# Sidewalk continuity within a strip mall



## BayPointArchitect (Feb 6, 2016)

There is a proposal to create an outdoor dining area just outside a wine bar.  The existing sidewalk running along the storefronts would need to be interrupted to allow the dining area to be contiguous with the front entry door.  The reason why this dining area could not be interrupted by the common sidewalk is that for there to be alcohol sales (wine), then the outdoor seating area must be contiguous with the main dining area.  This is because of liquor licensing requirements.Within the attachment, the wine bar is highlighted in blue and the outdoor dining area in yellow.Question:Is there anything in the ADA that would require the sidewalk remain uninterrupted?Although this change would not require my review and approval, I would not like to see the project become entangled in a Federal lawsuit.Thank you,Commercial Plan Reviewer

View attachment 2179


DiningAreaInteruption-3.pdf

DiningAreaInteruption-3.pdf


----------



## fatboy (Feb 6, 2016)

Not seeing an attachment.............


----------



## ICE (Feb 6, 2016)

> Not seeing an attachment.............


----------



## ICE (Feb 6, 2016)

Somebody getting run over in the parking lot might be a bigger concern than ADA.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 6, 2016)

> Is there anything in the ADA that would require the sidewalk remain uninterrupted?


yes "path of travel" includes a continuous, unobstructed way of pedestrian passage

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2016)

IBC 2012 SECTION 1104 ACCESSIBLE ROUTE

1104.1 Site arrival points.

Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops; accessible parking; accessible passenger loading zones; and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served.

Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required betweensite arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

1104.2 Within a site.

At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

Exception: An accessible route is not required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements andaccessible spaces that have, as the only means of access between them, a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

1104.3 Connected spaces.

When a building or portion of a building is required to be accessible, an accessible route shall be provided to each portion of the building, to accessible building entrances connecting accessible pedestrian walkways and the public way..


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2016)

Try this


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Feb 7, 2016)

Thanks Mark Handler for confirming what I had already recommended last week.  It is consistent with common sense - regardless of whether-or-not a continuous path of travel remains "unobsructed" as it briefly merges into the drive aisle.   Having a sidewalk parallel to the drive aisle will avoid scrutiny from anyone who might be annoyed by having to walk or wheelchair around the outdoor seating area.


----------



## steveray (Feb 8, 2016)

Does Dusty Wood do that well that he needs 2 shops?...As much as it is a bad idea, I don't know that it is outright prohibited. I would have to find the accessible route vs. vehicular way section....

In other words, you could have a marked crossing at both sides of the patio, and everyone would have to cross and then shift and cross back on the other side of the patio....No one would, hence the bad idea part...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 8, 2016)

Adding dining area would also increase the plumbing fixture count so you should be reviewing this. Also the gates swing in for the outdoor dining area. They should swing out considering the combined OL that will use that gate.

Bad Design


----------



## north star (Feb 8, 2016)

*$ + $ + $*

Did anyone notice that the submitted floor plan shows a mirror image

of the businesses on both sides of this planned expansion area ?

Also, the "assumed" restaurant adjacent to the left of this restaurant,

has the exact same floor plan.

Are these floor plan layouts existing & accurate ?

*$ + $ + $*


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Feb 11, 2016)

> *$ + $ + $*Did anyone notice that the submitted floor plan shows a mirror image
> 
> of the businesses on both sides of this planned expansion area ?
> 
> ...


The floor plan provided is something I crafted to ask the question. The actual strip mall is a 78,000 S.F. building located at 2801 Pine Lake Road, Lincoln, Nebraska. Steve Ray noticed that the building has been mirrored and I did that to emphasize that this is a long linear building. The actual building already has a Starbucks and a restaurant that forces pedestrian traffic out into the drive aisle. Come see it for yourself. It contains a pet store, Noodles, Chipotle, and wine bar - among many other tenants. The specific uses are irrelevant except that they are all "M" and "A2" occupancies. Again, this work does not require my review and approval because a sidewalk café does not require a building permit. It does however require a change in the liquor license. It does violate our local Zoning ordinance that requires 8 feet of sidewalk along the face of the strip mall.  It is a hiccup with Zoning - not the building code or ADA.

According to the Department of Justice, if everyone (pedestrians, wheel chairs, walkers, baby strollers) are forced off the sidewalk and into the vehicular drive aisle, then there is no discrimination and everyone has equal opportunity to get hit by a car. It takes a few days to get the official answer from the D.O.J.

Thank you everyone for your comments. You have confirmed what I was thinking.

  ​ICC Certified Plan Reviewer

  NFPA Certified Fire Plan Examiner


----------



## JBI (Feb 11, 2016)

I would agree with mtlog that you are remiss in stating 'no review required' as the outdoor seating is specifically addressed for plumbing fixture count (unless your jurisdiction modified that out of the Codes).


----------



## ICE (Feb 11, 2016)




----------



## steveray (Feb 12, 2016)

Must be wicked hot there....Looks like everything is melting....


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2016)

> Must be wicked hot there....Looks like everything is melting....


No, it was designed by Salvador Dalí


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2016)

> According to the Department of Justice, if everyone (pedestrians, wheel chairs, walkers, baby strollers) are forced off the sidewalk and into the vehicular drive aisle, then there is no discrimination and everyone has equal opportunity to get hit by a car. It takes a few days to get the official answer from the D.O.J.


Did you get that in writing? A court or Jury may not see it that way. It is a *Huge *liability.

They also may want to talk with their insurance carrier regarding "Risk Management".


----------



## steveray (Feb 12, 2016)

> No, it was designed by Salvador Dalí


Even has the obligitory clock....How did I miss that?


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 12, 2016)

Is this a typical accepted "best practice" in Nebraska? As an architect this offends me.

So who enforce zoning issues in Lincoln if not Code Enforcement?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2016)

> Is this a typical accepted "best practice" in Nebraska? As an architect this offends me.So who enforce zoning issues in Lincoln if not Code Enforcement?


Which issue offends you?  Several have been raised.


----------



## steveray (Feb 16, 2016)

Again, I believe it is a bad idea and a liability, but there really is no code section that straight out prohibits it, accessible routes need to enter vehicular ways at some point....


----------



## mark handler (Feb 16, 2016)

> .... but there really is no code section that straight out prohibits it' date=' accessible routes need to enter vehicular ways at some point....[/quote']1104.2 Within a site.
> 
> At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that are on the same site.
> 
> Forcing you to enter a drive is not accessible. IMPO


----------



## steveray (Feb 16, 2016)

Don't you have to enter a drive from the parking lot? Is not a crosswalk an accessible route?  I agree it sucks, but I don't think I could not allow it, might ask for better marking and such, but I just don't see how to disallow it. Without "because I say so"


----------



## greenbubba (Feb 18, 2016)

1104.2 seems pretty clear. Isn't it also non-compliant by not providing access to the fenced in dining area? To provide maneuvering clearance outside the gate, a sidewalk would be needed - similar to what Mark sketched.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 18, 2016)

Our planning department would kill this. We wouldn't even see it.


----------

