Existing ramp with no landing

[Robert]

Existing small bakery has an interior ramp sloping down 4" (1:12) to the entry doors (they are outswing)....there is no landing at the interior side of the doors. There are many of these (older buildings) where the floor is 4"-6" above the sidewalk, and this interior ramp solution is somewhat common (rather than warping the sidewalk). We are doing some improvements to the building (in CA) and I need to address this if it is not compliant......at least spend 20% on it. If I extend the interior ramp (to allow for a 5' landing at the doors) they would lose much of their bakery counter/point of sale space and the extended ramp would cutoff a seating area. Would adding a power door operator suffice instead of losing the interior floor space to a longer ramp and landing? It seems if someone can open the doors using a power operator from the inside, the space in front of the open doors (sidewalk) now becomes the bottom landing. Thanks.

 

[arwat23]

I see no expectation in CBC that would allow you to remove the landing for the ramp. The door maneuvering clearance can be removed per CBC 11B-404.3.2 if you the door remain open when in the powered-off condition, but ramp landing are different and do not seem to have that same exception. That's also ignoring the handrail extension requirements (assuming that is also an issue).

In my experience, you'll need to address the non-complaint ramp some way, unless the 20% of CBC 11B-202.4, exception 8 is being handled by other upgrades. That said, since it sounds like this project is over the threshold listed in that exception, you may need to spend far more than 20%. Depends on the local BO tho.

 

[Robert]

We would be able to add the power door operator and be within the 20%. However, remodeling the ramp or warping sidewalk would put us over 20%. I'm just wondering if the power operator would do any good....seems like it would help in both directions and at least shows some due diligence.

 

[arwat23]

We would be able to add the power door operator and be within the 20%. However, remodeling the ramp or warping sidewalk would put us over 20%. I'm just wondering if the power operator would do any good....seems like it would help in both directions and at least shows some due diligence.

Might depend on what the adjusted cost of construction is. Is it greater than the valuation threshold (about $200,000)?

If "yes" (greater than the threshold), then you need to spend a minimum of 20%. The AHJ determines what the hardship threshold is. I've worked in some cities that can require upwards of 40% of the adjusted cost of construction be used for accessible path of travel improvements, depending on the project and what needs to be improved (which is hell when clients learn that). In this case, you will likely need to provide a ramp landing regardless of the auto door operator, unless you raise the sidewalk up so that there is no ramp needed inside.

If "no" (less than the threshold), then you have to spend a maximum of 20%. You should be able to make the argument to the AHJ that you do not need to provide a new ramp landing since you'd be going over that 20% maximum specified by code. It would likely help having the auto operator, as you can point to that as fulfilling what's required as best as you can within the limits the code specifies. Code specifically says, "compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent."

 

[e hilton]

. I've worked in some cities that can require upwards of 40% of the adjusted cost of construction be used for accessible path of travel improvements, .

Code specifically says, "compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent."

Those statements seems to be contradictory.

 

[arwat23]

Those statements seems to be contradictory.

Yeah, they do seem contradictory, but they aren't (because CBC never likes to make things easy...)

By CBC 11B-202.4, Exception 8, if the adjusted cost of construction for a project is over the valuation threshold, as defined, then you must spend a minimum of 20% of the adjusted cost of construction, as defined, on accessible path of travel improvements (unless, of course, the accessible path of travel is already compliant with code). That mean that if improvements can be done, then they must be done at a cost of 20% of the adjusted cost of construction at a bare minimum. The AHJ has authority to determine what amount over 20% minimum required is considered an unreasonable hardship. Most (but not all) jurisdictions I've submitted projects to usually accept something close to 20%. Some though have forced a higher amount if the project is big enough and/or the building is wildly out of compliance. Worst I've personally seen is a $500k TI project that had an additional $225k of accessible upgrades required by the city.

By that same CBC exception, if the adjusted cost of construction is under the valuation threshold, then code is very specific that you do not need to exceed 20% of the adjusted cost of construction of accessible path of travel improvements. A project with a adjusted cost of construction under $200,399 (for 2024) can forcefully limit the accessible path of travel improvements to a maximum of 20% of the cost of all other construction for that project. For example, if a project costs $10k to complete construction, then you can limit path of travel improvements to $2k. If no improvements can be made at that price, then no improvements need to be made.