# Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



## Big Mac (Nov 30, 2009)

When parking is provided in a basement of R-2 building, the code stipulates that accessible parking spaces shall also be provided in the basement.  Section 1106.2.

In this case based on the total number of parking spaces provided on site, two barrier free parking spaces are required.  At the present time one space is shown at grade outside (a van accessible parking space)and one is shown in the basement (a automobile parking space) under the building.  One of those is required to be a "van" accessible parking space.

When the word spaces is used in Section 1106.2, does that imply that both a "van" accessible and "automobile" accessible space is required in the basement?

Does it imply that at least one of those spaces must be provided in the parking below the building and one may be provided at grade outside?

If only one of these accessible parking spaces is required beneath the building (in the basement) does the one space provided need to be a "van" accessible parking space?

Thoughts?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

A van accessible parking space does not have a minimum height clearance so yes it can be in the basement. Does it make sense :?: No not for full size vans with an raised roof


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

Van spaces are minimum 98 inches in height (ANSI A117.1 502.6).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

oops 

Thanks for the correction VP


----------



## Yikes (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

I think the underlying premise is a concept of equivalent facilitation. A basement garage provides protection from the weather.  A driver who uses a wheelchair is likely to spend an extended time getting in and out of their car, if it's a van they might be going up and down a special van lift.  It would not really be "equivalent" to have them exposed to rain or snow when this occurs, but meanwhile the non-chair user is getting a fully weather-protected route from their car to the building.

If the building is existing, I would accept a van accessible stall width, but seek an exception for the height... and I would still try to provide a van accessible stall outdoors as well.

If the building is new, I would try to provide the 98" clear height in the basement garage.  I have seen some building officials accept an on-grade van accessible stall that was fully covered and provided a short, covered path-of-travel to the building.


----------



## Big Mac (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

Thanks to all.  This is a new building.  At this point in time I am asking for both required barrier free stalls in the basement level parking.  That means the building will need to be raised by approximately 14".  Among other things this means that the entrance opening and clear height of access is not less than 98".  I am citing code section 1106.2 and ANSI A117.1, Section 502.6.

If push comes to shove, I may consider a automobile barrier free stall outside, but truely don't even think that is appropriate since the largest percentage of parking provided for this project is contained beneath the building.  If anyone has any more thoughts on the subject, I would be most intersted in hearing (reading) them.


----------



## vegas paul (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

If the underground parking is the primary parking (as you stated) then you must have accessible parking, including van spaces, underground.  It's all about equal access and equal use.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

Several other thoughts, based on hard experience of making a garage taller:

1.  You can only require 98" clear height, but the architect would be wise to plan for an additional inch clear due to potential sagging of the forms.

2.  The most difficult area for height compliance is usually right at the vehicle entry.  The rest of the floor can be further sloped if necessary.

3.  In apartment buildings, waste and fire sprinkler pipes that protrude below the podium slab, and concrete column caps, can cause problems in keeping 98" clear height to the stall locations.

4.  Now that the garage is taller, the stairs need more risers and treads.

5.  You can console the designer that the 98" clear might have been neccesary anyway for other reasons, such as service vehicle access to basement trash enclosures or switchgear rooms / pullboxes.

6.  Other than #5, only the portion of the garage driveway and stalls that require accessible van travel needs to be 98" clear.  The rest of the garage can be lower headroom (less retaining wall).


----------



## Gene Boecker (Dec 3, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

In addition to what Yikes posted, there is also another consideration.  Are there parking spaces set aside for residents and are there separate visitor parking spaces?  Also, is there a rental office in the building that would bring people "from outside" to the building?  If so, then at least one additional accessible space needs to be provided in the visitor's area to meet ADA provisions - and it must be a van accessible space since at least one must be provided.  The visitor parking area is "separate parking."

The rental office is ADA while the residential units are FHA.  They have separate requirements. The IBC intimates this in section 1106.1 where is says that _"Where more than one parking facility is provided on a site, teh number of parking spaces required to be accessible shall be calculated separately for each parking facility."_


----------



## Jasper (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

I think that these excerpts from the 2006 IBC (as incorporated in the 2006 Seattle Building Code) are relevant:



> http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/Seattle2006/seattle_building/building_frameset.htm1106.6  Location.... Where buildings have multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located near the accessible entrances....
> 
> Exceptions:
> 
> ...


