IBC 1107. requires a percentage of Type A dwelling units when more than 20 dwelling units are located on a site, subject to the reductions allowed in 1107.7.1.   [This is consistent from 2009-2018 IBC]  

Sections 1107.7.1 refers to structures without elevator service; 1107.7.1.1 requires at least one accessible level, and 1107.7.1.2 requires additional accessible levels when certain factors are met.  In both cases, all required dwelling units on those levels must be Type B units.

Am I correct in interpreting that buildings without elevator service are not required to have Type A dwelling units regardless of the total number of dwelling units on the site?

Kenneth Otten
Original Post

I just went back and tried to carefully read the entire section and sort it all out in my aging and Quarantine stressed brain. What it does state is that Type A dwellings are required in the number shown on the chart. I don't see that requirement removed. The rest of the comments appear to be about Accessible and Type B dwellings. I do remember when all this was a very hot topic, and I actually was quite informed, thanks to a valued colleague on the ANSI Committee, who has since sadly died much too young. I know he would have been instantly able to discuss this issue in depth. Now, the topic is once more up front because we are working to have the most recent ANSI standard get Safe Harbor status. 

Speaking of the quarantine, I have been asked if I could give at least one Webinar during April, so I'm working on it. It will cover California right up to the latest code that just became enforceable in January, 2020, in terms of signs and communication. Since there really aren't any federal changes, nor will there probably be any until we can elect a president as involved with disability as Bill Clinton was, there's no conflict there. We should have a reasonable amount of time after which the Standards are routinely reviewed, as Clinton ordered done back in approximately 1996. Unfortunately, it took about 10 years for our revised version to be adopted, and then still more years for it to be approved by the DOJ and become legally enforceable in 2012. So much has changed since then, due to technology, and especially with the widespread use of cell phones. 

So, if you are interested in a webinar on ADA signs, contact me at ADASignLady@gmail.com. I'll let you know when and how. 

Back to housing:  I am wondering if the Covad Pandemic will change or speed up our ideas about aging in place, and therefore mean advances in home accessibility. People have seen, now, how dangerous congregate living can be, no matter how luxurious or caring the facilities are. Perhaps even younger people will see the value in homes that are accessible, so they can have their parents live with them, or they can stay in their home through old age. And will we begin to grasp that aging is usually its own form of disability, and build homes to accommodate that. Units that comply as completely "Accessible" or Type A will not be necessary in many cases, and some features need to be specialized for again people. 

I know I went way beyond the topic, and probably didn't even answer it, but this is the first time I've gotten a topic for a very long time. I'm glad to be back! 

Last edited by SharonToji

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.