# Accessible POT to new Entrance?



## Ron Larkins (Jun 26, 2018)

I'm looking at an existing multi-tenant commercial office building with a single accessible POT into a common lobby. A new tenant is looking to install a prominent new exterior entrance into their space. My question is would the new entrance be required to have a new accessible POT or would the existing POT through the interior of the building meet the requirement of a single POT to the area of alteration?


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 26, 2018)

IBC 3411.6 Alterations to an element in an existing building is required to comply with Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1. 3411.8.1
IBC 3411.8.1 Accessible entrances shall be provided in accordance with section 1105
IBC  1105.1 At least 60% of entrances are required to be accessible.


----------



## Ron Larkins (Jun 26, 2018)

Thanks for the reply, I will look at those sections for reference . I forgot to mention the project is in California for CBC and ADA apply; I don't think CA has the 60% ratio.


----------



## JPohling (Jun 26, 2018)

Sounds like you are creating a new "primary entry"  that would need to be fully accessible.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 26, 2018)

Posters in the future, please identify the city and state for your project in order that we may avoid lengthy discussions about inappropriate codes for the project.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 27, 2018)

Ron Larkins said:


> Thanks for the reply, I will look at those sections for reference . I forgot to mention the project is in California for CBC and ADA apply; I don't think CA has the 60% ratio.


Sounds like another ABERCROMBIE & FITCH lawsuit in the making
http://ccdconline.org/press_release...-fitch-pay-attorneys-fees-and-costs-ada-lawsu
yes it shall be accessible


----------



## Ron Larkins (Jun 27, 2018)

Thanks for the reference. I also think the new entrance should be made accessible, but the building owner is arguing that there is an accessible path from another part of the building...a side door from a common lobby.  If the Hollister stores had a POT in the back, would they not have provided a POT to the area of alteration?


----------



## mark handler (Jun 27, 2018)

If structurally feasible, provide access.


----------



## my250r11 (Jun 27, 2018)

It's new construction, must meet new codes, needs to be accessible IMHO.


----------



## JPohling (Jun 27, 2018)

So the owner would like to ignore the construction of a new primary entry to the space and force the disabled to use a rear/side entry?  Sounds typical.
await the lawsuit


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 28, 2018)

Ditto


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 2, 2018)

It may need to be accessible to go in but not to go out. Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings. This would mean you do not need things like the required maneuvering room for doors on the inside, raised lettering exit sign, or accessible door hardware on the inside.


----------



## JPohling (Jul 2, 2018)

Rick,  I do not buy that,  the newly constructed entry should be fully compliant for egress as well.


----------



## Yikes (Jul 2, 2018)

*Denver judge OKs final settlement between Hollister, disabled customers over store access*

By Mark Harden  –  News Director, Denver Business Journal
Sep 25, 2015, 8:10am MDT Updated Sep 25, 2015, 7:29am

The Hollister Co. chain of youth-fashion stores has put to rest a long-running legal battle that began in Denver over wheelchair access to its stores.

The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel in Denver signed off Thursday on a settlement between the chain -- a unit of New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (NYSE: ANF) -- and disabled customers.

Under the settlement, Hollister will remove steps at the entrances to many of its U.S. stores.

The chain said it designed its entrances to resemble the front porches of beach shacks as part of its casual branding program, but disabled customers complained that the step-up entryways at 231 of Hollister's stores violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they barred wheelchair access.

Daniel in August 2013 had ordered the step-up Hollister stores-- representing about 40 percent of its U.S. locations -- to reconfigure their wheelchair-unfriendly entrances by the end of 2016.

*In September 2014, a three-judge panel of 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges decided 2-1 that the chain did not violate the ADA because alternative side entrances were provided.* The appellate panel sent the case back to Wiley for further consideration.

*But plaintiffs in the case argued that the side entrances were often difficult to access, blocked or otherwise unsuitable.*

The settlement approved Thursday means the case won't go to trial. *Hollister already has begun making its store entrances wheelchair accessible, and may close some locations, the AP reports. The chain said it expects to have 92 of its store entrances converted by late January.*

One plaintiff in the class-action case is Denver policy analyst Julie Farrar, who previously said she *couldn’t access the main entrance of a Denver-area Hollister store in her wheelchair.*

The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s legal program and the Denver-based Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center helped to represent plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit.

Hollister has four stores in Colorado, including outlets at the Park Meadows and FlatIron Crossing malls, according to its website.

Abercrombie & Fitch — which started out in 1892 as a New York outdoor gear retailer — operates more than 800 stores in the U.S. across its various brands and about 160 stores outside of the United States.

What is now L Brands Inc. (NYSE: LB, formerly Limited Brands, parent of the Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works chains) bought A&F in 1988, then took it public as a separate company in 1996


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 3, 2018)

JPohling said:


> Rick,  I do not buy that,  the newly constructed entry should be fully compliant for egress as well.



It would be fully compliant even if it is a new door

IBC 1007.1 Accessible means of egress required
Exceptions:
1. Accessible means of egress is not required to be provided to existing buildings.

IEBC 310.6 Alterations
Exceptions:
2. Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the IBC are not required to be provided in existing buildings and facilities.

IEBC 605.1 General (accessibility
Exceptions:
2.Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the IBC are not required to be provided in existing buildings and facilities.

How many times does the code need to say it?

I have seem many alterations to existing buildings where a new door was installed and worked as an accessible entrance but not an accessible means of egress and some were audited by the state and were OK.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 3, 2018)

This not just a code issue Rick, it is a Federal law. The code in this case is allowing for a less than ADASAD minimums. You must comply with the law first and then the code.
The "code" is not a safe harbor.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jul 3, 2018)

*ADA 36.403
(e) Path of travel. *
(1) A "path of travel" includes a continuous, unobstructed way of pedestrian passage by means of which the altered area may be approached, entered, *and exited*, and which connects the altered area with an exterior approach (including sidewalks, streets, and parking areas), an entrance to the facility, and other parts of the facility.

The only time an accessible entrance might not be an accessible means of egress is if there wasn't adequate manuevering space at the door.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 3, 2018)

I only enforce the I codes that the state adopted. Don't care what the ADA civil rights law says.

There is nothing about enforcement ADA.

This is a Building Code Forum, not a civil rights forum.

Anyway the person that started this post said there was another accessible route through the existing building.


----------



## Ron Larkins (Jul 3, 2018)

Thanks everyone for the input; it appears it's not an easy answer.
While the Sept 25, 2015, article above doesn't appear to support my case,  in Calif a POT to the area of alteration is required, as well as it should "coincide with general circulation paths". So while it is an existing building, the Alteration is an Entrance and needs to be on a POT. The other exceptions for the POT in alterations shouldn't apply when the alteration is an Entrance. Thanks my take, but it appears to be a gray area in the code.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 3, 2018)

In CA not a grey area
And based on the Abacrombie case not a grey area anywhere in the ninth district.


----------

