What "affects" an area of primary function?

[Sifu]

2018 IEBC 305.7.
A proposed bar is changing to a donut shop. It was a small tavern, classified as a B occupancy, the donut shop will be a B occupancy. For accessibility, I see the change in use from a tavern to a donut shop as an alteration to an area of primary function. I also see any physical changes associated with that change of use as alterations to an area of primary function. Included in this changeover, is a type I hood and commercial kitchen alterations. Do those alterations get included in the cost of the planned alterations when considering the 20% exception, or only the physical changes taking place in the actual public side of the space?

For example, the cost of altering the bar area by removing the bar, seats, flooring etc. and adding a sales counter might be 10k. So by the 20% rule, they need to spend 2k on improvements to the accessible route. The cost of the commercial kitchen might be another 10k. So are the alterations to the kitchen considered a cost affecting the area of primary function as stated in exception #1? If so, they need to spend 4k on the accessible route instead of 2k.

Commentary uses words like "related to the main purpose". By that I would say the donut fryer is related, and therefore the hood is related, the sink, the dough mixer and on and on. If the answer is yes, where does the line get drawn? What "affects" an area of primary function?

 

[mtlogcabin]

The demolition, the kitchen and alterations to the kitchen and any equipment in the kitchen should not be included in the 20% calculation
The 20% is limited to the accessible route to the primary function area. If the primary function area is already accessible then you look if upgrades need to be done in toilet facilities and spend the money there.

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer services lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

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.

 

[Sifu]

I get that you can't spend money on a piece of kitchen equipment and call it an improvement to the accessible route. My question is about the total cost of renovations used to arrive at the 20% amount. So in a case where they add a donut fryer, does that affect the area of primary function? Certainly adding a new accessible sales counter affects the area of primary function, but where the line is drawn is my question. "Affect" is the operative word that is at question.

On the one hand, there is no access to the donut fryer and it will not affect a patron. On the other hand, not having the donut fryer affects the area of primary function because without it there could be no donut to eat in the area of primary function.

The way I see it, if you can't use money spent on the new fryer to count towards the 20%, you wouldn't use the money it cost you to arrive at the 20%. JMHO, but never thought enough about it before so curious about other's opinions.

Now I need a donut.

2018 IEBC:
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.

Commentary:
These costs are intended to be based on the actual
costs of the planned alterations or addition to the primary
function area before consideration of the cost of
providing an accessible route.

 

[steveray]

I think sifu is correct on the way that is written..And we have had discussions the differences in route and primary function area. But it should probably be enforced the other way....But on the other hand.....Call the DOJ and "help" them get to 100% and see how that goes....

 

[walker.t]

My question is about the total cost of renovations used to arrive at the 20% amount.

My understanding is that the “total cost of renovations” is the work you do to convert the existing space to a donut shop: donut fryer, hood, FRP in the food prep area, a new mop sink, new hand sink, walk-in cooler, changes to HVAC and lighting, whatever. If that’s $20,000 then your 20% is $4000 as you said in Post #1.

Here’s a link to a U.S. Access Board technical guide that says “Regulations implementing the standards define 'disproportionate' as exceeding 20% of the total cost of alterations to the primary function area.” So, you ask about the term “affects,” I would say that “alterations to the primary function area” are the things that “affect” the space. See the section titled “Disproportionality (20%)” in link below for my first quote.

U.S. Access Board - Chapter 2: Alterations and Additions

The U.S. Access Board is a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and...

www.access-board.gov

 

[Sifu]

I see your point, however I wonder where that line is drawn. Say they are remodeling an office in the back of house. Does it have an affect on the area of primary function? If customers don't go there, and donuts are not made there, but invoices are paid there, is that an affect on the area of primary function? What about a new sign? If the code intended on it being the total cost of all alterations, should it say that, or have they intentionally qualified it by including alterations "affecting an area of primary function" for a reason? The access board also has the language of "alterations to the primary function area" in their discussion.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I get that you can't spend money on a piece of kitchen equipment and call it an improvement to the accessible route.

That's not what I said

The demolition, the kitchen and alterations to the kitchen and any equipment in the kitchen should not be included in the 20% calculation

The cost of the fixtures in the kitchen should not be used for determining the 20% amount.

Cost of kitchen equipment $20,000.00. Percent sent on accessible route $0.00

Cost of dining room remodel $10,000.00 Percent spent on accessible route $2,000.00

Cost spent on bathrooms to meet accessibility standards $7.500.00 Percent spent on accessible route $0.00

 

[walker.t]

Say they are remodeling an office in the back of house. Does it have an affect on the area of primary function? If customers don't go there, and donuts are not made there, but invoices are paid there, is that an affect on the area of primary function?

I would say that the office is not a primary use, it only supports the function of making donuts. I guess it could be said that the office “affects” the primary use because that’s where the manager orders supplies for making donuts which is vital to the primary function, but if that’s the case then mechanical rooms “affect” the primary use because the space needs to be conditioned.

From U.S. Access Board Technical Guide ADA Scoping: Alterations and Additions, section titled “Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas §303.4]

Additional requirements apply when alterations are made to areas containing a “primary function,” which is a major activity intended for a facility. Examples of primary function areas include dining areas of a restaurant, retail space for a store, exam rooms in a doctor’s office, classrooms in a school, and offices and other work areas where the activities of a covered area are carried out. Spaces not considered primary function areas include entrances, corridors, restrooms, break rooms, employee locker rooms, and mechanical or electrical closets. Restrooms are not primary function areas unless their provision is the primary purpose of a facility, such as a highway rest stop.

