Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
The private status works with the ADAAG but not with the IBC.
The private status works with the ADAAG but not with the IBC.
-
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 THAT'S NOT A RAMP
- Thread starter Mr. Inspector
- Start date
MarkRandall
Silver Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Just because something is exempted in ADAAG, it doesn't make it exempt under IBC/ANSI. FredK, Where in IBC or ANSI is an exemption for private status? Back before codes caught up with ADAAG, yes there were exemptions that were valid. These days are not the same.
Just because something is exempted in ADAAG, it doesn't make it exempt under IBC/ANSI. FredK, Where in IBC or ANSI is an exemption for private status? Back before codes caught up with ADAAG, yes there were exemptions that were valid. These days are not the same.
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Mark is correct. IBC / ANSI does not exempt religious groups as the ADA does. However IBC (2006) Section 1103.2.3 wouild allow a raised pulpit to be not accessible.
Mark is correct. IBC / ANSI does not exempt religious groups as the ADA does. However IBC (2006) Section 1103.2.3 wouild allow a raised pulpit to be not accessible.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
One of the things, Fred, that needs to be remembered is that in Arizona you have the state accessibility regs as well as the local building codes (as adopted). The state accessibility regs are based on the ADA. Any "private organization" falling under the exemptions in teh ADA are likewise exempt under Arizona law due to the way it is adopted. That does not mean that it is exempt from the building code requirements. These are separate rules adopted by separate entities. If there is no building code or the building code has been modified when adopted (such as to strike Chapter 11 and substitute "do per AZ Access rules") then you may have a case where it applies. Otherwise you have to address each set of rules according to their scoping.
It's just like having the EPA rules for site work as well as the building code provisions for soil work.
One of the things, Fred, that needs to be remembered is that in Arizona you have the state accessibility regs as well as the local building codes (as adopted). The state accessibility regs are based on the ADA. Any "private organization" falling under the exemptions in teh ADA are likewise exempt under Arizona law due to the way it is adopted. That does not mean that it is exempt from the building code requirements. These are separate rules adopted by separate entities. If there is no building code or the building code has been modified when adopted (such as to strike Chapter 11 and substitute "do per AZ Access rules") then you may have a case where it applies. Otherwise you have to address each set of rules according to their scoping.
It's just like having the EPA rules for site work as well as the building code provisions for soil work.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Rguarding IBC 1103.2.3 I would not call a raised platform with a pulpit an employee work area. Even if you put up a gate with a sign "employees only". I don't think the couple being married there are employees.
It's hard for me to beleve that the ADA would not require a nursing home owned by a church to be accessable.
Rguarding IBC 1103.2.3 I would not call a raised platform with a pulpit an employee work area. Even if you put up a gate with a sign "employees only". I don't think the couple being married there are employees.
It's hard for me to beleve that the ADA would not require a nursing home owned by a church to be accessable.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
A nursing home owned by a church is not a religious institution but a caring institution. It has to meet the ADA. The church is not.
I agree that the raised area in the front is NOT an employee area. It needs access, but if the slope is not more than 1:20, it's a sloped floor and not a ramp. No handrails required. If the drop is less than 30 inches, no guard is required. I'd still advise them to do something to protect the edge against wheels slipping off - whether its from a wheelchair or a movable scaffold to change lamps in the light fixtures. It's a safety item that isn't required by code but a pretty logical idea.
A nursing home owned by a church is not a religious institution but a caring institution. It has to meet the ADA. The church is not.
I agree that the raised area in the front is NOT an employee area. It needs access, but if the slope is not more than 1:20, it's a sloped floor and not a ramp. No handrails required. If the drop is less than 30 inches, no guard is required. I'd still advise them to do something to protect the edge against wheels slipping off - whether its from a wheelchair or a movable scaffold to change lamps in the light fixtures. It's a safety item that isn't required by code but a pretty logical idea.
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
I think we are using different terms here. The main part of the altar needs to be accessible for weddings, choir, special speakers etc. The small (1person) raised pulpit from where the minister would deliver his sermon would not be required to be accessible.
I think we are using different terms here. The main part of the altar needs to be accessible for weddings, choir, special speakers etc. The small (1person) raised pulpit from where the minister would deliver his sermon would not be required to be accessible.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Oh, OK.
