Do we need an elevator in our building?

[mlarsen2000]

Dear Building Code Experts,

I am a humble building owner that bought an old church back in 2020, and brought the existing building up to code at that time with Sprinklers, Fire Alarms, etc. and turned it into a two level childcare for our community as there was not enough childcare available in our town.

In the old church sanctuary we are looking to expand and add a second floor , and connect to an existing hallway on the second floor. This church was built in 1992

Here is some information that may or may not be relevant
-There are only two stories to this building
-Extending the 2nd story into the old church sanctuary will bring the total square footage to around 5000 square feet on the second floor
-The 1st floor has complete accessibility for someone in a wheelchair
-We are a private business, with our doors locked to the public except for pickup/transport, where parents have to enter a key code to enter the building for pickup
-There are currently 2 staircases going down to the 1st level from the existing 2nd floor at opposite ends, and we will another staircase in the new addition as well, with a hallway connecting everything together up there.

We called the ADA national number (the department of justice), and they told us we were exempt from an elevator since we have under 3 stories (I guess we are exempt if either less than 3000 square feet OR less than 3 levels), from their viewpoint.

So the question we have is are we exempt from a building code perspective. I would love to know viewpoints for and against, and really appreciate anyone taking the time to write their options.

Thank you for your time,

Matt

 

[classicT]

Check out Section 1104.4 via https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2012P1/chapter-11-accessibility. Appears that you meet exception #1 (in red below).

Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC)​

1104.4 Multilevel Buildings and Facilities​

At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.
Exceptions:

1. Elevators are not required in facilities that are less than three (3) stories or that have less than three thousand (3,000) square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or a professional office of a health care provider. The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in Section 1104. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section, except for elevator service. If toilet or bathing facilities are provided on a level not served by an elevator, then toilet or bathing facilities must be provided on the accessible ground floor. In new construction, if a building or facility is eligible for this exemption but a full passenger elevator is nonetheless planned, that elevator shall meet the requirements of the Indiana Elevator Safety Code (675 IAC 21) and shall serve each level in the building. A full passenger elevator that provides service from a garage to only one (1) level of a building or facility is not required to serve other levels.
2. Levels that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.
3. In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab.
4. Where a two-story building or facility has one story with an occupant load of five or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.
5. Vertical access to elevated employee work stations within a courtroom is not required at the time of initial construction, provided a ramp, lift or elevator can be installed without requiring reconfiguration or extension of the courtroom or extension of the electrical system.

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you for finding that. What if we need to use the 2018 version?

Check out Section 1104.4 via https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2012P1/chapter-11-accessibility. Appears that you meet exception #1 (in red below).

Indiana Building Code (2012 IBC)​

1104.4 Multilevel Buildings and Facilities​

At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.
Exceptions:

1. Elevators are not required in facilities that are less than three (3) stories or that have less than three thousand (3,000) square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or a professional office of a health care provider. The elevator exemption set forth in this paragraph does not obviate or limit in any way the obligation to comply with the other accessibility requirements established in Section 1104. For example, floors above or below the accessible ground floor must meet the requirements of this section, except for elevator service. If toilet or bathing facilities are provided on a level not served by an elevator, then toilet or bathing facilities must be provided on the accessible ground floor. In new construction, if a building or facility is eligible for this exemption but a full passenger elevator is nonetheless planned, that elevator shall meet the requirements of the Indiana Elevator Safety Code (675 IAC 21) and shall serve each level in the building. A full passenger elevator that provides service from a garage to only one (1) level of a building or facility is not required to serve other levels.
2. Levels that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.
3. In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab.
4. Where a two-story building or facility has one story with an occupant load of five or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.
5. Vertical access to elevated employee work stations within a courtroom is not required at the time of initial construction, provided a ramp, lift or elevator can be installed without requiring reconfiguration or extension of the courtroom or extension of the electrical system.

Thank you for your help classicT. We need to use the 2018 IBC per City Ordinances unfortunately. Also, I forgot to mention the cost of this expansion project is 350K. Is there some sort of rule that if the elevator costs more than 20% of the project cost we possibly wouldn't have to put one in somewhere? Please ignore my layman's terms with all of this.

Thank you very much on helping educating me.

Matt

 

[classicT]

Which 2018 version? Is this in Indiana? I posted what Indiana is currently using, which is an amended version of the 2012. I do not see an Indiana 2018, so I would be unsure of the applicable amendments.

 

[mlarsen2000]

I am in the State of Iowa. Our local city ordinance says building codes are based off of 2018 IBC unfortunately.

 

[classicT]

I am in the State of Iowa. Our local city ordinance says building codes are based off of 2018 IBC unfortunately.

