• 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 Requirement for Restaurant Back of House in an Existing Building

mtlogcabin said:
hand over the keys
Click to expand...
That's the dice roll.
dmoreholt said:
That's really not the right attitude for a professional that has an obligation to the safety and welfare of the public.
Click to expand...
Just off hand, how much of ADA is related to safety?

The situation at hand is a three riser stair as opposed to a 13' foot ramp. The ramp would take up a lot of space if done inside so an exterior ramp is proposed. This to accommodate a disabled restaurant employee.

There's a few assumptions at play. Will there be a disabled restaurant employee? Could the employer tell the disabled employee to not negotiate a stair as that is not part of their duties.

You mentioned the public when this has nothing to do with the public.

You are entitled to have an opinion regarding my attitude and thanks for confusing me with a professional.

dmoreholt said:
But I do take my responsibility to correctly interpret and apply Building Codes and Accessibility codes very seriously.
Click to expand...
Pragmatism is a virtue in short supply. The application of every code to the letter in every scenario is lazy.

dmoreholt said:
Surprised to see a comment like this from someone who moderates a forum dedicated to life safety codes.
Click to expand...
You're not the first to notice. I'm more of a special purpose moderator.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
When they write down what they are spending towards the 20% how do you know that it is correct? I never know how much they are really spending. I have them write down what they are spending towards the 20%, that's all I need. They can say they are spending $1,000 on a new door closer because the old one can't be adjusted right. I don't know if they even did this because I did not see the old one. It's not my job to audit their expenses. Does anyone ever?
Click to expand...
No....just collect the paper and if it is remotely reasonable, put it in the file and play through....
 
Thanks everyone. This has been helpful.

What I've learned:
  • By a strict interpretation of the code we need that ramp in there
  • Realistically, if we don't put the ramp in it will never be an issue
  • 20% of construction cost is whatever you want it to be
  • architects might have a professional obligation to uphold life safety and welfare codes but handicap employees aren't the public and won't die if we don't put in this ramp so their welfare is irrelevant
  • sarcasm is very clear in the written word
  • Having professionals be responsible for interpretation and compliance with accessibility laws with little review or liability from municipalities is a perfect system and definitely doesn't incentivize those professionals to skirt those rules when it's pragmatic to do so
  • sarcasm is very clear in the written word
 
dmoreholt said:
Thanks everyone. This has been helpful.

What I've learned:
  • By a strict interpretation of the code we need that ramp in there [Correct]
  • Realistically, if we don't put the ramp in it will never be an issue [Incorrect. "Never" is a long time]
  • 20% of construction cost is whatever you want it to be [Incorrect. It has to be reasonable]
  • architects might have a professional obligation to uphold life safety and welfare codes but handicap employees aren't the public and won't die if we don't put in this ramp so their welfare is irrelevant [Incorrect]
  • sarcasm is very clear in the written word [No comment]
  • Having professionals be responsible for interpretation and compliance with accessibility laws with little review or liability from municipalities is a perfect system and definitely doesn't incentivize those professionals to skirt those rules when it's pragmatic to do so [ ? ? ?]
  • sarcasm is very clear in the written word [No comment]
Click to expand...
 
Does your state (or Federal requirements) include an order of priority for upgrades?

CA dictates that when you're using the 20% provision it needs to be done in this order"
1. An accessible entrance;
2. An accessible route to the altered area;
3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex or one accessible unisex (single-user or family) restroom;
4. Accessible telephones;
5. Accessible drinking fountains; and
6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms.
 
Joe.B said:
Does your state (or Federal requirements) include an order of priority for upgrades?

CA dictates that when you're using the 20% provision it needs to be done in this order"
1. An accessible entrance;
2. An accessible route to the altered area;
3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex or one accessible unisex (single-user or family) restroom;
4. Accessible telephones;
5. Accessible drinking fountains; and
6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms.
Click to expand...

This hierarchy has not been codified in our state but it has been taught to both architects and building officials as the preferred set of priorities. I don't remember for certain, but I think that came out of the Access Board quite some time ago.
 
Joe.B said:
Does your state (or Federal requirements) include an order of priority for upgrades?

CA dictates that when you're using the 20% provision it needs to be done in this order"
1. An accessible entrance;
2. An accessible route to the altered area;
3. At least one accessible restroom for each sex or one accessible unisex (single-user or family) restroom;
4. Accessible telephones;
5. Accessible drinking fountains; and
6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms.
Click to expand...
What Yankee said
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
This hierarchy has not been codified in our state but it has been taught to both architects and building officials as the preferred set of priorities. I don't remember for certain, but I think that came out of the Access Board quite some time ago.
Click to expand...
Did we? I always allow the bathroom first...And then the rest.......The bathroom helps most people and the ramp really is more of a wheelchair thing....And If you get the wheelchair in the door and they can't fit in the bathroom...Then what?
 
Bathroom accessibility is about more than wheelchairs, but so is an accessible entrance. What's the point of having an accessible bathroom if you can't even get in the building?
 
steveray said:
Did we? I always allow the bathroom first...And then the rest.......The bathroom helps most people and the ramp really is more of a wheelchair thing....And If you get the wheelchair in the door and they can't fit in the bathroom...Then what?
Click to expand...

Yes, we did. Chris Laux covered this multiple times during his tenure.
 
Joe.B said:
Bathroom accessibility is about more than wheelchairs, but so is an accessible entrance. What's the point of having an accessible bathroom if you can't even get in the building?
Click to expand...
I'd rather not get into the building than get in and $H1@ myself because they didn't have a bathroom I could use...But maybe that is just me...I am a little different...
 
From ADA § 36.403 Alterations: Path of travel.

(g) Duty to provide accessible features in the event of disproportionality [cost over 20%].
(1) When the cost of alterations necessary to make the path of travel to the altered area
fully accessible is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration, the path of
travel shall be made accessible to the extent that it can be made accessible without
incurring disproportionate costs.
(2) In choosing which accessible elements to provide, priority should be given to those
elements that will provide the greatest access, in the following order:
(i) An accessible entrance;
(ii) An accessible route to the altered area;
(iii) At least one accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom;
(iv) Accessible telephones;
(v) Accessible drinking fountains; and
(vi) When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage,
and alarms.
(h) Series of smaller alterations.
(1) The obligation to provide an accessible path of travel may not be evaded by
performing a series of small alterations to the area served by a single path of travel if
those alterations could have been performed as a single undertaking.
 
dmoreholt said:
Hello,

I have a client who wants to convert an existing building into a restaurant. But a portion of the back of the building, about 1,000 sf, is about 2' lower than the rest. This portion would be entirely restaurant back of house and used for storage and walk in coolers. The rest of the back of house, where the kitchen is, will be closer to the front and is at the higher level of the rest of the building.

Do we need to build an internal ADA compliant ramp for staff to access the lower portion? This area is well above the 300 sf exempted for employee work areas, but this is an existing building. Along with improving the bathrooms to be ADA compliant and adding a ramp in the front for patrons I don't think a ramp for this rear portion would take us over the 20% threshold for improvements to existing buildings. However it does significantly reduce the usable square footage for the back of house.

A preferable option, which could also be added later if allowed, would be to add a ramp on the exterior, which works well for us since there's already two doors out the side at both the higher and lower level that are far enough apart that a ramp could be installed in between.
Click to expand...
You're changing the occupancy and, I assume, remodeling so I'm sure you're going to have to comply and make the area accessable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top