Ramp, landing and handrails

[mark handler]

Ramp

3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

Yes but can be a part of the railing

4.) If the handrails are installed on the lower ramp then the handrails are required to extend in to the parking lot with extensions (yes/no)?

yes, but can be rotated 90 degress (perpendicular to ramp) for existing ramps...

Stairs (which are currently not part of the project)

3.) does the 2010 ADA require the stairs have contrasting lines at the edge?

Required in ANSI 117.1 Advised in ADAAG

4.) The handrails are wrong for more than just the ADA, but, my question is since church owned because it's use is for income to a business, the church's exemption from requirement is removed, correct (yes/no)

Is the daycare run by the Church? If yes, exempt from ADA but not ANSI 117.1 or state access codes.

If no, Not exempt from ADA

 

[mark handler]

Ramp

3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

Yes but can be a part of the railing

ANSI 117.1 405.9 Edge Protection. Edge protection complying with Section 405.9.1 or 405.9.2 shall be provided on each side of ramp runs and at each side of ramp landings.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

PapioBoth landings are over 60 x 60

The top is 76 x 96

You stated earlier that the small (curb) ramp was only 36" (+/-) wide. From your pictures, the longer ramp does not appear much wider, and unless it is 60" wide, you do not have a 60"x60" wide landing for the change in directions between your two ramps.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Ramp 3.) The small ramp does require side curbing (yes/no)?

Yes but can be a part of the railing

ANSI 117.1 405.9 Edge Protection. Edge protection complying with Section 405.9.1 or 405.9.2 shall be provided on each side of ramp runs and at each side of ramp landings.

Mark, 405.9.2 does not come into play if one of the three exceptions in the charging section (405.9) is applicable. So the answer could be No, a curb or barrier is not required.

 

[mark handler]

So the answer could be No, a curb or barrier is not required.

If you look at the three exceptions they do not apply to this case, based on the photos and comments

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

...deleted.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

If you look at the three exceptions they do not apply to this case, based on the photos and comments

But they should be considered, especially given that in his case, the curb ramp and landing is non-compliant and will need to be removed and replaced.

 

[mark handler]

exceptions for adjacent grade slope determines whether 405.9.2 for curbs/barriers are a requirement.

I know you think you are right, but if you look at the figure provided you will see the extended flairs are not in play in this case.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs.

Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.

Stairs are not part of an accessible route. Yes/No

The installation of an ADA compliant ramp is an accessible route and provides the barrier removal requirement for accessing the building. Yes/No

20% rule does not apply since all the work being done is to improve accessibilty and provide an accessible ramp.

What ADA code section is requiring the Architect as Brudgers pointed out and TBZ's concern to go "beyond the code" and address the handrails on the steps?

 

[tbz]

You stated earlier that the small (curb) ramp was only 36" (+/-) wide. From your pictures, the longer ramp does not appear much wider, and unless it is 60" wide, you do not have a 60"x60" wide landing for the change in directions between your two ramps.

I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.

My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?

Yes, that is correct. From the pictures shown, it appeared to me to be narrower.

How will you be mounting the guards rails (assuming the guards will act as your curb/barrier) to the ramp and are you going to leave the lower curb ramp running slope as is?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

1.) my first question is that the picture of the bottom of the ramp ends at a landing, which requires curbing for roll off protection, the client has elected to continue the handrails along the landing to act as the curbing, but has requested the handrails stop prior to descending down from the landing to the parking lot.

Being that I misjudged the landing dimensions in the originial photographs, is this a situation where the grade can not be brought up to the edge of the landing and curb ramp to qualify for one of the exceptions in 405.9?

The lower ramp/walkway from the landing to the parking lot exceeds 1:20, is exactly 36.5" wide and does not have a full slope side cut to the parking drain.

And this curb ramp has +4" of rise over what length?

 

[mark handler]

Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs.Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.

Stairs are not part of an accessible route. Yes/No

The installation of an ADA compliant ramp is an accessible route and provides the barrier removal requirement for accessing the building. Yes/No

20% rule does not apply since all the work being done is to improve accessibilty and provide an accessible ramp.

What ADA code section is requiring the Architect as Brudgers pointed out and TBZ's concern to go "beyond the code" and address the handrails on the steps?

I will also take input on any other things you see jumping out at you.Thanks

Why, Because the OP requested imput

Stairs can be a part of an access route. Think canes and walkers .....