Whoops, I messed up. I had though IA was Indiana, not Iowa. Should have looked that up first.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If you are adding a floor in the old sanctuary to create usable/occupiable floor space where there wasn't any previously, it will be classified as an addition, not an alteration. The 2018 IEBC says this about accessibility for additions:

305.5 Additions. Provisions for new construction shall apply
to additions. An addition that affects the accessibility to, or
contains an area of, a primary function shall comply with the
requirements in Section 305.7.

Section 305.7 is where you find the 20% cost exception:

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.

This means that you need to spend 20% of the overall construction cost on accessibility upgrades. Unless everything about the existing facility is 100% up to snuff, this provision is not a get out of jail free card.

 

[classicT]

Iowa follows something closer to the model code, and the following is what is provided. From what I see, they are on the 2015... so I am not sure about what the 2018 code is specifically, but it is likely the same as the 2015.

In your case, the requirements of the IBC are more stringent than ADA. There is not a carve out for the 3 or fewer stories and an accessible route (an elevetor) would be required for new construction.

That said, as an existing building, you can follow the IEBC. For some reason, as I look at Iowa's IEBC, it appears to be amended such that the accessibility requirements for additions only seem to address Group R. See https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IEBC2015P6/chapter-11-additions#IEBC2015P6_Ch11_Sec1105

Iowa (2015 IBC)​

1104.4 Multistory Buildings and Facilities​

At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine in multilevel buildings and facilities.
Exceptions:

1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and are located above and below accessible levels. This exception shall not apply to:
   
   1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces used for the sales or rental of goods and where at least one such tenant space is located on a floor level above or below the accessible levels;
   2. Stories or mezzanines containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I);
   3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B); or
   4. Government buildings.
2. Stories or mezzanines that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.
3. In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab.
4. Where a two-story building or facility has one story or mezzanine with an occupant load of five or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story or mezzanine shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you for finding that. What if we need to use the 2018 version?

Thank you for your help classicT. We need to use the 2018 IBC per City Ordinances unfortunately. Also, I forgot to mention the cost of this expansion project is 350K. Is there some sort of rule that if the elevator costs more than 20% of the project cost we possibly wouldn't have to put one in somewhere? Please ignore my layman's terms with all of this.

Thank you very much on helping educating me.

Matt

If you are adding a floor in the old sanctuary to create usable/occupiable floor space where there wasn't any previously, it will be classified as an addition, not an alteration. The 2018 IEBC says this about accessibility for additions:



Section 305.7 is where you find the 20% cost exception:



This means that you need to spend 20% of the overall construction cost on accessibility upgrades. Unless everything about the existing facility is 100% up to snuff, this provision is not a get out of jail free card.

Thank you for your information on the 20% rule. As a layman business owner, how does that work in practical terms on implementation? Is there a list of accessibility upgrades somewhere that count towards the 20%, who chooses what I would add to our building, etc? Also thanks for letting me know this is an addition and not an alteration!

Is there anyway you can think of that the elevator might not apply, other than the 20% rule? This would never be used as this church is an afterschool program and partial childcare (100 afterschool children and 20 childcare children (with the addition will be around 60 childcare children). I would have to put a lock on the elevator so the children do not use it I think unless an adult had a lock.

Thank you so much for your time!!!!!!!

Matt

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you for your information on the 20% rule. As a layman business owner, how does that work in practical terms on implementation? Is there a list of accessibility upgrades somewhere that count towards the 20%, who chooses what I would add to our building, etc? Also thanks for letting me know this is an addition and not an alteration!

Is there anyway you can think of that the elevator might not apply, other than the 20% rule? This would never be used as this church is an afterschool program and partial childcare (100 afterschool children and 20 childcare children (with the addition will be around 60 childcare children). I would have to put a lock on the elevator so the children do not use it I think unless an adult had a lock.

Thank you so much for your time!!!!!!!

Matt

Also, not that it matters where the code is concerned, but I just wanted to say that other than this being cost prohibitive, it is quite a nuance and safety hazard for the after-school children in the building.

Thank you again for all your comments so far, and in helping educate me on this real world dilemma. This is great information for me!!!! Open to brainstorming solutions if anyone can think of anything to explore! Like I say we are ADA compliant! (but not stringent enough I guess according to 2018 IEBC). Matt

 

[mlarsen2000]

If you are adding a floor in the old sanctuary to create usable/occupiable floor space where there wasn't any previously, it will be classified as an addition, not an alteration. The 2018 IEBC says this about accessibility for additions:



Section 305.7 is where you find the 20% cost exception:



This means that you need to spend 20% of the overall construction cost on accessibility upgrades. Unless everything about the existing facility is 100% up to snuff, this provision is not a get out of jail free card.

