Non ADA ramp

[e hilton]

.

 

[Yikes]

The rear door may not be the designated accessible entrance and it may not be a designated accessible means of egress, but it is there, customers do use it, so it is "a" means of egress. As a component in a means of egress, it is regulated by chapter 10, not chapter 11.

And here’s the first thing in Chapter 10:

“1001.1 General​

Buildings or portions thereof shall be provided with a means of egress system as required by this chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components required to provide an approved means of egress from structures and portions thereof.”

The structure is the sentence recognizes there are components NOT “required to provide” an approved means of egress.

You took a leap based on, hey, if someone can get in through the back door, they must be able to get out the back door, so it is a means of egress.
That’s the first assumption, and it may or may not be true. The OP didn’t provide that information.
Next, you quoted chapter 10 but didn’t use the “required to provide” scoping of 1001.1. The OP did not say that their exiting analysis concluded the back door was a required means of egress. It might; or it might not.
Here’s the rest of 1012 in the Florida Building Code:

1012.2 Slope​

Ramps used as part of a means of egress shall have a running slope not steeper than one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8-percent slope). The slope of other pedestrian ramps shall not be steeper than one unit vertical in eight units horizontal (12.5-percent slope).

Your previous posts seem to be mixing ADA and FBC chapter 10. You / we simply don’t have enough info from the OP to render a code compliance opinion that is based on Chapter 10. There may be a scenario where a 1:8 slope with 4’ landings complies with Chapter 10.

 

[ICE]

This is not addressed to anyone in particular.

The Building code is set apart from the Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing codes in that the MEP codes deal with defined absolutes and the Building code is based largely on suppositions. The dogmatic application of codes based on absolute MEP code is worthy, whereas with a supposition based Building code that can be lazy and lack imagination.

Possessing a balanced view of the codes calls for not overthinking the MEP codes and a nuanced approach to enforcing the Building code. There is no room for deviation in MEP codes. MEP codes stem from immutable laws of physics.

The Building code is replete with Man’s concepts on what is safe… or safe enough… or a best guess of safety. Effective use of the building code must recognize that it hardly qualifies as a universal answer for every situation.

The electrical code will give you a wire gauge derived from real evidence. It is the same with pipe in plumbing and ducts in HVAC. How much of the building code can fit in that box?

Where does that leave us when we encounter a flaw in the built environment? What if a code compliant solution is not attainable? What if a less than code compliant result is possible and would be an improvement? Is it unreasonable to step out of formation and make a command decision.

I will not advocate for you, or anyone else, to embrace a thoughtful outlook as I have no ability to measure your capacity to think.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

ICE, you are in California. California is one of those states that allows local building officials to grant modifications from the requirements of the code. [California Building Code section 104.10] In my state, local building officials are not allowed to grant modifications, nor are we allowed to interpret the codes. Authority to grant modifications and to interpret the code is, per statute, reserved to the state building inspector.

 

[ICE]

California is one of those states that allows local building officials to grant modifications from the requirements of the code.

If this is what you are referring to, it has never happened.

104.2.7 Modifications. Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Code, the Building Official shall have the authority to grant modifications on a case-by-case basis, upon application of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent, provided the Building Official shall first find that a special individual reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical and that the modification is in conformity with the spirit and purpose of this Code and that such modification does not lessen any fire-protection or other life-safetyrelated requirements, accessibility, or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the code enforcement agency. A written application for a modification shall be submitted together with a filing fee of $252.80. When staff review exceeds two hours, an additional fee of $126.40 per hour shall be charged for each hour or fraction thereof in excess of two hours.

Scattered among the few hundred thousand corrections that I have written are a few hundred dispensations that bent the code. Examples are a 45”AFF accessible component or a diagonal dimension that had to shrink to get a second exit. There was no alternate interpretation or modification. In your world it would be a blatant disregard for the letter of the code. I just moved a letter or two.

 

[bill1952]

YC- I disagree with a lot of your post but I'm not as interested in hearing myself talk as much as you, so will note just one

First, the building code is, by its own statement, the "minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety,
health and general welfare."

Because it says so doesn't make it so. And a code that allows a single 4" step anywhere fails the "reasonable level of safety" test.

 

[Paul Sweet]

A ramp also requires a 5 ft. landing at a door. This makes it 9 ft. long to go up 4". This might not be a problem if it's in a corridor with no doors in this 9 ft. area, but if it sticks out into the middle of a floor area it would be a major intrusion and require handrails or flared sides to keep people from tripping on it. Handrails would need a 12" extension at the bottom, making it 10 ft. long. Flared sides would add 4 ft. each side. It's probably best to leave it as is if they are going to enforce the strictest letter of the code.

 

[ICE]

The back door has a 4" step down into the store.

So you open the door and walk in only to discover that the floor isn’t where you thought it was. That door shouldn’t be there.

But the door is there and they want to keep it with the addition of a nonconforming ramp. Assuming that the configuration was approved (compliant) when it was built doesn’t make it any less dangerous.

A non-compliant ramp could make it less dangerous… From here, I can’t tell how much improvement is available so I would leave it up to e hilton.

 

[bill1952]

Well, I agree. Nail the door shut. Building meets all code requirements. Not sure it's safer than if there was another door and non-compliant ramp.

 

[princeofpen]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the 1:8 1:10 permitted per ANSI for existing buildings for the ramp to be installed shorter and still compliant as this seems to be an existing building.
Also if you are in TX you'd need to contact your accessibility plan reviewer/inspector for approval., do not wait until a final when you could have the answer well before

 

[Joe.B]

Did y'all scare 'em off?

I am working on a small retail store with two entrances/exits but only one is required. The front door is on the accessible route and is ADA compliant. The back door has a 4" step down into the store. We would like to add a ramp but to save space, I'd like to make it smaller than what would be required by ADA. Would this be allowed or advisable? It is in Florida and I know they are strict with ADA.

Is the intent of this "ramp" to help you with loading/unloading? Such as helping you move stuff with a dolly? If so consider making a small wooden ramp that you can set in place just when you need it and immediately move it when you're done. Best of both worlds.