible route, or not, Should be accessible.

 

[ADAguy]

Thank you MH

 

[mtlogcabin]

The question is "required" not "should be" accessible doors
As we all know there is more to an accessible door than just the width. There is the latch and locking mechanisms, the approach clearances, if there is a closure or not to mention a few. All those things are not required if it is not on an accessible route. If one of those is not in compliance then you do not have an accessible door.

 

[ADAguy]

Are we on the same page mt? Do you have an issue with "each door" other then those specifically exempted but not on a accessible route meeting the requirements for an accessible door?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Do you have an issue with "each door" other then those specifically exempted but not on a accessible route meeting the requirements for an accessible door?

Yes depending on the location and function the door serves
Example: A warehouse with the required signed and code compliant accessible exits also has 3 non-exit exterior (no exit signage ) doors serving the loading dock for an F or S occupancy. Are the 3 non-exit doors now required to have the maneuvering clearances as outlined in ANSI TABLE 404.2.3.2
MANEUVERING CLEARANCES AT MANUAL SWINGING DOORS?

No
The doors are a convenience for the operation of the facility and the truck drivers that use it. Should it meet the other requirements such as lever hardware? Yes
The doors are not part of the means of egress system and therefore are not on an accessible route.

 

[mark handler]

The question is "required" not "should be" accessible doors
As we all know there is more to an accessible door than just the width. There is the latch and locking mechanisms, the approach clearances, if there is a closure or not to mention a few. All those things are not required if it is not on an accessible route. If one of those is not in compliance then you do not have an accessible door.

I would look at it on a case by case basis
The code does have a minimum door width And there are exceptions
1010.1.1 Size of doors and Exceptions.

Remember the width of the doors also affect emergency personnel not just those with physical impairments. When they come to get me from my heart attack I don't want the female paramedic to drag me through the door.... she can give CPR... but I want a stretcher….

 

[mtlogcabin]

To paraphrase Albert Einstein

An inspector should look for what is required, and not for what he thinks should be.

 

[conarb]

To paraphrase Albert Einstein

An inspector should look for what is required, and not for what he thinks should be.

True, and anyone wo tries to cram his personal political beliefs down the throats of the masses has no business in public employment.

 

[ADAguy]

Legal jargon for deminimus mt, are "you" an AHJ or a AOR? an owner who wants it "cheap" or best practices?

 

[Yikes]

To paraphrase Albert Einstein

An inspector should look for what is required, and not for what he thinks should be.

Corollary: when asked for a code opinion on a code forum, try to give a response that cites the specific code sections that support your position.

 

[mtlogcabin]

An AHJ who acknowledges the code requirements are a minimum and "best practices" is a designers responsibility and not a code requirement. An AHJ has no legal authority to require "best practices" as part of the plan review or inspection process for a code that is written as the minimum requirements you have to legally follow.

A best practice is a method or technique that has been generally accepted as superior to any alternatives because it produces results that are superior to those achieved by other means or because it has become a standard way of doing things, e.g., a standard way of complying with legal or ethical requirements

 

[Yikes]

I would look at it on a case by case basis
The code does have a minimum door width And there are exceptions
1010.1.1 Size of doors and Exceptions.

I note that the OP was not asking about Ch 10 "Means of Egress", and was instead asking about accessibility.

Here's a bunch of doors that don't need to be accessible: every door serving a closet or cabinet that is less than 24" deep.
That because it's not on an accessible route (route to go into the closet/cabinet).

CBC 11B / ADA is very straightforward:
1. Use Division 2 to determine what spaces and components need to be accessible.
2. Use ADAS/11B-206.2 to determine what routes need to be provided to get to those accessible spaces and components.
3. Use ADAS/11B-401.1 to determine that the doors that are in the routes that are required to be accessible by Div. 2 - themselves need to be accessible. If the doorway is not part of an accessible route, the doorway does not need to be accessible.

Also, do not confuse an accessible doorway with accessible hardware:
An accessible door can be made accessible via its swing clearances and hardware - - or via its automatic powered operation (which does not require the same clearances and hardware).

Conversely, a non-accessible door may require accessible hardware, such as D-pulls on a cabinet door. It has nothing to do with the route.

 

[ADAguy]

Does Montana code rely on ICC/ANSI or ADASAD? As you are an AHJ I better understand your comments but in CA doors (whether a closet or not) without accessible hardware are asking for trouble, whether on an accessible path/route, or not.

 

[mtlogcabin]

ICC/ANSI only
Required on every Certificate of Occupancy

24.301.902 DISCLAIMER

(1) A building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by the state or a municipality or county must contain a statement that reads: "Compliance with the requirements of the state building code for physical accessibility to persons with disabilities does not necessarily guarantee compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Title 49, chapter 2, commonly known as the Montana Human Rights Act or other similar federal, state or local laws that mandate accessibility to commercial construction or multifamily housing."

 

[ADAguy]

Yes but, does your code align with the minimum provisions of ADASAD 2010 or only ANSI 117.1?

 

[mtlogcabin]

only ANSI 117.1?

 

[conarb]

Yes but, does your code align with the minimum provisions of ADASAD 2010 or only ANSI 117.1?

He just explained that to you in his last post, in fact the local code doesn't have to align with Federal Law or ANSI, in fact that's one of the things we fight the ICC on is that it's a reflexion of totalitarian Federal law instead of being an independent agency like the ICBO and/or SBC.;

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Whenever ADA is listed under the designed codes on a plan I am reviewing I cross it off because it is not a code, I am not reviewing per ADA and I don't know or required to know the ADA.