My goodness

[Sifu]

Commercial remodel, expanding existing tenant into adjacent space. So alteration to the existing area of primary function.

3 total toilet rooms. 2 existing are not accessible. One of the existing is for a private office/single user. It gets a pass on a few things, but not clear space at the toilet, door maneuvering space or lav. clear space. It meets none of those requirements. The other, public toilet room isn't even close to the required clearance at the water closet. The third toilet room is being added. (assume it is compliant, because it will be when I am done).

IEBC allows the single accessible toilet room to be added if the others are found to be technically infeasible. Assume the other two are technically infeasible to alter to make accessible (they are not, but that is the CBO call), then would adding the single accessible toilet room count towards the 20% required by 2018 IEBC 305.7, potentially allowing them to go un-altered?

Their attempt at the required accessibility is to claim the additional upgrades are to add accessible grab bars and accessories to the other public toilet. So if they can demonstrate 20% on the new toilet plus the grab bars in the other toilet I think it flies but interested in opinions.

 

[ICE]

Is the 20% expenditure supposed to be allocated towards making the existing environment that lacks in accessibility more accessible? If that is true, the additional restroom would be included the scope of work upon which the 20% expenditure is based. The effort to improve accessibility starts at the driveway to the parking lot and leads all the way to said restroom. The premise is that if it is difficult to enter the establishment.... well that's a negative restroom experience to avoid.

 

[SCBO1]

The effort to improve accessibility starts at the driveway to the parking lot and leads all the way to said restroom.

I can agree with most of that, I would say parking, a pathway and getting into the building is part of the battle and adding grab bars and other ADA requirements might make up your 20% if that hasn't already been done?

 

[Sifu]

Well....they were already given a free pass by the AHJ for the accessible route to get in to the building. So they gotta make it up elsewhere. Instead of trying the technical infeasible route, they just provide a narrative that the the AHJ has given them the pass on the accessible route, and that the are adding an accessible toilet room and some grab bars. No mention of technical infeasibility, or IEBC 305.7. They artfully label the non-accessible room as "employee", I guess to deflect. IMO the existing toilets are not technically infeasible to alter, so they can make that case to the AHJ too I guess. Pretty sure the AHJ doesn't know they were thrown under the bus on this.

 

[Sifu]

Oops. My mistake. They aren't adding a restroom, they just claim there is one fully accessible already provided. But it's not. So they don't get that cost after all.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If the existing, accessible toilet room isn't accessible -- it has to be made accessible. They can then claim the costs associated with making it 100% accessible as part of their 20%.

 

[steveray]

Commercial remodel, expanding existing tenant into adjacent space. So alteration to the existing area of primary function.

3 total toilet rooms. 2 existing are not accessible. One of the existing is for a private office/single user. It gets a pass on a few things, but not clear space at the toilet, door maneuvering space or lav. clear space. It meets none of those requirements. The other, public toilet room isn't even close to the required clearance at the water closet. The third toilet room is being added. (assume it is compliant, because it will be when I am done).

IEBC allows the single accessible toilet room to be added if the others are found to be technically infeasible. Assume the other two are technically infeasible to alter to make accessible (they are not, but that is the CBO call), then would adding the single accessible toilet room count towards the 20% required by 2018 IEBC 305.7, potentially allowing them to go un-altered?

Their attempt at the required accessibility is to claim the additional upgrades are to add accessible grab bars and accessories to the other public toilet. So if they can demonstrate 20% on the new toilet plus the grab bars in the other toilet I think it flies but interested in opinions.

I will allow pretty much any accessible improvement count towards the 20%..

 

[Sifu]

I will allow pretty much any accessible improvement count towards the 20%..

Me too. I just thought initially they were creating a new toilet room entirely because there little narrative indicated they were providing an accessible family/assisted use toilet and signage at the others. They are improving the access, just not completely accessible, so they can have those costs. They will still end up with 3 inaccessible toilet rooms as proposed, one of the other 2 they just want to add grab bars, and the 3rd they propose nothing citing it as "exempt". So many people incorrectly think private office toilet rooms are exempt from all requirements, but any way they want to get to the 20% is fine by me. I will ask for the breakdown. They will have a cow.

 

[steveray]

Me too. I just thought initially they were creating a new toilet room entirely because there little narrative indicated they were providing an accessible family/assisted use toilet and signage at the others. They are improving the access, just not completely accessible, so they can have those costs. They will still end up with 3 inaccessible toilet rooms as proposed, one of the other 2 they just want to add grab bars, and the 3rd they propose nothing citing it as "exempt". So many people incorrectly think private office toilet rooms are exempt from all requirements, but any way they want to get to the 20% is fine by me. I will ask for the breakdown. They will have a cow.

Yep….the private office thing gets way overlooked…

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Me too. I just thought initially they were creating a new toilet room entirely because there little narrative indicated they were providing an accessible family/assisted use toilet and signage at the others. They are improving the access, just not completely accessible, so they can have those costs. They will still end up with 3 inaccessible toilet rooms as proposed, one of the other 2 they just want to add grab bars, and the 3rd they propose nothing citing it as "exempt". So many people incorrectly think private office toilet rooms are exempt from all requirements, but any way they want to get to the 20% is fine by me. I will ask for the breakdown. They will have a cow.

Milk fresh from the farm is good ...