Not everyone that is disabled needs a ramp, that is why stairs are a part of ANSI117.1 and ADA

 

[mark handler]

I am still on the fence about the lower landing, the main (upper) ramp is exactly 60" wide, the lower landing is 63" long and 60 inches wide.My understanding is that the 60" x 60" is clear width between guards, walls or curbs, but handrails can reduce the space is this correct or not?

Handrails can .... but there is nothing in the code that allows the vertical supports in encroach. If the concrete is 60 inches you cannot put the verticals in that 60"

 

[mtlogcabin]

Stairs can be a part of an access route. Think canes and walkers .....

There is no definition that I can find for an accessible route in ANSI.

Every exception to the accessible route requirements are for raised floor areas, mezzanines or other stories.

Stairs can be accessible but that does not make them comp[liant with the accessible route requirements.

ADA

3.5 Definitions.

Accessible Route. A continuous unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and spaces of a building or facility. Interior accessible routes may include corridors, floors, ramps, elevators, lifts, and clear floor space at fixtures. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles, curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps, and lifts.

A4.9 Stairs.

A4.9.1 Minimum Number. Only interior and exterior stairs connecting levels that are not connected by an elevator, ramp, or other accessible means of vertical access have to comply with 4.9.

 

[brudgers]

Help understand why some believe the handrails on the existing steps are required to be brought up to current ADA regs. Assume the original building was constructed prior to ADA and was code compliant at the time.

Because the period for items being grandfathered in to ADA is past...by about 20 years...and ADA Title III requires the ongoing removal of architectural barriers.

 

[Jim B]

I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 never references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.

Just because ANSI A117.1-2003 has reference to a specific fixture or feature, it is only applicable if referenced from the building code.

The same this with nosing on stair treads. If you read IBC 2009, 1009.4.5, a stair tread may be vertical OR sloped. Nosing is not required. Although IRC 2009 311.7.4.3 does require nosing.

I recall back when ANSI A117.1-1998 referred to horizontal handrail extensions at the bottom of stairs. In my area of my state it seemed that they always being called out; but they were never required! Check the scoping of the IBC before you require ANSI A117.1 standards.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 never references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.

Maybe I missed the boat (mine is still a 2006 model), and if so, I am okay with it, but doesn't Section 1007 (1007.2 Continuity and Components) say that means of egress shall comply with Section 1104? Granted there are some exceptions, but part of 1104 compliance is also governed by the charging/scoping Section in 1101.2, which specifically states that buildings and facilities shall be constructed as accessible in accordance with this Chapter and ANSI A117.1. IMHO, that says if that exit stairway is required to be accessible by Chapters 10 or 11, then that stairway shall comply with ANSI A117.1...just because that is what Chapter 11 requires.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

There is no definition that I can find for an accessible route in ANSI.

I don't use the ANSI or ADA to define accessible route requirements, rather I use Chapter 11 in the 2006 IBC. Chapter 11 defines 'accessible route' as a continuous, unobstructed, path that complies with this chapter. "This chapter" says that path shall be constructed as accessible in accordance with this code and ANSI. Does an accessible means of egress in a vertical exit enclosure/exit stairway not have to comply with ANSI?

 

[mark handler]

I don’t know what the NJ Building Code states, but IBC 2009 Chapter 10 never references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stair requirements.Just because ANSI A117.1-2003 has reference to a specific fixture or feature, it is only applicable if referenced from the building code.

The same this with nosing on stair treads. If you read IBC 2009, 1009.4.5, a stair tread may be vertical OR sloped. Nosing is not required. Although IRC 2009 311.7.4.3 does require nosing.

I recall back when ANSI A117.1-1998 referred to horizontal handrail extensions at the bottom of stairs. In my area of my state it seemed that they always being called out; but they were never required! Check the scoping of the IBC before you require ANSI A117.1 standards.

ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 Referenced reference in 2006 IBC code number Title section number .....

406.2.2, 907.9.1.4,1007.6.5,

1010.1, 1010.6.5, 1010.9, 1011.3, 1101.2, 1102.1, 1103.2.14,

1106.7, 1107.2, 1108.2.2, 1109.1, 1109.2, 1109.2.1.1, 1109.2.2, 1109.3,

1109.4, 1109.8, 3001.3, 3409.6, 3409.8.2, 3409.8.3

ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 Referenced reference in 2009 IBC code number Title section number .....

