Accessibility in existing building

[Yankee Chronicler]

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

That applies to public agency offices -- the government allows governments to provide "equal service" where they can't (easily) provide equal access. The same does not apply to privately-owned buildings.

Read the section of the IEBC on accessibility in existing buildings. What does section 306.7.1 say?

306.7.1 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.

That's what you need to know. In a dental office, is an area where dentists provide dental services an "area containing a primary function"? Yes, obviously it is. So you must provide an accessible route to it -- unless you can satisfy Exception #1 by spending 20 percent of the project cost on accessibility upgrades elsewhere.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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?

Then why did you write in the original post that the upper stories were mixed use?

 

[Sifu]

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

What if the basement dentist is a female, and the accessible level dentist is a male, and the person with a tooth ache only wants to be seen by a female? Or, the accessible level dentist gets a bad review, or is more expensive (maybe because the basement level rent is cheaper because it isn't accessible)? I think the disproportionality section is the only help. However, does this apply? From the 2010 ADA. Not 100% how the scoping in the ADA works, but others are and can chime in.

Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35

(C) Safe harbor. If a public entity has constructed or altered required elements
of a path of travel in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991
Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March
15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect
incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to
a primary function area served by that path of travel.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What if the basement dentist is a female, and the accessible level dentist is a male, and the person with a tooth ache only wants to be seen by a female? Or, the accessible level dentist gets a bad review, or is more expensive (maybe because the basement level rent is cheaper because it isn't accessible)? I think the disproportionality section is the only help. However, does this apply? From the 2010 ADA. Not 100% how the scoping in the ADA works, but others are and can chime in.

Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35

(C) Safe harbor. If a public entity has constructed or altered required elements
of a path of travel in accordance with the specifications in either the 1991
Standards or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards before March
15, 2012, the public entity is not required to retrofit such elements to reflect
incremental changes in the 2010 Standards solely because of an alteration to
a primary function area served by that path of travel.

This may be a safe harbor under the ADA but it is not a safe harbor under the IEBC. Again, see IEBC 306.7.1.

Also, I'm fairly certain that "public entity" as referred to in this regulation means governmental agency, not a business that is open to the public. The latter is a "place of public accommodation."

ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments

This document provides general guidance to assist State and local governments in understanding and complying with the ADA’s requirements.

www.ada.gov

 

[arwat23]

Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35

That's for public (government) entities, not private entities. 36.403 is for private entities. Same exception, just wanted to be a nuisance about it .

While there's safe harbor in ADA legislation, it's almost impossible to use for private entities during alterations because local codes are almost always more strict that what federal law requires, at least in my experience. In CT's case, IEBC 306.7 requires the accessible route to the primary function to comply with IBC and ICC A117.1, not ADAS

Some states, like CA (and I assume others - maybe it's in IBC or A117.1 too?) allow safe harbor for items that are compliant with the immediately proceeding edition of the building code. That's usually the best I've seen.

 

[Sifu]

I TOLD you I'm not that familiar, so I was right about that part! Appreciate the clarification. I do realize it wouldn't hold water against the adopted codes, but I am never sure what the adopted codes are.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

Then why did you write in the original post that the upper stories were mixed use?

Sorry. The building is mixed use, commercial on 1st floor and basement, and apartments on 2nd and 3rd floors

 

[Yikes]

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?

You said minimum required size is 36x54”.
What is the actual size of the cab and the entry door on your existing elevator?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Does the existing elevator meet the requirements of a LULA (Limited Use Limited Application) elevator? The Connecticut State Building Inspector also has a form to request approval of a LULA. You might get the existing elevator approved -- if it at least meets the requirements for a LULA.

A117.1 Section 408.

 

[VLADIMIR LEVIN]

Does the existing elevator meet the requirements of a LULA (Limited Use Limited Application) elevator? The Connecticut State Building Inspector also has a form to request approval of a LULA. You might get the existing elevator approved -- if it at least meets the requirements for a LULA.

A117.1 Section 408.

I think it might. Thanks for all the input!