This quote points me towards thinking of this like main/accessory uses in the IBC: a Group R-2 restaurant will have a Group B office in the back, but the main (primary) occupancy is Group R-2. The primary function of the donut shop is conducted in the kitchen, not the office, though the office will support (affect) that primary function.

If the code intended on it being the total cost of all alterations, should it say that,

Yes, if that was their intent they should have clearly stated that.

or have they intentionally qualified it by including alterations "affecting an area of primary function" for a reason?

Yes, I think their intention was to not include the total cost of all the work in the building or space being renovated. I think the phrase “affecting an area of primary function” was a poor choice of words, maybe something like “modifications to a space containing a primary function” would have been better.

There are others things that are also not clear, such as noted in a thread started by Yikes regarding the lack of clarity regarding door maneuvering clearances.

 

[steveray]

mechanical rooms “affect” the primary use because the space needs to be conditioned.

Technically, no it doesn't and that is not a deciding factor for primary function...

 

[Sifu]

From the lack of clarity I see, I am still on the "you can't have it both ways" mentality. If you don't get to include the money spent on the donut fryer in the 20%, then you aren't required to use the cost of the donut fryer in the cost of the renovation number that the 20% is based on.

The use of the disproportionality exception has been rare in my experience, and until now I haven't had any controversy about it. In this case the question did come up, but other factors presented solutions everyone could live with. But it has prompted me to examine it a little closer and I will be paying attention to any clarifying information or opinions on the subject.

Seems like in a similar discussion, a member presented a form used by their AHJ for this. Maybe Yankee? Not a bad idea to have something like that.

Any time I see code language that introduces doubt as to whether there has been an intentional inclusion or exclusion of language, I desperately want to believe it was an intentional act. I want to believe the thinkers, writers, editors, and voters employ that kind of critical thinking. As frustrating as it can be when I don't know if that happened, I still believe it does in most cases, and my default is to assume that it was.

 

[walker.t]

Technically, no it doesn't and that is not a deciding factor for primary function...

Building users typically want and expect a certain level of temperature control but you’re correct, they don’t need it. I was just trying to present an additional example where some other non-donut-making-space has some kind of effect on the area of primary function, but that wouldn’t make such an accessory space a primary function space.

What I should have said in my example with the mechanical room is “mechanical rooms ‘affect’ the primary use because they condition the space.”

Any time I see code language that introduces doubt as to whether there has been an intentional inclusion or exclusion of language, I desperately want to believe it was an intentional act.

I don’t know what those entities are doing for quality control review prior to publication, but it seems like a safe assumption to take the language for what it says - whether something was included or excluded that was their intent.

 

[steveray]

What I should have said in my example with the mechanical room is “mechanical rooms ‘affect’ the primary use because they condition the space.”

But the subtle distinction is that the alteration affects the area of primary function, not the areas that affect the primary function area....Storage and mechanical rooms in an office building, not PF areas. Storage rooms in a warehouse...PF areas....Boiler room in a steam plant, PF area (maybe). I'm not getting paid enough to think about how I feel about the donut office...lol...

 

[walker.t]

But the subtle distinction is that the alteration affects the area of primary function, not the areas that affect the primary function area

That’s a good way to put it. And just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to support an interpretation that accessory areas (such as my mechanical room or Sifu’s office) are “alterations affecting primary function areas” for the donut shop, just saying that if the office was such a space then lots of other things could also be seen as “affecting” the primary function space.

 

[mp25]

I have looked into this in the past a number of times. With a donut shop, the primary function is likely limited to the sales area, and the dining room. Work that is occurring in the back of house, I would not include. I would also not include any fire protection work, mechanical work, or electrical work, regardless of their location, as they generally do not affect the usability of the primary function area (the new work, i.e. thermostats, receptacle location, etc. would have to be mounted within reach ranges, etc).

I have called access board about this issue, and the answer I have gotten was not necessarily clear... the answer kept on being "cost affecting the primary function area" but without a clear explanation as to what this would be. Granted its harder to answer this question when discussing it over the phone, than when you have a set of plans in front of you.

When I did a project in Milwaukee some years ago, they had some excellent worksheets that you were encouraged to fill out as part of the permit application, including a disproportionality worksheet that I have found to be helpful on other projects and have shared it with design professionals who have had trouble understanding this concept. The fact that most professionals have a deer in the headlight look when they are told about this requirement is discouraging given how long this requirement has been around.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

As a plan reviewer I accept the figure they give me for the cost of work associated with the primary function(s). I don't think It is my job to figure out if the cost they give me is the true cost.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

When I did a project in Milwaukee some years ago, they had some excellent worksheets that you were encouraged to fill out as part of the permit application, including a disproportionality worksheet that I have found to be helpful on other projects and have shared it with design professionals who have had trouble understanding this concept. The fact that most professionals have a deer in the headlight look when they are told about this requirement is discouraging given how long this requirement has been around.

Emphasized for ... emphasis. This requirement was in section 3409.6 of the 2003 IBC, and I'm fairly certain it was in BOCA before the advent of the ICC model codes. In other words, it has been a requirement for about as long as most architects currently practicing have been licensed, yet whenever we mention it they act like it's something we just made up. It's disturbing and depressing to have to repeat the same thing for project after project.

 

[walker.t]

When I did a project in Milwaukee some years ago, they had some excellent worksheets that you were encouraged to fill out as part of the permit application, including a disproportionality worksheet

The past “encouragement” now appears to be a requirement, the Accessibility Analysis Disproportionality Worksheet is the last one on this page:

https://city.milwaukee.gov/DNS/permits/IBC

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Just for grins and giggles, I downloaded a copy of the 2000 IBC (which my state never adopted). The 20% rule is in the 2000 IBC, under 3408.6.