• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Parking lot PV structure shade a site amenity?

R

Redmund

REGISTERED
Joined
Dec 27, 2022
Messages
28
Location
California
Would the shade provided by a PV structure in a parking lot (such as shown in the attached photo) be considered as a 'site amenity'. If considered a site amenity, then some accessible parking and accessible EVCS should probably be located under the PV canopies on the general principle of providing equivalent facilitation.

The opposing view is that the purpose of the PV structures is not to provide shade, and that 'shade' is not a part of the PV canopy installation project's 'program'.

None-the-less, whether intended or not, installing these PV structures in parking lots does have an ancillary benefit of providing some shade.
 

Attachments

  • PV structures in parking lot.jpg
    PV structures in parking lot.jpg
    69.4 KB · Views: 8
If the shaded parking spots are furthest from the building which the parking serves, I say no. But could go either way.
 
No, a site amenity has a specific purpose. Shade changes throughout the day and seasons and has no bearing on the accessible parking or EVCS requirements. Is it a PV structure or is it a covered parking area or both?
 
Are the parking stalls under the solar panels reserved or assigned by the management? If they assign value to these parking spaces, particularly if it is greater than non-covered parking, then absolutely you will need to provide accessible parking spaces.

Generally speaking, I would likely indicate that the covered parking is an amenity providing a different "type of parking space".

2021 IBC 1106.3 Groups I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4​

Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in Group I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 occupancies in accordance with Items 1 through 4 as applicable.
  1. In Group R-2, R-3 and R-4 occupancies that are required to have Accessible, Type A or Type B dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent, but not less than one, of each type of parking space provided shall be accessible.
  2. In Group I-1 and R-1 occupancies, accessible parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 1106.2.
  3. Where at least one parking space is provided for each dwelling unit or sleeping unit, at least one accessible parking space shall be provided for each Accessible and Type A unit.
  4. Where parking is provided within or beneath a building, accessible parking spaces shall be provided within or beneath the building.
 
classicT said:

2021 IBC 1106.3 Groups I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4​

Accessible parking spaces shall be provided in Group I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 occupancies in accordance with Items 1 through 4 as applicable.
  1. In Group R-2, R-3 and R-4 occupancies that are required to have Accessible, Type A or Type B dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent, but not less than one, of each type of parking space provided shall be accessible.
  2. In Group I-1 and R-1 occupancies, accessible parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 1106.2.
  3. Where at least one parking space is provided for each dwelling unit or sleeping unit, at least one accessible parking space shall be provided for each Accessible and Type A unit.
  4. Where parking is provided within or beneath a building, accessible parking spaces shall be provided within or beneath the building.
Click to expand...
Funny side bar here - take note I would never actually enforce this!

By technicality, per the above code section, if you provide motorcycle parking stalls, one must be accessible. But how would that look?

Well, I presume it would look just like a traditional accessible parking stall. But if that is the case, how would it be separate from a traditional accessible car/van parking stall?

R.33c9c430b36d4087f212ae3a5f418ef8
 
Paul Sweet said:
I wouldn't consider a PV structure any more of a "site amenity" than trees.
Click to expand...
Excellent observation Paul. Thank you very much. I actually was thinking about trees as well, and how we don't ask for some parking to be under trees--even though the purpose of providing trees may very well be primarily to provide shade.
 
Redmund said:
Excellent observation Paul. Thank you very much. I actually was thinking about trees as well, and how we don't ask for some parking to be under trees--even though the purpose of providing trees may very well be primarily to provide shade.
Click to expand...
Very lackluster, hopefully ironic, point in my opinion. Building codes do not regulate trees - but they do regulate structures. What is proposed is a structure.
 
classicT said:
Very lackluster, hopefully ironic, point in my opinion. Building codes do not regulate trees - but they do regulate structures. What is proposed is a structure.
Click to expand...
It's was more of an ADA equivalency question than a building code question.
 
I would guess if the people who park under it for the shade and consider it an amenity, then a person with a disability might make a case of discrimination if it didn't accomodate them.
 
IMPO
Yes, a covered space is an amenity. In my opinion, it is a "Structure".
"Any building, structure, facility, complex or improved area, or portions..."​
 
Is it a shade structure? The depends on the season and the time of day. Was the reason for it being there to provide shade? If so, it is poorly designed. Accidental shading hardly rises to the threshold of requireing accessible accidental, intermittent shading.

PV structures in parking lot 2.jpg

My brother in-law took in a stray dog. He chained the dog to a pine tree in his front yard. He put up a sign in the hope that the dog's owner would see the mutt and claim it. The dog dug a series of holes in an arc that followed the shadow that was cast by the tree. It was a large dog and so were the holes.
 
Last edited:
If this is for an apartment building and not say a shopping mall it would be useful to prevent dew and/or frost from forming on the vehicles underneath at night.
 
If it is considered an amenity that requires accessible parking beneath it, would it have to be near the building so these accessible spaces wouldn't be across the parking lot, or would the accessible spaces under the "amenity" have to be in addition to the number required by ADA? This could turn into a deep rabbit hole.
 
First and foremost, it is a PV structure that requires exposure to the sun to operate efficiently that is located in a parking lot and designed to be parked under. Efficient use of the land/parking lot. You would not place this structure near a tall building that may shade the structure and diminish its efficiency. That would be a waste of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top