No the pulpit isn't required to be accessible since its not required (at least in most churches) to be used to present the sermon. In those religious denominations where the pulpit is elevated and mandated by church policy to be used for sermon presentation, it could be considered an employee area since only the clergy would be allowed to use it anyway.
Sorry for the confusion. . . . :?
Oh, OK.
No the pulpit isn't required to be accessible since its not required (at least in most churches) to be used to present the sermon. In those religious denominations where the pulpit is elevated and mandated by church policy to be used for sermon presentation, it could be considered an employee area since only the clergy would be allowed to use it anyway.
Sorry for the confusion. . . . :?
Plans Approver
Silver Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
If places of worship are exempt from accessibility requirements then how do you enforce 1025.5.1 and 1108.2.3 when the balcony or mezzanine seating exceeds 25% of the total seating?
jus askin.
If places of worship are exempt from accessibility requirements then how do you enforce 1025.5.1 and 1108.2.3 when the balcony or mezzanine seating exceeds 25% of the total seating?
jus askin.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Worship places are NOT exempt from the buidling code - only the ADA.
Enforce the code!
Worship places are NOT exempt from the buidling code - only the ADA.
Enforce the code!
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Chiors are part of religous services as are special speakers such as traveling clergy.
None of these things are performances.
A wedding is a religous sacrament when conducted in a church not a performance.Coug Dad said:
Chiors are part of religous services as are special speakers such as traveling clergy.
None of these things are performances.
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
I did not classify them as "performances". I am not sure what your point is
I did not classify them as "performances". I am not sure what your point is
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Chapter 11 requires accessiblity to raised areas used for performance.
It does not require accessiblity to raised areas used for worship.
You can read the section yourself.
The raised area of a place of worship does not require accessiblity (as I stated before).Coug Dad said:
Chapter 11 requires accessiblity to raised areas used for performance.
It does not require accessiblity to raised areas used for worship.
You can read the section yourself.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
I just re-read the section.
1103.2.7 exempts raised areas used for purposes of security, life safety or fire safety including, but not limited to, observation galleries, prison towers, fire towers or lifeguard stands.
Which applies to the church worship area? Or is that another section that you are referring to? :?:
I just re-read the section.
1103.2.7 exempts raised areas used for purposes of security, life safety or fire safety including, but not limited to, observation galleries, prison towers, fire towers or lifeguard stands.
Which applies to the church worship area? Or is that another section that you are referring to? :?:
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
The altar would certainly be classified as an employee work area. The pastor is an employee and the altar is where he works. I was referencing Section 1103.1 (2006) which states that all buildings shall be accessible. The exception in 1103.2.3 states tht employee work areas are only required to comply with 907.9.1.2. 1007, and 1104.3.1. If the employee work area is less than 150 square feet and raised over 7 inches then no accessibility is required. Most altar areas are larger than 150 square feet so the employee area (altar) would have to be accessible as required by 1104.3.1.
The altar would certainly be classified as an employee work area. The pastor is an employee and the altar is where he works. I was referencing Section 1103.1 (2006) which states that all buildings shall be accessible. The exception in 1103.2.3 states tht employee work areas are only required to comply with 907.9.1.2. 1007, and 1104.3.1. If the employee work area is less than 150 square feet and raised over 7 inches then no accessibility is required. Most altar areas are larger than 150 square feet so the employee area (altar) would have to be accessible as required by 1104.3.1.
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Sorry, Coug. But I have to disagree.
The alter area is not "used primarily by employees in the execution of their employment." It is, in fact, in many denominations used by the laity to read, speak or serve. Those are not employees. Only in a few denominations is the alter area exclusive to the clergy. And for those denominations, the clergy would take umbrage with the term "employee" as they are "called to serve" and not hirelings.
Sorry, Coug. But I have to disagree.
The alter area is not "used primarily by employees in the execution of their employment." It is, in fact, in many denominations used by the laity to read, speak or serve. Those are not employees. Only in a few denominations is the alter area exclusive to the clergy. And for those denominations, the clergy would take umbrage with the term "employee" as they are "called to serve" and not hirelings.