Please note that:

1)  There are multiple ways to achieve "equivalent or greater accessibility".  The developer and/or the users can choose which features make the parking more accessible.

2)  Shelter from the elements is not explicitly required for 'equivalent or greater accessibility", but "user convenience" is.

3)  An outdoor parking space can be more convenient than a basement parking space.  It is usually easier for the users to access the outdoors and the first floor of the building from an outdoor parking space than from a basement parking space.  It is easier for an outdoor parking space to be used as a _de facto_ bus stop.  It is easier to maneuver a van in outdoor parking area than in a basement parking area.  Many people (especially with disabilities) feel profoundly unsafe in a parking garage, because they fear crime or being penned in.

4)  People arriving by van to an outdoor parking space can be seen and greeted by people inside the building.

5)  It is usually easier to add disabled van parking spaces to an outdoor parking area than to a basement parking area.

6)  Even in Seattle, it is not necessary to have an indoor accessible parking space.  I walk past a day-time health care facility for senior citizens on a daily basis.  The users typically arrive and leave via van, with outdoor parking.  The users can see and greet each other as they arrive and depart.  The ability to easily maneuver the vans outside is of far more importance than the lack of shelter of the outdoor parking spaces.

7)  The code specifically encourages dispersing the accessible parking spaces to multiple entrances.

8)  Can this parking arrangement be treated as a multi-level parking facility?  If so, the developer can choose which level(s) have van access.

My conclusion is that if the developer thinks that it is more convenient to have one accessible parking space indoors, and one accessible parking space outdoors, the developer is allowed to do so.  Furthermore, if the developer believes (in good faith) that this arrangement is more convenient for the users, the developer should be encouraged to do so.

[Edited to reference 2006 IBC, not 2006 IRC]


----------



## brudgers (Dec 4, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> 1)  There are multiple ways to achieve "equivalent or greater accessibility".  The developer and/or the users can choose which features make the parking more accessible.2)  Shelter from the elements is not explicitly required for 'equivalent or greater accessibility", but "user convenience" is.
> 
> 3)  An outdoor parking space can be more convenient than a basement parking space.  It is usually easier for the users to access the outdoors and the first floor of the building from an outdoor parking space than from a basement parking space.  It is easier for an outdoor parking space to be used as a _de facto_ bus stop.  It is easier to maneuver a van in outdoor parking area than in a basement parking area.  Many people (especially with disabilities) feel profoundly unsafe in a parking garage, because they fear crime or being penned in.
> 
> ...


FHA accessibility requires that at least one of each type of parking space be an accessible space.

Each accessible space must be on an accessible route.

See the DOJ's  _Fair Housing Act Design Manual_ page 2.23 (1996).

There's no 'good faith' exception.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> if the developer believes (in good faith) that this arrangement is more convenient for the users





			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> There's no 'good faith' exception.


I was not referring to any "good faith" exception.  Instead, I was referring to the fact that any opinion of whether something is "more convenient" _for somebody else_ can be made in "good faith" or "bad faith".  Such an opinion is only worthy of being relied on if it is either reasonable or made in "good faith".


----------



## Jasper (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> FHA accessibility requires that at least one of each type of parking space be an accessible space.Each accessible space must be on an accessible route.
> 
> See the DOJ's  _Fair Housing Act Design Manual_ page 2.23 (1996).


I agree with your point about each accessible space being on an accessible route.

There is more than one way to achieve compliance with the Fair Housing Act.  According to: http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/documents/E8-23785_ANSI_Final_Rule.pdf, the _Fair Housing Act Design Manual_ is one of several safe harbors under the Fair Housing Act.  Another safe harbor is



			
				Federal Register Vol 73 # 207 pages 63613-63614 said:
			
		

> 2006 International Building Code, published by ICC (http://www.iccsafe.org) in January 2006, with a January 31, 2007, erratum to correct the text missing from Section 1107.7.5 and interpreted in accordance with the relevant 2006 IBC Commentary.