The 20% rule would apply to additions? If so also does that mean that if the addition has two bathrooms for each classroom, then that would count towards the 20% possibly? What if I add a third bathroom on the 3rd floor, can those all count? What other types of things would count toward accessibility upgrades. Have a great weekend! Matt

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The fundamental requirement of the IEBC is that additions that contain an "area of primary function" must be accessible, along with the making the route TO the primary function area accessible. The definition of the route includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains "serving" the area containing the primary function.

In a day care center, a primary function area would obviously include the day care rooms, along with administrative offices and spaces. Spaces such as storerooms, janitor's closets, etc, would not be primary function areas.

The accessible route starts at the site arrival point or points. If it's a site that isn't served by public transit, then the accessible route starts at the parking lot and any accessible parking spaces and drop-off points. The accessible route then follows the path from the parking and drop off to the accessible entrance, into the building, and through the building to any "primary function areas" that are required to be accessible. Any work you do along that route that is for the purpose of creating or improving accessibility can be counted toward the 20%. Subject to approval of the building official, this may include creating new accessible parking spaces, adding ramps to get people into the building, altering entrance doors if they are not already accessible, and any work done on the interior to improve accessibility.

Years ago, in one of the classes I attended the hierarchy was explained as:

1. Get people with disabilities into the building
2. Make it easier for them to move through the building to the primary function area(s)
3. make the primary function area(s) accessible
4. Make the toilet rooms and drinking fountains accessible

Remember that not all people with disabilities use wheelchairs. If you don't already have it, installing lever action hardware on doors along the accessible route should qualify toward the 20%. Tactile signage, if you don't already have it, should qualify. An audio-visual emergency annunciation system might qualify. If you are adding new toilet rooms on the new second floor, those will probably qualify (subject to agreement by the AHJ). Some might argue that it makes no sense to put in a wheelchair accessible toilet stall on a floor that wheelchairs can't get to, but the grab bars and over-sized stall are useful for people with other kinds of disabilities than just wheelchair users. Between a bad back, bad knees, and some other medical issues, I have found in the past five years or so that the grab bars make life a LOT easier for me, even though I don't use a wheelchair.

 

[walker.t]

The fundamental requirement of the IEBC is that additions that contain an "area of primary function" must be accessible, along with the making the route TO the primary function area accessible. The definition of the route includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains "serving" the area containing the primary function.

Your entire post is an excellent commentary/explanation/summary, thank you.

Remember that not all people with disabilities use wheelchairs.

Thank you for pointing this out, I think that can be kind of easy for people to forget.

What other types of things would count toward accessibility upgrades.

A client asked me for help identifying accessibility upgrades he could make in a four-unit building he rents out, the two things we flagged were the entry door thresholds and stair handrails.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

The 20% rule would apply to additions? If so also does that mean that if the addition has two bathrooms for each classroom, then that would count towards the 20% possibly? What if I add a third bathroom on the 3rd floor, can those all count? What other types of things would count toward accessibility upgrades. Have a great weekend! Matt

any new toilet rooms you add in this 'addition' are required by code to be accessible, and I am not sure they should count towards meeting the 20% threshold for upgrading existing non-accessible conditions in your facility.

 

[walker.t]

I am not sure they should count towards meeting the 20% threshold for upgrading existing non-accessible conditions in your facility.

The 20% includes retrofits to restrooms - you can only retrofit something that is existing, see comment in the “Disproportionality (20%)” section here:

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

I don’t know how they would handle construction of new restrooms in lieu of making changes to an existing restroom, but it sounds like the new restrooms are intended to serve the new addition so that wouldn’t apply.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

any new toilet rooms you add in this 'addition' are required by code to be accessible, and I am not sure they should count towards meeting the 20% threshold for upgrading existing non-accessible conditions in your facility.

The 20% rule doesn't apply just to upgrades to existing portions of the facility. The 20% rule applies to the accessible route to an altered or added "space containing a primary function." And the definition of accessible route includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains serving the accessible area containing a primary function.

The way I view that, if the new second floor space has new toilet rooms that serve it, the new space must have an accessible route to it. Since the cost of providing that accessible route is limited to 20% of the construction cost, and the new toilet rooms are -- by definition -- part of the required accessible route, if the toilet rooms cost 20% or more of the total -- that's all that's required.

IEBC:

306.6 Additions. Provisions for new construction shall
apply to additions. An addition that affects the accessibility
to, or contains an area of, a primary function shall comply
with the requirements in Section 306.7.1

IEBC 306.7.1 is the 20% rule.

