Addition in multistory building w/out existing elevator

[classicT]

Looking for thoughts and opinions here.

Under the 2018 IEBC/IBC and 2009 A117.1.

Existing church is primarily single story, but has an existing second story area of approximately 2,900sf. This existing area was exempt from an accessible route (an elevator) per IBC Section 1104.4, Exception #1.

They are now proposing an addition of several thousand square-feet in a separate part of the building. As per IBC Section 1104.4, Exception #1, the aggregate area shall not exceed 3,000sf to qualify for the exemption.

So here is the question.... as per IEBC Section 305.5, "Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions." But does this mean that only the new area must be provided an accessible route; or, does it mean that both the existing 2,900sf and the addition must now be provided an accessible route. The existing area that is not on an accessible route, houses a primary function (offices), and so will the addition (classrooms); so, how does 305.7 play into the answer.

305.5 Additions​

Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions. An addition that affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of, a primary function shall comply with the requirements in Section 305.7.​

​

305.7 Alterations Affecting an Area Containing a Primary Function​

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.​

Exceptions:​

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.
2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.
3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.
4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of a facility.
5. This provision does not apply to altered areas limited to Type B dwelling and sleeping units.

My take is that both the existing area of 2,900sf, and the proposed addition will need to be served by an accessible route. They are intending to add an elevator to the proposed addition, so no issue there. What they do not want to do is to connect the new addition with the existing second floor area that is presently not on an accessible route.

My thinking is that the exemption used when constructed no longer applies, as the aggregate area will exceed 3,000sf. The proposed addition, which includes the elevator, affects the accessibility to the building as a whole, and should therefore be located such that it provides an accessible route to both the new and existing second floor areas.

Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Joe.B]

I would tend to agree with your analysis. They may be able to come up with a creative solution and change the use of the existing inaccessible portions, but that's up to them to propose, I would think.

 

[Paul Sweet]

IBC would require both areas to be accessible. Is there a practical reason for not connecting them, such as needing to build a bridge across a roof or the sanctuary?

Churches are exempt from ADA because it was based on the 1964 Civil Rights act which excluded churches and private clubs. It might be reasonable to request a code modification allowing the existing area not to be connected if it is used only for church functions and not used for meetings of outside groups, which would subject it to ADA.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I can see both sides of this question. Here is a code committee interpretation that involves different tenants.

https://www3.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_03_15_04.pdf

305.5 is for additions which this is and the addition does meet 305.7 as it relates to the primary function of the addition.
If you are not touching the original 2,900 sq ft I do not see where you can require an accessible route from the addition to the existing 2nd floor.
If you do remodel the existing 2nd floor primary function area I do not see where you could require them to spend more than 20% of the remodel cost to provide an accessible route from the new addition to the existing 2nd floor

 

[classicT]

IBC would require both areas to be accessible. Is there a practical reason for not connecting them, such as needing to build a bridge across a roof or the sanctuary?

Churches are exempt from ADA because it was based on the 1964 Civil Rights act which excluded churches and private clubs. It might be reasonable to request a code modification allowing the existing area not to be connected if it is used only for church functions and not used for meetings of outside groups, which would subject it to ADA.

The two areas will be on opposite sides of the building. In order to connect them, it would require a corridor be constructed on the roof.

Now, they do plan to add additional classrooms off the existing office area (the area not on an accessible route) in the future, which will someday provide connection between the office area and the proposed classroom addition. They just want to do that in the future, and not now.

Appreciate the ADA info, but I do my best to steer clear of ADA and leave it to the Feds.

 

[classicT]

I can see both sides of this question. Here is a code committee interpretation that involves different tenants.
https://www3.iccsafe.org/cs/committeeArea/pdf_file/BU_03_15_04.pdf

That is a very interesting interpretation, as I would not think that to be the intent of the code section. 1104.4 addresses buildings and facilities. If the intent was as described in the committee interpretation, the charging statement of 1104.4 should read 'At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel tenant spaces, buildings, and or facilities.'

If you are not touching the original 2,900 sq ft I do not see where you can require an accessible route from the addition to the existing 2nd floor.

I agree that the code does not spell this out very well. Which is why I am seeking input from the forum.

Where I see the challenge is the first sentence of 305.5, that states "Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions."

 

[e hilton]

I would say no, existing 2nd floor does not need elevator access. Here’s why: it was built to code without an elevator. The new addition is large enough by itself that it requires an elevator, and the existing space is not part of the project area. If the two spaces were to abut each other, separated by a partition, I would require a connecting doorway. But it sounds like they are separated by a distance that make a connection impractical.

 

[Mark K]

I suggest that you have a bigger issue than the accessible route. Talk to a structural engineer.

 

[classicT]

I suggest that you have a bigger issue than the accessible route. Talk to a structural engineer.

How so? BTW, note I did not bring in the structural aspect, and that is because the building was designed with the intent for the second story. So no, it is not a structural issue.

