Accessibility in Existing Buildings

[DTBarch]

Project: Warehouse Tenant Improvement

Location: Phoenix AZ

Applicable Code: 2012 IBC

Property Description: Existing 33,000sf warehouse space containing 4,000sf office has been vacant for 3 years.

Last Permitted Occupancy: Previous tenant was permitted under occupancy class B/S-1/F-1

New tenant prospect would like to lease the space as-is, with the only permitted alteration being the installation of a paint booth (electrical, mechanical, maybe structural at roof penetration). Same occupancy mix as prior tenant, so no change in occupancy.

Existing office has NO ramp at the entrance, just concrete stairs. Office toilet rooms are mostly non-accessible. There are two mostly accessible toilet rooms in the warehouse, away from the office, which were built in a 2007 permitted T.I.

The cost of the electrical and mechanical hookups for the paint booth is $40,000.

If we apply IBC 3411.7.1, 20% of the cost of alteration is $8k.

Typically, when applying the 20% rule, we start at the exterior and work in. In this case, we know from multiple recent project history, the cost of installing a ramp will be between $20k-$30k . In this case, since providing basic accessibility to the entrance exceeds the 20% threshold, would we then simply skip to the interior and apply improvements up to $8k in the toilet rooms, EDF, etc. Since the AHJ doesn't enforce federal, and the A117.1 Chapter 2 gives all authority of scoping on alterations to the AHJ, which leads us directly back to IBC Chapter 34, are there any other provisions in the code that would force installation of the ramp.

Neither the tenant nor landlord want to be exposed to a $20k-$30k change after the lease is signed, so we're flushing out any exposure up front.

Clearly, there is always inherent exposure to the owner/tenant from the federal side with public and employees, but we're specifically considering immediate exposure related to the building permit.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

 

[cda]

Is a piece of equipment considered a change that would kick in ADA?

A paint booth is a piece of equipment, like a desk.

 

[north star]

@ = @ = @



DTBarch,

The 2010 ADA Standards would still need to be satisfied, in addition to

the `12 IBC.

From the `10 ADA Standards:

28 CFR, Section 35.151 New construction and Alterations:

(iv) Duty to provide accessible features in the event of disproportionality

(A) When the cost of alterations necessary to make the path of travel to

the altered area fully accessible is disproportionate to the cost of the

overall alteration, the path of travel shall be made accessible to the

extent that it can be made accessible without incurring disproportionate

costs.

(B) In choosing which accessible elements to provide, priority should

be given to those elements that will provide the greatest access, in the

following order:

(1) An accessible entrance;

(2) An accessible route to the altered area;

(3) At least one accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom;

(4) Accessible telephones;

(5) Accessible drinking fountains; and

(6) When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage,

and alarms.

See this link: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm



@ = @ = @

 

[pyrguy]

Arizona law in ARS 41-1492 replaces other accessibility requirements with the 2010 ADADG. It would seem that the IBC and ANSI Standard do not apply.

 

[mtlogcabin]

You can only require $8,000.00 dollars worth of improvements.

I suggest they do a barrier removal plan for the entire structure and assign a priority ranking for each item. Then make the improvements in accordance with the plan. You might spend the majority upgrading the office restrooms @ $7,500 and use the remaining $55 on door hardware for example.

 

[ADAguy]

They should have done barrier removal along time ago.

First priority is access to the building, that is the owner's responsibility.

He who waits suffers his fate.

 

[mtlogcabin]

They should have done barrier removal along time ago.

Coulda, shouda & woulda the point is there isn't one. Might be the original owner or a new owner we don't know. ADA was updated a few years ago and every building needs a new barrier removal plan to insure compliance with the current regs.

I agree access into the building should be a priority but sometimes it is not practical nor warranted depending on the use of the building.

 

[DTBarch]

Arizona law in ARS 41-1492 replaces other accessibility requirements with the 2010 ADADG. It would seem that the IBC and ANSI Standard do not apply.

pyrguy, ARS 41-1492 appears to be limited to the specific alterations in commercial buildings - Section 41-1492.03 states, "These standards and specifications apply to new construction and alterations and are not required in buildings or portions of existing buildings that do not meet the standards and specifications."