# Roof deck accessibility in Multi-family Apt



## ETThompson1 (Nov 19, 2018)

Hi

This issue came up in another discussion, but more appropriate to here so posting it to see if I can get any help.  I didn't design this but I probably will have to fix it if I have to!  Hopefully there's a way out of this dilemma...

This is for a small 13 unit apartment complex, 3 stories, VB construction, with restaurant use at level 01.  We have a roof amenity deck on the 3rd floor for the apartments (not the restaurant) (not a private roof deck for the tenants, but common for the building).  We have no elevator in the design, the roof decks are accessed from an exterior corridor that also serves the units on that level, with two enclosed exit stairs off that corridor.

Per our code (Ohio Building Code 2017, based on 2015 OBC and ICC 117.1), we are *not* required to have Type A fully accessible units, only Type B, because we have fewer than 20 apartment units.  We also are not required to provide an accessible route to the upper apartment levels:  OBC 1104.4 exception 2 (following the IBC) says "_Stories or mezzanines that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level_".  

Section 1107.4 exc 7 says "_An accessible route between stories is not required where Type B units are exempted by Section 1107.7_".   Section 1107.7 tells me all my ground floor units need to be Type B, but since we don't have an elevator or arrival points on the upper levels, we are not required to provide an accessible route nor Type B units on the upper floors.  So we're good with the apartment units.

But that leaves the roof deck.

First question:  If the only units provided are Type B units, adaptable in the future but not designed for accessibility day one, would this mean the roof deck similarly would not be required to provide an accessible route on day one, but could be installed in the future if a wheelchair-bound tenant wanted to rent one of the Type B units?

Second question:  There is an exception that *may* apply, 1104.4 Exception 1. Here is the language: "1104.4 *Multistory buildings and facilities. *At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine in multilevel buildings and facilities, Exception 1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet ( 278.7 m2) _per story _and are located above and below accessible levels."

This wording is confusing, and the commentary does not really clarify things. If the 3rd story, where the roof deck is located, is less than 3,000sf, does this provide an option? (we're borderline 3,000, so may not work anyway).

Third question:  beyond the options I mention above, is it possible we could avoid an accessible route to this roof deck? Given our site limitations, I would think only an elevator or LULA would work to meet this, but either of those would be problematic both in terms of cost and available space... certainly no room for a ramp... hoping someone sees something I'm missing.

Thanks


----------



## RLGA (Nov 19, 2018)

See 2010 ADA Standards, Section 206.2.3, Exception 4, and the Advisory for that section below it.

If the deck is provided for all dwelling units, even those with mobility features, then it must be on an accessible route.

Just imagine this: You’re in a wheelchair and live in one of the units with mobility features. You pay the same rent that everyone else does, however, they have access to the deck and you don’t—would you consider that fair?


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 20, 2018)

RLGA said:


> See 2010 ADA Standards, Section 206.2.3, Exception 4, and the Advisory for that section below it.
> 
> If the deck is provided for all dwelling units, even those with mobility features, then it must be on an accessible route.
> 
> Just imagine this: You’re in a wheelchair and live in one of the units with mobility features. You pay the same rent that everyone else does, however, they have access to the deck and you don’t—would you consider that fair?



No, I understand the concept, was just hoping there was a way out of it...  thanks.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 20, 2018)

I would still like to understand what 1104.4 Exception 1 is getting at.


----------



## JBI (Nov 20, 2018)

Also with regard to the 3,000 s.f. _aggregate_ area, that would include all non-accessible levels, not just the level with the roof deck...


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 20, 2018)

Ever heard of "visitability" in Ohio, you may not be disabled but a visiting friend might be.


----------



## RLGA (Nov 20, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> I would still like to understand what 1104.4 Exception 1 is getting at.


The adopted building code is local law and the ADA is a federal law, so even if the building code allows something, but the ADA does not, then the ADA takes precedence over building code.

The 2010 ADA Standards has a similar exception (206.2.3, Exception 1) to the one you mention in the IBC, but it is limited to 2-story buildings.


ETThompson1 said:


> No, I understand the concept, was just hoping there was a way out of it...  thanks.


The only way out without providing an elevator is to provide an accessible deck that is on the ground level that can only be used by the dwelling units on that floor; and the roof deck would have to be restricted to dwelling units on the non-accessible floors.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 20, 2018)

OK thanks...


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 20, 2018)

Here again, what of visitors to the 3rd floor?


----------



## Yikes (Nov 20, 2018)

RGLA, the OP does not say this is publicly funded housing.  If the deck is intended solely for use by residents and their guests, does ADA apply to this particular deck?


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 20, 2018)

It is not publicly funded housing.  Also, I've been told (not sure it is written down), that if we follow the accessibility chapter of our code (ch. 11), that is a "safe harbor".

I also found out that a colleague had an amenity deck approved under 1104.1 exc. 1.  Their situation was somewhat different, in that it was a raised area (not part of the adjacent story).  But the building official only counted the area of this raised area (not the nearest story).  They were not required to provide an accessible route to this space, even though (unlike our situation), this was for the general public.


----------



## RLGA (Nov 21, 2018)

Yikes said:


> RGLA, the OP does not say this is publicly funded housing.  If the deck is intended solely for use by residents and their guests, does ADA apply to this particular deck?


The ADA applies to all buildings not subject to the ABA. The 2010 ADA Standards is the document used by the DOJ to determine compliance with the law. There is no stipulation in the ADA regarding public funds for residential facilities.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 22, 2018)

I may be mistaken, but I thought that the ADA applies to places of public accommodation, which includes dormitories or motels, and the HUD 1989 Fair Housing Amendments apply to apartments.


----------



## RLGA (Nov 22, 2018)

Paul Sweet said:


> I may be mistaken, but I thought that the ADA applies to places of public accommodation, which includes dormitories or motels, and the HUD 1989 Fair Housing Amendments apply to apartments.


For the dwelling units and access to dwelling units, yes, the FHA guidelines apply; but for the common areas and areas available to the public, the ADA also applies to the extent addressed in the standards. See 2010 ADA Standards Section 233 and the advisory for Section 233.1.


----------

