ISA at Entrances

[Fort]

I posted this in another thread, but it was nit the main topic of discussion. I just want to get confirmation in case i am reading this incorrectly.

The ISA is no longer req'd at every entry door in all cases.

See 11B-216.6. It is now only required if not all entrances are accessible. If the building has one door that is not accessible, then all doors would need signage, either with ISA, or if not accessible, with directional signage to nearest accessible entry. Since all doors on new construction are required to be accessible, we should not be requiring ISA signs on entry doors for new buildings. Of course remodels and additions will often continue to require them.

I would be grateful if someone reads 11B-216.6 differently to please let us know.

 

[mark handler]

CBC now Based on ADASAD 216.6 Entrances.*Where not all entrances comply with 404, entrances complying with 404 shall be identified by the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with 703.7.2.1. Directional signs complying with 703.5 that indicate the location of the nearest entrance complying with 404 shall be provided at entrances that do not comply with 404.

In existing buildings, non-accessible entrances, shall have a directional sign indicating where the accessible entrance is. And a ISA sign at the accessible entrance.

In New buildings all entrances shall be accessible per other sections. If all entrances are accessible, there is no need for the ISA.

 

[ICE]

"Where not all entrances comply with 404"

Section 404 is over fifty paragraphs.....none of it is easy reading. It took twenty-two diagrams to get the point across. All of that for a door and then you are sent to section 703 and another six pages of code for a sign.

AND:

Chapter 11 shouldn't be part of the building code. Chapter 11 should be a standalone code. Over time, accessibility code will overwhelm the building code in volume. There is already universal acknowledgment that the average Joe can't figure it out; so why should the charade continue? Sooner or later it's all going to be in Latin and only lawyers and doctors will know what it says....well maybe some Catholic priests too.

Consider the reality of what's happened. There is a building code that is not simple but not so convoluted as to be a tremendous pain in the :butt. Then there is the accessibility code with it's thousand numbers, and most of them, absolutes.

The average inspector uses a relatively small portion of the entire code on a daily basis but if Acc, is involved, one now must read and read some more. When you get done reading, you wonder what was it that you just read.

Well I admit that I make it sound worse that it is for an inspector. We are after all, trained in interpreting code. I, like most of you, can get to the bottom of the issue and find the answer. But what about the rest of the planet? Consider the people that build the stuff that we inspect. They look at it as already in Latin. There is a need for Casp? Why the Hell is that? Do you think there might be something wrong with a code that requires a $2500 expert to tell you what it says?

 

[mark handler]

"Where not all entrances comply with 404"Section 404 is over fifty paragraphs.....none of it is easy reading. It took twenty-two diagrams to get the point across. All of that for a door and then you are sent to section 703 and another six pages of code for a sign.

Yes, and? ?

 

[mark handler]

Sounding like a contractor

You mean i need to comply with the entire code....

 

[ICE]

Sounding like a contractorYou mean i need to comply with the entire code....

You're not a simpleton Mark. You know exactly where I'm coming from.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Sounding like a contractorYou mean i need to comply with the entire code....

No contractors, No building inspectors.

Brent.

 

[mark handler]

There is a need for Casp?

Yes because inspectors and BO's have shown that they cannot interpret the code properly

 

[MASSDRIVER]

There is a need for Casp? Yes because inspectors and BO's have shown that they cannot interpret the code properly

Would you say that is a problem with B. Os and inspectors, or a problem with code?

Brent.

 

[mark handler]

Chapter 11 shouldn't be part of the building code. Chapter 11 should be a standalone code.

It use to be a seperate document, everyone ignored it, saying it was not a part of the code. Can't have it both ways.

 

[jar546]

Would you say that is a problem with B. Os and inspectors, or a problem with code?Brent.

Sure, I'll throw in my uninvited 2cents on this one.

It is a problem with Inspectors, BO's and Contractors. Some may say that the common denominator is the code, therefore it must be the problem. I say it is laziness and complacency. If you want to be in any profession it takes effort and hard work which includes being a student of your craft. Many take the easy road and don't want to pick up a book if they are not being paid to do so. That, in many cases is all too common. Learning your craft/job is a never-ending process. We must all take the time to not just read but read and comprehend what we are reading. Comprehension can be difficult if we do not concentrate and put all thought into what we are doing. Again, effort is the key.

 

[ADAguy]

Yes, but "old" Altar Boys" pre-Vatican II remember our Latin (smiling)

 

[ADAguy]

Could it be that this is why we have so many attorneys? They craft the language of laws that require code language to clarify what they want but codes contain both performance and prescriptive requirements.

ADA is a law with guidelines that attempt to be prescriptive (to a point) but where they aren't issues arise that yield the present expanded guidelines.

So we have the "basic" code, a Green code and now someone wants a seperate access code too?

Society has advanced well beyond ax and saw construction and so too has the need for ever more complex codes and regulations, and the need for contractors to more clearly understand their responsibilities.

 

[mtlogcabin]

A lot of it is the designers specifying the minimum or the maximum dimension on such items as counter height or turning radius with no "construction tolerances" defined then things don't meet the specific dimensions required.

 

[mark handler]

A lot of it is the designers specifying the minimum or the maximum dimension on such items as counter height or turning radius with no "construction tolerances" defined then things don't meet the specific dimensions required.

ADASAD Construction Tolerances are covered by the Following:

104.1 Dimensions.

Dimensions that are not stated as "maximum" or "minimum" are absolute.

104.1.1 Construction and Manufacturing Tolerances. All dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances except where the requirement is stated as a range with specific minimum and maximum end points.

Advisory 104.1.1 Construction and Manufacturing Tolerances. Conventional industry tolerances recognized by this provision include those for field conditions and those that may be a necessary consequence of a particular manufacturing process. Recognized tolerances are not intended to apply to design work.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Thanks for the info

Like I said it is the minimum and maximum "absolutes" from the regs that the Arch puts on the drawings in lieu of using different compliant dimension.

 

[mark handler]

Thanks for the infoLike I said it is the minimum and maximum "absolutes" from the regs that the Arch puts on the drawings in lieu of using different compliant dimension.

"Recognized tolerances are not intended to apply to design work. " I.e.: Architect

The Architect cannot consider tolerances in their work.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The Architect cannot consider tolerances in their work.

Nothing stops and architect from specifying a 61' opening for a roll in shower or a 39' bottom edge mounting height for a mirror

 

[ADAguy]

Interesting observation MH, and yet many do.

So what does an E & O carrier say about standard of care with regards to dimensions?

 

[mark handler]

Nothing stops and architect from specifying a 61' opening for a roll in shower or a 39' bottom edge mounting height for a mirror

That is not a dimensional tolerance

 

[mark handler]

Interesting observation MH, and yet many do. So what does an E & O carrier say about standard of care with regards to dimensions?

What do other design professionals do under similar circumstances?