Accessibility in existing building

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

I have an existing building undergoing a change of occupancy (from a bank to a dental office).
There is a 1st floor and basement floor. Accessibility is required . There is an existing elevator. Minimum size for existing elevator (per ICC A117.1) is 36x54.
IEBC 306.7 says a facility that is altered shall comply with chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 unless "technically infeasible" . Where technically infeasible it shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
If my elevator does not meet the size requirements, but connects to the basement level, does in fall within the provisions on 306.7 as being technically infeasible to change the elevator while still providing some level of accessibility?

 

[steveray]

I would think so….do you meet the 20% improvement?

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

I would think so….do you meet the 20% improvement?

Is that the objective determination of "technical infeasible"?
Both the first floor and basement floor are the areas of primary function (dentist offices).

 

[steveray]

Is that the objective determination of "technical infeasible"?
Both the first floor and basement floor are the areas of primary function (dentist offices).

Not necessarily but you have to meet the 20% anyway (generally)….seems like it would be prohibitively expensive to enlarge an existing elevator shaft and start over….

 

[arwat23]

As long as you meet that 20% requirement and can show how altering the elevator / adding a new lift would cost more than the 20% by itself, that should suffice.

Does the jurisdiction you're working in require offices of a healthcare provider be on an accessible path of travel?

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

As long as you meet that 20% requirement and can show how altering the elevator / adding a new lift would cost more than the 20% by itself, that should suffice.

Does the jurisdiction you're working in require offices of a healthcare provider be on an accessible path of travel?

This is CT. Yes

 

[arwat23]

This is CT. Yes

Are both the accessible ground floor and basement used by the same tenant? What's the basement being used for?

I've worked on a lot of healthcare projects, albeit not dentist offices and not in CT. Generally speaking, at least in my experience, an accessible path of travel will be needed for an office of a healthcare provider unless they can show that they can provide all their services to their clients on an accessible floor. In your case, if they can perform all their services on the first floor and the basement is used for non-disabled patients or used for storage or something that isn't accessed by the public, then that might be enough to comply with ADA Title III.

Regarding building code requirements, stick with the 20% requirement. Try to figure out how much an elevator would cost to be installed or how much the alteration to the existing elevator would cost. If you can prove it's over 20%, then that solves your immediate issue. You could go with the technically infeasible route, but you should be prepared to show how it's not feasible.

Most of my medical provider clients would flat out refuse to move into a space that didn't have an accessible elevator or other accessible path of travel. Hell, I have a client right now that's being "forced" to install a new elevator because there're therapists moving in on the second floor of a building (I say "forced", but they really wanted these tenants to sign a lease, but they couldn't without an elevator).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Is that the objective determination of "technical infeasible"?
Both the first floor and basement floor are the areas of primary function (dentist offices).

The ADA definition for technically infeasible comes from the Access Board: https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-2-alterations-and-additions/

Compliance in an alteration is not required where it is “technically infeasible.” The term is defined as “something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.”

Where technical infeasibility is encountered, compliance is still required to the maximum extent technically feasible.

That last sentence is where the 20% criterion comes in. If you claim that full accessibility is not possible because it is technically infeasible, you have to spend at least 20% of the total construction cost on other accessibility features.

In our office, when someone claims the 20% rule we require that they submit a fairly detailed cost take-off to support their claim that other accessibility work will add up to at least 20%.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is CT. Yes

In Connecticut, before you can claim something is technically infeasible, you have to submit an accessibility waiver to the Office of State Building Inspector. Only the State Building Inspector has the authority to determine that something is technically infeasible.

Safety & Inspections

Learn about the Connecticut State Building Code’s background, partners, and resources.

portal.ct.gov

The form you need is the Request for Accessibility Exemption.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Does the jurisdiction you're working in require offices of a healthcare provider be on an accessible path of travel?

Don't ALL jurisdictions require offices of healthcare providers to be accessible?

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

In Connecticut, before you can claim something is technically infeasible, you have to submit an accessibility waiver to the Office of State Building Inspector. Only the State Building Inspector has the authority to determine that something is technically infeasible.

Safety & Inspections

Learn about the Connecticut State Building Code’s background, partners, and resources.

portal.ct.gov

The form you need is the Request for Accessibility Exemption.

Thanks. this is helpful.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

That last sentence is where the 20% criterion comes in. If you claim that full accessibility is not possible because it is technically infeasible, you have to spend at least 20% of the total construction cost on other accessibility features.

