# Parking stall dimensions



## Coug Dad (Mar 3, 2010)

Neither IBC Chapter 11 nor ANSI Section 502 specify the depth of an accessible parking space or the width of the drive lane serving the parking spaces.  It is my experience these requirements are typically in the Land Use code.  ANSI  Section 502 specifies the width of the accessible parking spaces.

If the Land Use code and IBC / ANSI combined require an accessible parking space of 96 inches wide by 18 feet deep, can a column impinge on that "box" or does the "box" have to be free and clear of any obstructions.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

Based on the language in ICC A117.1, Section 502.4.4 that says "Access aisles shall be marke dso as to discourage parking in them", it seems apparent that the intent of the code is to maintain a clear space.  It seems apparent that they don't even want a temporary infringement upon that area, let alone a permanent one.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 3, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

The reason there is no depth specified is that accessible spaces may be perpendicular, angled, or parallel.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

The depths of a parking space are specified in the Land Use code for either 90, 45 or 60 degree parking.  The width of the drive aisle is also in the Land Use code.  The questions I have is if a column can infringe into the required width or length.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

The column can NOT impinge on the width of the parking stall itself.  A column in the access aisle can provide the "discouragement to park" within it but the location of the column is important if it is to be allowed.

If the accessible route requires movement past the column, obviously, the clear width in the access aisle must be at least 36 inches (32 if the column is less than 24 inches deep).  Forward to back, the column needs to be located close to the ends of the stall (i.e. "fender" region).  A column in the center it can interfere with the chair lift operation.

Since there is nothing in the codes or standards about having a column in the access aisle, the call is subjective and up to the AHJ.  A real hard-@$$ woudl prohibit columns in the access aisle in any way shape or form and be able to support that by the language in the code taht says that the aisle needs to be 60 inches in width ("What?!  There's a frickin' COLUMN in the way.  It ain't 60 inches CLEAR width!").  However, the above guidance is from both teh ICC and the Access Board.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

Thanks Gene.  Your insight is appreciated.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

I would agree that if the columns (bollards) are placed at the point between the access aisle and the drive aisle to act as an element to stop vehicles from entering the access aisle, it is probably acceptable.  From the original posting that is not the situation I was envisioning.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

Big Mac,

Thanks for your input.  My original question was if a column was permitted to be within the required dimensions.  For example at the front of the parking spot where the column would create a little notch into the specified space.  The general consensus seems to be that the entire clear area must be provided with no infringing columns.  The City of Seattle has an amendment that allows a column to impringe by 6 inches on either side of the stall for the all but the center 8 feet of the stall.  This type of exception is not in the IBC, ANSI or ADAAG / ABA

http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~codepics/2354030A.gif


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

Well, at least Seattle has taken the effort to think through the situation and come up with a position.

Good for them.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 4, 2010)

Re: Parking stall dimensions

Thanks for the update Coug Dad, good to know.  Your explanation of the exact condition is more in line with what I originally envisioned.


----------