406.2.2,907.5.2.3.4, 1007.9, 1010.1, 1010.6.5,

1010.9,1011.3,1022.8,1101.2,1102.1,1104.4,1106.7,1107.2,

1108.2.2,1108.2.3,1108.4.1.1,1108.4.1.2, 1108.4.1.4, 1108.4.1.5, 1109.1,

1109.2, 1109.2.1.1, 1109.2.2, 1109.2.3, 1109.3, 1109.4, 1109.8, 1109.13,

2902.4,3001.3,3008.13.1,3008.13.2,3411.6,3411.8.2, 3411.8.3, E101.2, E104.2,

E104.2.1, E104.3, E104.3.4, E105.1, E105.2.1, E105.2.2, E105.3, E105.4, E105.6,

E106.2, E106.3, E106.4, E106.4.9, E106.5, E107.2, E107.3, E108.3, E108.4, E109.2.1,

E109.2.2.1, E109.2.2.2, E109.2.2.3, E109.2.3, E109.2.5, E109.2.6, E109.2.8, E110.2, E110.4

 

[Jim B]

The following is based on IBC 2009 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003:

• As noted with 1007.2, accessible means of egress shall comply with 1104.
  
• 1104 tells you where an accessible route is required, not how to provide it.
  
• 1102 defines that this accessible route complies with this chapter
  
• 1101.2 then states that “nut and bolt” will come from ANSI A117.1-2003
  
• As Mark has noted, IBC 2009 is referenced in Chapter 10 in these sections only: 1007.9, 1010.1, 1010.6.5, 1010.9,1011.3,1022.8. None of these sections are in regards to stairways or nosing
  
• ANSI A117.1-2003 does provide a guideline for what an accessible route is:
  

ANSI A117.1-2003, 402.2 Components. Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: Walking surfaces with a slope not steeper than 1:20, doors and doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable portions of this standard.

As per this ANSI section, there is no reference to stairs as part of an accessible route, only walking surfaces, doors, doorways, ramp, curb ramps, elevators and platform lifts. This section then goes further to state that the components of “accessible routes” shall comply with the applicable portion of this standard.

I cannot see where stairs are required to be part of an accessible routes. What am I missing?

 

[mark handler]

An accessible route does not include stairs, steps, or escalators.

Never have but There are more disabilities than wheelchair type users. That is why we have the Areas of Rescue Assistance. There are still accessibility requirements for "non accessible route" elements.

The ANSI 117.1 stair requirements benefit people who have difficulty walking or using stairs, some states have adopted all the 117.1 requirements, and if owners want to avoid lawsuits they will follow the 117.1 or ADAAG stair requirements

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

An accessible route does not include stairs, steps, or escalators.Never have but There are more disabilities than wheelchair type users. That is why we have the Areas of Rescue Assistance. There are still accessibility requirements for "non accessible route" elements.

The ANSI 117.1 stair requirements benefit people who have difficulty walking or using stairs, some states have adopted all the 117.1 requirements, and if owners want to avoid lawsuits they will follow the 117.1 or ADAAG stair requirements

Good morning Mark. I think I woke up on the confused side of the bed again. Please help with the logic. If a stairway is not part of an accessible route, and 1104.4 exempts the accessible route connection between floors, then second floor still has to provide accessible routes per chapter 11 (i.e., door approach clearances, reach ranges, toilet facilities, etc.), but may omit connections such as lifts, ramps and elevators? It strikes me as the same logic which says, if you don't have an accessible entrance, what good is an accessible toilet.

Thanks again for any clarification, your insight is always much appreciated and indelible.

 

[Jim B]

Papio Bldg Dept,

I know that you have asked this question of Mark:

But there are exceptions under IBC 2009; 1104 for providing accessible routes to non-grade level floors.

Keep in mind that these exceptions are only for accessible routes, not other features or fixtures specified in Chapter 11 unless specified. The concept is that an accessible route (ramps, sloped surfaces) tends to benefit wheelchair users while a person may have a visual or hearing impairment or may be on crutches and may still navigate stairs.

Also in the future, there may be an addition that will drive accessible routes to these levels; if so, the features and fixtures are already accessible.

Also, as per my previous posts, if your jurisdiction has adopted the I-Codes and the reference standards that the IBC may refer to, then the stairs that you have questioned do not need to meet ANSI A117.1-2003 requirements since IBC Chapter 10 never references ANSI A117.1-2003 for stairs.