Loading...
Correspondence (513) L R S April 17, 2000 RECEIVE • A PR 1 8 200 Bob _ COMMUNITY DEVELO City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bob: • The following analysis by LRS Architects, Inc. concerning the accessibility requirements of the Tigard Corporate Center Parking. LRS will atrernpt to indicate the logic of compliance to both the OSSC and the ADA in relation to accessible parking requirements. There is a difference of interpretations on. where accessible parking is required when a surface lot and a parking garage serve an adjacent office building. This key point must be emphasized: Where is accessible parking required when there is both surface and covered parking provided? The garage is associated and adjacentto a surface lot, which is adjacent to the office building. The City of Tigard during building permit review is requiring the parking garage to comply with the required number of accessible parking spaces as a stand -alone entity. The parking garage is a Group S occupancy and must conform to Section 1106.1.12. That section states "all affected buildings in Group S occupancies shall be accessible as provided in this chapter." This general scoping language is the only place in the OSSC Chapter 11 that specifically mentions S occupancies and it is the general scoping language of the S occupancy. It is also the only place that LRS can find in the OSSC that would lead the City to require accessible parking spaces in the; parking garage. LRS believes this lone sentence is what the City of Tigard is using to narrowly define that the parking garage requires accessible parking spaces. The City is not taking into consideration that the parking garage is adjacent to asurface lot adjacent to the building that both lots are serving. Please confirm if there are any other areas in Chapter I 1 that - y specifically require accessible parking spaces within S occupancies. O • . The concern LRS has is that the previous Section is a general scoping Section. Section 1104 • more specifically addresses accessible parking and Section 1104.4.5 specifically defines the • intent of the general 'coping requirement of section 1106.1.12. Section 1104.4.5 Shortest • Accessible Route states "Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest practical T accessible route to an accessible building entry. In facilities with multiple accessible building entries and adjacent accessible parking spaces the parking shall be disbursed and located near the accessible entries where ever practical, the accessible route shall not cross lanes with • vehicular traffic. Where crossing traffic lanes is necessary the route shall be designated marked crossing with detectable warnings etched at each entrance to crossing lanes of vehicular traffic." • It is this specific language which states the intent of location of accessible parking. This o _ o 3 • • • statement, being more specific, overrides the general scoping language'of the S occupancy requirements. Codes are written to cover,general and specific issues, cannot cover every possible scenario. It is at this point when enforcing agencies are supposed to take into consideration all related sections and apply the "intent." The intent of the code is to provide accessible spaces adjacent to the building being served. - • Section 1104.5 is also consistent with the language of the ADA, of which LRS and the owner are also concerned about compliance. LRS had a telephone conversation on this matter with the US Department of Justice, who enforces the ADA. The Department of Justice stated essentially what Section 1104.4.5 states, that the intent of the ADA is to locate accessible parking spaces as near as reasonably possible to the accessible entry. LRS is concerned that some of the required parking spaces required to be in the parking garage is in direct conflict with 1104.4.5 and possibly in conflict with the ADA requirements. Providing accessible spaces at both places to meet both possible interpretation requirements is not reasonable accommodation. If accessible parking spaces were required in the parking garage the user would still have to walk almost 300', across a vehicular way, to the main accessible building entrance. The argument brought up to LRS by the City, offering a person a choice of going underneath covered parking, is not appropriate and not required. The person in the Garage parking still must go outside under the elements to the main entry. The person in the surface lot accessible parking space would only be exposed to the elements for about 30'. There is no covered walkway requirement in the OSSC or ADA for parking serving B or S occupancies.. • Another aspect of the argument-raised requiring accessible parking spaces within the garage is • because of the separate building concept. There is no actual property line between the two buildings. If a property line were considered in the future or some limitation of access to the Garage parking by the office users were implemented in the future, Title III of the ADA requires the Owner to update the required elements accordingly. • In conclusion, it is consistent with.enforcing the general scoping language of the OSSC, the specific language of 1104.4.5, and the requirements of the ADA, to interpret that the location of all.of the accessible parking spaces, within that one block, be required adjacent to the main building entry. If there were no adjacent surface parking to the building entry, the parking spaces would be required in the garage. Because those surface spaces are provided, and they . are the closest to the building entry, that is the appropriate place for accessible parking for the whole block. • • In making your interpretation, please take the following into consideration. Please follow OSSC language. If the language is not definitive, only apply the intent of the language, and not what would be preferred. Also, please take into account the ADA from which the OSSC Chapter 11 is based. While the State or the City is not enforcing the ADA, the Architect, by. • • • statute, and the Owner, by civil law, must conform to this Federal statute. The OSSC is currently not certified by-the US Department of Justice as approved or equivalent to the ADA. The Architect and the Owner are concerned about possible state non - compliance with the ADA on their interpretation, which could then bring liability to the Owner and Architect. Please offer us an interpretation, based on the intent of the code showing reasonable accommodation. Sincerely, LRS Architects, Inc. /2 3. Michael R. Gorman' • Associate • • • • • • • • • • • • •