Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thread: Non-Compliant ADA / Canopy
09-11-2007, 01:26 PM #1
Non-Compliant ADA / Canopy
I am just submiting some photos here to get a feed back of what your opinions are. My findings for this commercial property were:
1. No 18" clearance on the pull side of the entrance
2. Ramp seems a little too steep for the absence of Handrails
3. Pilasters and Canopy seemed to be added later after initial construction, problem is instead of securing the canopy with bolts at the ladger board, they got smart and just nailed them in. You can see the separation occuring as well as the pilasters. I dont have a photo of the attachment of the pilasters but if my memory serves me right, they secured their ties back to the wall at approximately 18"-24" o.c.---> yes they nailed those in too.
4. No splash block at bottom of roof drain to divert the water away from foundation
5. Last but not least, there is no 4-6" clearance from bottom of hard coat stucco finish to grade.
09-11-2007, 02:04 PM #2
Re: Non-Compliant ADA / Canopy
Just a word of caution before continuing (in a second post as I look at the photo again):
Hopefully, you are well versed in the ADA (hopefully much better than I am), or, you exclude ADA stuff from your commercial inspections, with a side note to the effect that if you see an obvious non-compliant item, you will include it for general ADA awareness and something to have your clients ADA inspector "verify" (which is the way I handled it).
Doing ADA without being very well versed in the ADA (the ICC has, for note if you are interested and are not already, both Certified ADA Inspector and Certified ADA Plans Examiner - I know they have the ADA Plans Examiner, I'm pretty sure about the ADA Inspector) can lead to many problems when ADA issues come up after the inspection.
Just my experience and what I did with ADA and commercial inspections.
With that caution stated, I'' go back and look at the photo.
09-11-2007, 02:21 PM #3
Re: Non-Compliant ADA / Canopy
Being as there does not appear to be a properly sized *level* landing in front of the door to allow the door to be opened (even is there was side space) and provide adequate space to maneuver the wheelchair on the *level* landing to open the door and enter around the door, that door will require an automatic opener anyway.
That threshold also looks to high.
Does that door handle meet the requirements for being opened without being "grasped"?
The door bell button does not look "accessible" to me either, not with regard to a person in a wheelchair.
At the top and bottom of each ramp there is required to be a 5' wheel chair turning radius - which is not there either.
That's for starters on that entry.
2. Ramp seems a little too steep for the absence of Handrails[/quote]
Did you measure the slope? You should have to make sure the slope does not exceed 1:12.
The "steepness" of the ramp is not what triggers handrail or not, the overall rise of the ramp does. That ramp 'looks like' it has an overall rise greater than 6", and, if it does, that is what triggers the handrail requirement.
How wide is the sidewalk at the bottom? Does it meet the required 5' wheelchair turning radius?
3. Pilasters and Canopy seemed to be added later after initial construction, problem is instead of securing the canopy with bolts at the ladger board, they got smart and just nailed them in. You can see the separation occuring as well as the pilasters.
09-12-2007, 06:24 PM #4