 

[mlarsen2000]

The 20% rule doesn't apply just to upgrades to existing portions of the facility. The 20% rule applies to the accessible route to an altered or added "space containing a primary function." And the definition of accessible route includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains serving the accessible area containing a primary function.

The way I view that, if the new second floor space has new toilet rooms that serve it, the new space must have an accessible route to it. Since the cost of providing that accessible route is limited to 20% of the construction cost, and the new toilet rooms are -- by definition -- part of the required accessible route, if the toilet rooms cost 20% or more of the total -- that's all that's required.

IEBC:



IEBC 306.7.1 is the 20% rule.

Thank you Yankee Chronicler, and Classic T, you are on my gift card list so far for all the help!!!!!! PM ME WHERE I CAN MAIL YOUR GIFT CARD FOR ALL YOUR HELP! This business owner might finally be able to sleep soon, I feel I am 1/2 way there now.... Now I just need to implement the 20% rule correctly, with references to back things up.

The building official agrees with you on everything so far that you have said, and the 20% rule. He is recommending however that I add an elevator shaft fulfilling the 20% requirement, but not installing the elevator or the controls. I feel that is a huge waste of money and resources, and this money could be better spend on upgrading the existing accessible route in other ways. He is also recommending a LULA, which I will get a quote for and honestly consider. That is not my first choice however, and I would like to upgrade other paths of accessibility if possible. I need to prove everything with relevant references on how to apply the 20% rule correctly.

Some relevant/maybe not relevant items:.

-The entire cost of the addition is $350K. I will show him our general contractor quote
- I am going to show a quote for a full elevator tomorrow (I am guessing 130K range roughly the elevator company told me today), way above $70K.
-I might get a quote on a LULA to see what the total cost is (not my first choice, and I suspect everything will run above $70K possibly)
-Our parking lot is in terrible shape, with potholes and NO handicap parking or even striping when i bought this old church from the 1990s a few years ago. I would love to figure out a way to show him that I am upgrading the accessibility route by fixing the parking lot (Can the cost go above 70K without an issue and I can replace old blacktop with concrete?)

The specific questions I need help with, along with references for our city official on how to implement things properly:
*1. Can I retrofit an EXISTING childcare room upstairs with an ADA restroom (There is not one there currently).
*2. Can I fix huge existing potholes in the parking lot by replacing the whole driveway (This would cost more than 70K but I need to replace this driveway anyway it is bad!! It will cost $320,000 total for the entire parking lot replacement in concrete, although the huge potholes are maybe covering around 1/5 of the parking lot. Currently it is 35 year old blacktop and I was going to have new concrete poured. Can I just get a quote for replacing the entire 1/5th since it is such bad shape. Any references supporting such a thing for huge potholes and replacing a parking lot?
* 3. Adding handicap parking spots, along with striping in the parking lot.
*4. References supporting that I can count the two ADA restrooms planned in the new addition, as part of the 20% costs.
5. Maybe new ADA stalls in existing downstairs bathrooms. The old ones are in rough shape.
6. Maybe replace some handrails on two sets of existing stairs. The old ones are in rough shape....

*Asterick equals my personal preferred choices, although I know there is an order i need to go in and I may not have a say. What doesn't make sense is installing a partial elevator, that doesn't help anyone out....

I guess I need a process for how to implement the 20% rule correctly, with guidance!!!!

That is really about it. Thank you again for helping out a layman business owner. You guys are truly a difference maker!!!!!

Sincerely,

Matt

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you Yankee Chronicler, and Classic T, you are on my gift card list so far for all the help!!!!!! PM ME WHERE I CAN MAIL YOUR GIFT CARD FOR ALL YOUR HELP! This business owner might finally be able to sleep soon, I feel I am 1/2 way there now.... Now I just need to implement the 20% rule correctly, with references to back things up.

The building official agrees with you on everything so far that you have said, and the 20% rule. He is recommending however that I add an elevator shaft fulfilling the 20% requirement, but not installing the elevator or the controls. I feel that is a huge waste of money and resources, and this money could be better spend on upgrading the existing accessible route in other ways. He is also recommending a LULA, which I will get a quote for and honestly consider. That is not my first choice however, and I would like to upgrade other paths of accessibility if possible. I need to prove everything with relevant references on how to apply the 20% rule correctly.

Some relevant/maybe not relevant items:.