 

[Joe.B]

I'll get my popcorn.

 

[Mark K]

Typically with additions it is necessary to bring the building into conformance with the current code. This includes the lateral system which can be a big issue when earthquake loads are considered.

While the building may have been designed for a future story this may not protect you if the codes have changed. When was the building originally permitted and under what code?

Do you have the original construction documents and documentation that it was built per these documents?

Even if the originally construction was relatively recent the first thing the Church should have done is to have an architect and structural engineer review the proposed addition.

 

[classicT]

Typically with additions it is necessary to bring the building into conformance with the current code. This includes the lateral system which can be a big issue when earthquake loads are considered.

While the building may have been designed for a future story this may not protect you if the codes have changed. When was the building originally permitted and under what code?

Do you have the original construction documents and documentation that it was built per these documents?

Even if the originally construction was relatively recent the first thing the Church should have done is to have an architect and structural engineer review the proposed addition.

Mark, structural is not a concern. The items you bring up have been addressed.

Going into it further will just derail this post. So, no need to carry on or explain further.

 

[classicT]

Getting back on track with the conversation about accessibility....

What is the thoughts on IEBC Section 1101.2?

1101.2 Creation or Extension of Nonconformity​

An addition shall not create or extend any nonconformity in the existing building to which the addition is being made with regard to accessibility, structural strength, fire safety, means of egress, or the capacity of mechanical, plumbing, or electrical systems.​

By creating additional area on the second floor, enough to exceed the 3,000sf exception of IBC Section 1104.4, Exception #1, is a nonconformity created in the existing building? The existing building is conforming; however, after the addition, the new aggregate area would violate the exception used, thus creating a nonconformity. Right? Thoughts?

 

[mtlogcabin]

1101.1 Scope.
An addition to a building or structure shall comply with the International Codes as adopted for new construction without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with any requirements of those codes or of these provisions, except as required by this chapter. Where an addition impacts the existing building or structure, that portion shall comply with this code.

No impact on the existing 2nd floor

 

[steveray]

Depends on how hard you want to push....2018 commentary...because it is what I have....

305.6 Alterations. A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
Exceptions:
1. The altered element or space is not required to be on an accessible route, unless required by Section 305.7.
2. Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing facilities.
3. The alteration to Type A individually owned dwelling units within a Group R-2 occupancy shall be permitted to meet the provision for a Type B dwelling unit.
4. Type B dwelling or sleeping units required by Section 1107 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing buildings and facilities undergoing alterations where the work area is 50 percent or less of the aggregate area of the building.

The code approaches the application of accessibility provisions to a facility that is altered by broadly requiring full conformance to new construction, meaning full accessibility is expected. Exceptions are then provided to indicate the conditions under which less than full accessibility is permitted.

 

[Genduct]

I am not sure, from the original post, if the "Addition" is being built within the original building envelope.
Is it a Mezanine or a Real Addition?
It seems that may affect the approach and answer

 

[classicT]

I am not sure, from the original post, if the "Addition" is being built within the original building envelope.
Is it a Mezanine or a Real Addition?
It seems that may affect the approach and answer

The proposed addition is within the building envelope. They built the exterior walls to two stories, but never built out the upper floor. Call it attic space. And it cannot qualify as a mezzanine.

 

[classicT]

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, unless technically infeasible.

... a facility that is altered by broadly requiring full conformance to new construction, meaning full accessibility is expected. Exceptions are then provided to indicate the conditions under which less than full accessibility is permitted.

I've quoted these same sections to the applicant as well.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Having to reinforce the roof if it isn't designed for an 80 PSF corridor live load might exceed 20% of the renovation cost.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

It would be interesting to know what your plan reviewer accepts when you get that far.

 

[north star]

& * & * &

Is the existing, non-built out, "attic space" really a true Addition ?
RE: `21 IBC, Ch. 2 Definitions: "Addition - An extension or increase
in floor area, number of stories or height of a building or
structure".

& * & * &

 

[classicT]

It would be interesting to know what your plan reviewer accepts when you get that far.

That's me.... haha. I'm the plan reviewer telling them that I believe the existing 2900-sf has to be connected to the proposed addition for an accessible route.

 

[classicT]

& * & * &

Is the existing, non-built out, "attic space" really a true Addition ?
RE: `21 IBC, Ch. 2 Definitions: "Addition - An extension or increase
in floor area, number of stories or height of a building or
structure".

& * & * &

It is an increase in floor area.

 

[north star]

@ ~ 2 ~ @

Habitable floor area, ...right ?

Since you are the Plan Reviewer, what does your BO say ?

Personally, I would state your case & Code Sections for the
Accessible Route, and let their RDP address [ i.e. - refute ]
your interpretation.

Also, ...to me it seems obvious that the church will
navigate between the offices and the new classrooms.

@ ~ 2 ~ @