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Since 1103.1 starts by saying all buildings are required to be accessible. Section 1103.2 then follows with exceptions 1103.2.1 through 1103.2.15 and 1103.2.1 includes any other exceptions identified in 1104 through 1110, which section do you believe allows the altar to not have an accessible route? Without an identified exception, 1103.1 would apply.
Since 1103.1 starts by saying all buildings are required to be accessible. Section 1103.2 then follows with exceptions 1103.2.1 through 1103.2.15 and 1103.2.1 includes any other exceptions identified in 1104 through 1110, which section do you believe allows the altar to not have an accessible route? Without an identified exception, 1103.1 would apply.
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
I see your line of thought. Webster's defines performance as:
1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : deed, feat
2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : implementation
3 a : the action of representing a character in a play b : a public presentation or exhibition
4 a : the ability to perform : efficiency b : the manner in which a mechanism performs
5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : behavior
6 : the linguistic behavior of an individual : parole; also : the ability to speak a certain language — compare competence 3
Would not worship be a public presentation?
I see your line of thought. Webster's defines performance as:
1 a : the execution of an action b : something accomplished : deed, feat
2 : the fulfillment of a claim, promise, or request : implementation
3 a : the action of representing a character in a play b : a public presentation or exhibition
4 a : the ability to perform : efficiency b : the manner in which a mechanism performs
5 : the manner of reacting to stimuli : behavior
6 : the linguistic behavior of an individual : parole; also : the ability to speak a certain language — compare competence 3
Would not worship be a public presentation?
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
1104.4 requires access to multiple level areas including mezzanines. 1104.4 says nothing about worship. Double Duh :lol:
1104.4 Duh.brudgers said:
1104.4 requires access to multiple level areas including mezzanines. 1104.4 says nothing about worship. Double Duh :lol:
Plans Approver
Silver Member
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
(Suffering from a long Arch. Review Board meeting this evening.) :cry:
You said that several times througout this thread. That was the point of my rhetorical question while ADA may exempt places of worship from accessibility, the building code still requires accessibility as well as accessible means of egress. How do you have accessibility "from" if you don't have accessibility "to".Gene Boecker said:Worship places are NOT exempt from the buidling code - only the ADA.Enforce the code!
(Suffering from a long Arch. Review Board meeting this evening.) :cry:
Gene Boecker
REGISTERED
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Sorry, Dan.
(Both for your long evening as well as any confusion on my part). It's access from as well as to. You're right.
(I guess it's my life in life safety that springs such means of egress verbiage).
Sorry, Dan.
(Both for your long evening as well as any confusion on my part). It's access from as well as to. You're right.
(I guess it's my life in life safety that springs such means of egress verbiage).
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
Next time you read code section 1104.4, try to keep your head out at least until you come to either 1104.5 or 1105...which ever comes first.
See exception 2 for the occupancy A specifics.
See exception 1 for a general exemption if less than 3000 square feet.
I can hear it now..."but you didn't say to read the whole thing."
1104.4 requires access to multiple level areas including mezzanines. 1104.4 says nothing about worship. Double Duh :lol:[/quote:jhprhjtj]Gene Boecker said:
Next time you read code section 1104.4, try to keep your head out at least until you come to either 1104.5 or 1105...which ever comes first.
See exception 2 for the occupancy A specifics.
See exception 1 for a general exemption if less than 3000 square feet.
I can hear it now..."but you didn't say to read the whole thing."
Re: RAMP THAT'S NOT A RAMP
BTW, this issue is directly a result of trying to apply a document that doesn't cover places of worship to places of worship...and of course trying to sidestep the issues around the first amendment which are inevitable when doing so.
Jurisdictions, such as Florida which have adopted ADAAG as their code don't have to worry about this because they haven't changed the scope of accessibility from what is required at the Federal level.
Good luck with defending any sort of restrictive definition of worship in court against a First Amendment challenge...you might want to speak to your department's council first.Coug Dad said:
BTW, this issue is directly a result of trying to apply a document that doesn't cover places of worship to places of worship...and of course trying to sidestep the issues around the first amendment which are inevitable when doing so.
Jurisdictions, such as Florida which have adopted ADAAG as their code don't have to worry about this because they haven't changed the scope of accessibility from what is required at the Federal level.