The project is essentially a gut renovation of an existing building, being converted to mix use residential on floor2-3 and dentist on floor 1 and basement.
The 20% of the construction cost I assume would be the cost of accessibility features for the B occupancy and not the cost for the entire project (including the R occupancy)

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The project is essentially a gut renovation of an existing building, being converted to mix use residential on floor2-3 and dentist on floor 1 and basement.
The 20% of the construction cost I assume would be the cost of accessibility features for the B occupancy and not the cost for the entire project (including the R occupancy)

I believe you assume incorrectly. The operative code section is IEBC 306.7.1, Exception #1:



Obviously, in a residential portion of a building, residential spaces are areas containing a primary function. However, Exception #5 may apply. You have not provided enough information for us to offer an opinion on that. The key point is that you MUST submit your request for an accessibility waiver to the State Building Inspector. The request should include a full set of plans, as well as a narrative description of what areas you intend to make accessible, what areas you do NOT intend to make accessible, and an explanation of why.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

not sure how large the project is or the budget, but when I read gut renovation and change of use and am thinking the technically infeasible or 20% route angle may be a stretch.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

not sure how large the project is or the budget, but when I read gut renovation and change of use and am thinking the technically infeasible or 20% route angle may be a stretch.

Yes, and when I read that the upper two floors will be "mixed use" I rather think that Exception #5 probably won't apply.

In any event, the project is in Connecticut. It's up to the State Building Inspector.

 

[mark handler]

A dental office (entity) is considered a public accommodation. Public accommodations must follow the requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards, including both the Title III regulations at 28 CFR part 36, subpart D; and the 2004 ADAAG at 36 CFR part 1191, appendices B and D. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of public accommodations. Public accommodations are considered to be businesses including private entities that are open to the public or that provide goods or services to the public.

As a public accommodation, dental offices are required to comply with the ADA Standards for accessible parking spaces, exterior and interior routes, entrances, lobbies, public toilet rooms, protruding objects, and employee work areas.

Access for a dental office is required, 20% does not fall into the mix.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

I believe you assume incorrectly. The operative code section is IEBC 306.7.1, Exception #1:

I would argue that these are separated occupancies with different accessibility requirements, and the accessibility to the areas of primary function have nothing to do with each other.
And Type B dwelling units are not required here

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

Access for a dental office is required, 20% does not fall into the mix.

1st first floor accessible level will have the same dental offices as the basement level

 

[arwat23]

Don't ALL jurisdictions require offices of healthcare providers to be accessible?

I never want to assume. I'm only familiar with CA requirements, so when it comes to other states / territories, I always want to confirm if possible.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A dental office (entity) is considered a public accommodation. Public accommodations must follow the requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards, including both the Title III regulations at 28 CFR part 36, subpart D; and the 2004 ADAAG at 36 CFR part 1191, appendices B and D. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of public accommodations. Public accommodations are considered to be businesses including private entities that are open to the public or that provide goods or services to the public.

As a public accommodation, dental offices are required to comply with the ADA Standards for accessible parking spaces, exterior and interior routes, entrances, lobbies, public toilet rooms, protruding objects, and employee work areas.

Access for a dental office is required, 20% does not fall into the mix.

It's in an existing building, so the 20% absolutely DOES fall into the mix. If full accessibility cannot be provided because of technical infeasibility, the courts have decided (and both the ADAS and the IBEC now codify) that spending 20% of the project cost on accessibility improvements satisfies the requirement. In fact, in existing buildings the cost of providing access to areas containing a primary function is capped at 20% irrespective of technically infeasible. See IEBC 307.7.1 Exception #1, which I reproduced above.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I would argue that these are separated occupancies with different accessibility requirements, and the accessibility to the areas of primary function have nothing to do with each other.
And Type B dwelling units are not required here

So what are the areas of primary function on the second and third floors? You said they are mixed uses. Are you arguing that they don't require any access? If that's your argument, what's the code path that supports your argument?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

1st first floor accessible level will have the same dental offices as the basement level

The basement also has dental offices, so the basement is an area containing a primary function. Accessibility is required, unless you can document spending 20% or the project cost on accessibility improvements elsewhere.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

The basement also has dental offices, so the basement is an area containing a primary function. Accessibility is required, unless you can document spending 20% or the project cost on accessibility improvements elsewhere.

What is the spirit of the code? Equality for all users? If both the basement and the first floor both have the same exact facilities, spaces, offices, etc., lets even say they are exact duplicates of each other, isn't that within and spirit of the code? A person who cannot make it to the basement can have the same service on the 1st floor

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

So what are the areas of primary function on the second and third floors? You said they are mixed uses. Are you arguing that they don't require any access? If that's your argument, what's the code path that supports your argument?

The 2nd and 3rd floors are apartments. Type B dwelling units are not required.
So if the apartments themselves aren't required to be accessible, does the path to the apartments need to be accessible?