• 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.

Ramp landing at a door

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,316
Gonna give a shot at explaining my question, not sure I will pull it off.

I have a ramp leading down to a door, from a patio to a restaurant. If looked at as a side approach to the door, the door would be required to have a flat landing adjacent to it. (ANSI 117.1 405.7.5, commentary and US access board). However, if, at the bottom of the landing, there is a 60" x 60" landing that the door swings over and a user could rotate on it once arriving, does that permit this to be considered a forward approach? The difference is in whether the existing (did I mention that) ramp needs a 60" flat landing at the bottom or just an 18" one for the forward approach. I am attaching a picture to help visualize this, and an illustration from the access board if I can.
 

Attachments

Yes a landing would change the approach to a forward or you could but an opener on the door and leave it a side approach since it is existing.
 
The ramp and a landing are existing, but put in with no permit and not compliant with code. They are proposing to enlarge the landing. Either way I think they have a problem with the ramp being directly adjacent to the door, I am just trying to figure out if they need the 18" clearance for a forward approach, or if they need the full landing for a side approach. My opinion is that they can transition to a forward approach and would need the 18" clearance but I am not sure and the illustrations don't seem to show it that way. It is an awkward set-up either way.
 
I agree if it is a forward approach then they need the 18" as a minimum. I have allowed a door opener in lieu of the 18" on various existing situations.
Ease of use and compliance with the intent of the code is what I try to achieve when it comes to accessibility on existing buildings.
 
I don't propose to revise it at all. That is their job. However, as this will likely be elevated to the CBO and Director I am trying to make sure I am pointing out the correct code section that this violates. I am just looking for technical expertise on the concept of approach, and whether what appears to be a side approach can be considered as a forward approach and thereby lesson the impact of any reconstruction. My comment on plan review was for them to tell me what their strategy is on this issue. My questions are just proactive in anticipation of the response.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I agree if it is a forward approach then they need the 18" as a minimum. I have allowed a door opener in lieu of the 18" on various existing situations.
Ease of use and compliance with the intent of the code is what I try to achieve when it comes to accessibility on existing buildings.
Click to expand...
That is a good functional alternative to put in front of the CBO if it comes to that. Thanks.
 
So Sifu, "tunnel vision" eh? Even if you note an obvious noncompliance you don't alert them to it?
Please clarify.
 
If and when a conversation about not meeting the code and coming up with alternates happens, I may offer it as a possible solution, however too many times that backfires. The designer gets paid to figure this out, and I like to let them try. Usually they do figure it out, and often times with better solutions than anything I have come up with. Besides, in this case, there is no code to allow this condition, and if I suggest it I am giving permission to violate the code, which could then put my boss in an awkward position. So if I do suggest it, it will be to him. Or, if they come up with a different alternative, it will be put in front of him as well. It is not my job to grant modifications. You can call it tunnel vision, I call it doing my job and trying to get them to do theirs.
BTW, the architect called me yesterday to ask for clarification. Just to make sure he was getting it I asked this: "so, the way I am seeing it, your design requires the user to place 1/2 of his wheelchair on the slope of the ramp, hold himself in place and open the door, is that accurate?" he paused, and said yes.
 
ADAguy said:
So Sifu, "tunnel vision" eh? Even if you note an obvious noncompliance you don't alert them to it?
Please clarify.
Click to expand...
I did note an obvious non-compliance, that's what this whole thread is about. I asked them to show me how they comply with the approach and maneuvering clearances and ramp landing locations. I gave them all of the codes to reference. But if I tell them to comply with a side approach and I am wrong, I just cost them a bunch more money. If I tell them to comply with a forward approach and I am wrong, I have just mandated a code violation. So I want them to help me to help them by telling me what they are think. Maybe I am wrong on both counts, and everything is fine the way it is, all I need them to do is show me how.
 
The Architect called my boss and asked about the door operator......all by himself. My boss said no, so now the proposed plan is to rebuild it in a code compliant manor, with the landing adjacent to the door as seen in the US access board illustration, which will also provide the maneuvering clearance. Problem solved.
 
The entire thing will need to be reconstructed since the landing/maneuvering clearance will shorten the ramp so I assume I will be seeing a compliant design. Fingers crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top