Mech
Registered User
2018 IBC & ADA
Two story existing building constructed in the side of a hill. Upper floor Mercantile space, lower floor storage / warehouse not open to the public. Upper floor has an accessible entrance on the North side. The lower floor could be provided with an accessible entrance on the south side. A proposed addition will enlarge the floor space such that the lower floor must have an accessible route from the upper floor.
If there are no stairs connecting the two floors, can I avoid an elevator? Employees could walk the 20 ft wide paved path (greater than 16% slope at some points) or drive this path from the upper floor parking lot to an accessible parking spot created for the lower level.
Everything I read in A117.1 and ADA appears to say no, I cannot do this.
However, can I use this section? Section 1104.5 Location. Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path. Where the circulation path is interior, the accessible route shall be interior. Where only one accessible route is provided, the accessible route shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, closets or similar spaces.
The 20 ft wide paved path is on this property, no sidewalks, not paint lines. The borough is granted a 14 ft easement, the water authority a 20 ft easement, and the gas company an easement with varying widths. There is an existing utility pole in this paved path. A car could probably navigate this path and stay on this property. A pick up truck might not make it without either continuing onto the Sewage Authority's property (still paved) or doing part of a K-turn to stay on this property.
I cannot find any exceptions for accessibility to the lower level as it is more than 3,000 sf and will have more than a 5 person occupant load per the IBC.
I am all for providing accessibility, but an elevator for a 5,000 sf addition (3,200 sf upper floor and 1,800 sf lower floor) seems a little disproportionate in cost.
If the owner creates a separate business name for the lower floor storage / warehouse, I assume an interior path would not be required as they as separate entities. Would this work?
And if none of these work, I can tell the owner to add the elevator, expand one floor but not the other, or scrap the project.
Thanks if you made it to the end.
Two story existing building constructed in the side of a hill. Upper floor Mercantile space, lower floor storage / warehouse not open to the public. Upper floor has an accessible entrance on the North side. The lower floor could be provided with an accessible entrance on the south side. A proposed addition will enlarge the floor space such that the lower floor must have an accessible route from the upper floor.
If there are no stairs connecting the two floors, can I avoid an elevator? Employees could walk the 20 ft wide paved path (greater than 16% slope at some points) or drive this path from the upper floor parking lot to an accessible parking spot created for the lower level.
Everything I read in A117.1 and ADA appears to say no, I cannot do this.
However, can I use this section? Section 1104.5 Location. Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path. Where the circulation path is interior, the accessible route shall be interior. Where only one accessible route is provided, the accessible route shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, closets or similar spaces.
The 20 ft wide paved path is on this property, no sidewalks, not paint lines. The borough is granted a 14 ft easement, the water authority a 20 ft easement, and the gas company an easement with varying widths. There is an existing utility pole in this paved path. A car could probably navigate this path and stay on this property. A pick up truck might not make it without either continuing onto the Sewage Authority's property (still paved) or doing part of a K-turn to stay on this property.
I cannot find any exceptions for accessibility to the lower level as it is more than 3,000 sf and will have more than a 5 person occupant load per the IBC.
I am all for providing accessibility, but an elevator for a 5,000 sf addition (3,200 sf upper floor and 1,800 sf lower floor) seems a little disproportionate in cost.
If the owner creates a separate business name for the lower floor storage / warehouse, I assume an interior path would not be required as they as separate entities. Would this work?
And if none of these work, I can tell the owner to add the elevator, expand one floor but not the other, or scrap the project.
Thanks if you made it to the end.