Also, page 2.23 of the _Fair Housing Act Design Manual_ does not require accessible garage parking if the garage is not accessible.  http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/fairhousing/fairch2.pdf


----------



## Jasper (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> See the DOJ's  _Fair Housing Act Design Manual_ page 2.23 (1996).


http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/fairhousing/fairch2.pdf

This safe harbor (under the Fair Housing Act) has a very interesting sentence:

"Note also that accessible spaces benefit a wide range of users, residents and visitors with disabilities, residents carrying packages, families with strollers, movers, and delivery personnel."

This suggests that the accessible parking spaces can be labelled as having both disabled parking and loading/unloading as acceptable uses.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> I was not referring to any "good faith" exception.  Instead, I was referring to the fact that any opinion of whether something is "more convenient" _for somebody else_ can be made in "good faith" or "bad faith".  Such an opinion is only worthy of being relied on if it is either reasonable or made in "good faith".


There is no "more convenient" exception either.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 5, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Jasper said:
> 
> 
> 
> > I was not referring to any "good faith" exception.  Instead, I was referring to the fact that any opinion of whether something is "more convenient" _for somebody else_ can be made in "good faith" or "bad faith".  Such an opinion is only worthy of being relied on if it is either reasonable or made in "good faith".


There is no "more convenient" exception either.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, there *is* a "more convenient" exception:  IBC 1106.6 Exception 2.  This quote is as it is incorporated into the Seattle Building Code (http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/Seattle2006/seattle_building/building_frameset.htm):

"Accessible parking spaces shall be permitted to be located in different parking facilities if substantially equivalent or greater accessibility is provided in terms of distance from an accessible entrance or entrances, parking fee and user convenience."


----------



## brudgers (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings

1106.1 ...where more than one parking facility is provided on a site, the number of parking spaces required to be accessible shall be calculated separately for each parking facility.

1106.2 ...two percent but not less than one,of each type of parking space provided...shall be accessible.

As far as 1106.6 exception 1, good luck arguing that an uncovered space is substantially equivalent and convenient to the DOJ.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> good luck arguing that an uncovered space is substantially equivalent and convenient to the DOJ.


There are at least two ways to deal with this:

1)  Provide a covering for the outdoor accessible parking space(s).  This can be as simple as a canopy, or as fancy as a _porte cochere_.  Some cities seem to accept an awning that extends from the entrance to the curbside as sufficient covering.  Your jurisdiction might require that more of the parking space be covered, and/or that the covering be more permanent.

2)  Make sure that all three of the following conditions are met by the proposed parking:

2a)  Have the distance to the accessible entrance be "substantially equivalent" or shorter.

2b)  Have the parking fee be "substantially equivalent" or lower.

2c)  Be equally convenient or more convenient.  As I noted in a prior post, there are several ways that outdoor parking spaces are more convenient.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 6, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> "Accessible parking spaces shall be permitted to be located in different parking facilities if substantially equivalent or greater accessibility is provided in terms of distance from an accessible entrance or entrances, parking fee and user convenience."


The phrasing of this exception is a bit unclear.  It does not explicitly say whether every factor needs to be "substantially equivalent or greater", or whether it is possible to have a tradeoff among the factors.

For example, suppose a basement entrance is 18 feet away and only barely meets the accessibility code, and the exterior entrance is 19 feet away and is very easy to use.  Unless 18 feet is "substantially equivalent" to 19 feet, it is not clear whether this example's exterior entrance satisfies the exception.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 7, 2009)

Re: Accessible parking requirements in apartment buildings



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> > good luck arguing that an uncovered space is substantially equivalent and convenient to the DOJ.


There are at least two ways to deal with this:

1)  Provide a covering for the outdoor accessible parking space(s).  This can be as simple as a canopy, or as fancy as a _porte cochere_.  Some cities seem to accept an awning that extends from the entrance to the curbside as sufficient covering.  Your jurisdiction might require that more of the parking space be covered, and/or that the covering be more permanent.

2)  Make sure that all three of the following conditions are met by the proposed parking:

2a)  Have the distance to the accessible entrance be "substantially equivalent" or shorter.

2b)  Have the parking fee be "substantially equivalent" or lower.

2c)  Be equally convenient or more convenient.  As I noted in a prior post, there are several ways that outdoor parking spaces are more convenient.

Fair housing is not a local jurisdiction issue.

It's a DOJ issue.

You could argue that outdoor parking is more convenient than indoor parking before them.

I just don't think you have any prospect for success.


----------