-The entire cost of the addition is $350K. I will show him our general contractor quote
- I am going to show a quote for a full elevator tomorrow (I am guessing 130K range roughly the elevator company told me today), way above $70K.
-I might get a quote on a LULA to see what the total cost is (not my first choice, and I suspect everything will run above $70K possibly)
-Our parking lot is in terrible shape, with potholes and NO handicap parking or even striping when i bought this old church from the 1990s a few years ago. I would love to figure out a way to show him that I am upgrading the accessibility route by fixing the parking lot (Can the cost go above 70K without an issue and I can replace old blacktop with concrete?)

The specific questions I need help with, along with references for our city official on how to implement things properly:
*1. Can I retrofit an EXISTING childcare room upstairs with an ADA restroom (There is not one there currently).
*2. Can I fix huge existing potholes in the parking lot by replacing the whole driveway (This would cost more than 70K but I need to replace this driveway anyway it is bad!! It will cost $320,000 total for the entire parking lot replacement in concrete, although the huge potholes are maybe covering around 1/5 of the parking lot. Currently it is 35 year old blacktop and I was going to have new concrete poured. Can I just get a quote for replacing the entire 1/5th since it is such bad shape. Any references supporting such a thing for huge potholes and replacing a parking lot?
* 3. Adding handicap parking spots, along with striping in the parking lot.
*4. References supporting that I can count the two ADA restrooms planned in the new addition, as part of the 20% costs.
5. Maybe new ADA stalls in existing downstairs bathrooms. The old ones are in rough shape.
6. Maybe replace some handrails on two sets of existing stairs. The old ones are in rough shape....

*Asterick equals my personal preferred choices, although I know there is an order i need to go in and I may not have a say. What doesn't make sense is installing a partial elevator, that doesn't help anyone out....

I guess I need a process for how to implement the 20% rule correctly, with guidance!!!!

That is really about it. Thank you again for helping out a layman business owner. You guys are truly a difference maker!!!!!

Sincerely,

Matt

PS -Walker you are on the gift list also!!!!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The building official agrees with you on everything so far that you have said, and the 20% rule. He is recommending however that I add an elevator shaft fulfilling the 20% requirement, but not installing the elevator or the controls. I feel that is a huge waste of money and resources, and this money could be better spend on upgrading the existing accessible route in other ways. He is also recommending a LULA, which I will get a quote for and honestly consider. That is not my first choice however, and I would like to upgrade other paths of accessibility if possible. I need to prove everything with relevant references on how to apply the 20% rule correctly.

I can't advise you on a LULA. My state amended the elevator portion of Chapter 11 to disallow LULA's except in locations where platform lifts are allowed, and then only after obtaining a waiver from the State. My feeling is that a LULA is largely a waste of money, because it needs all the same machinery as a standard elevator -- all you're saving is the cost of a slightly smaller hoistway shaft and car.

To claim the 20% exemption, you will need to provide a fairly accurate cost breakdown of the total project cost, and the cost of accessibility improvements. The 20% rule is in the code, so yo are entitled to use it. However, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card ... the building official may (and should) require that you provide an accurate cost breakdown, and he should review it to ensure that it's reasonable.

Some relevant/maybe not relevant items:.

-The entire cost of the addition is $350K. I will show him our general contractor quote
- I am going to show a quote for a full elevator tomorrow (I am guessing 130K range roughly the elevator company told me today), way above $70K.
-I might get a quote on a LULA to see what the total cost is (not my first choice, and I suspect everything will run above $70K possibly)
-Our parking lot is in terrible shape, with potholes and NO handicap parking or even striping when i bought this old church from the 1990s a few years ago. I would love to figure out a way to show him that I am upgrading the accessibility route by fixing the parking lot (Can the cost go above 70K without an issue and I can replace old blacktop with concrete?)

You can't deduct the cost of resurfacing the entire parking lot. You can only count costs that directly relate to the accessible primary function area(s) and the accessible route to the accessible primary function areas. You CAN count the cost of striping accessible parking spaces and erecting the associated signage. You CAN count the cost of making any curb cuts needed to get from the accessible parking to the accessible entrance. If you need a ramp to get from the accessible parking to the accessible entrance, you CAN count the cost of the ramp.

The specific questions I need help with, along with references for our city official on how to implement things properly:
*1. Can I retrofit an EXISTING childcare room upstairs with an ADA restroom (There is not one there currently).

That's up to your building official. I think we would probably allow that to count.

*2. Can I fix huge existing potholes in the parking lot by replacing the whole driveway (This would cost more than 70K but I need to replace this driveway anyway it is bad!! It will cost $320,000 total for the entire parking lot replacement in concrete, although the huge potholes are maybe covering around 1/5 of the parking lot. Currently it is 35 year old blacktop and I was going to have new concrete poured. Can I just get a quote for replacing the entire 1/5th since it is such bad shape. Any references supporting such a thing for huge potholes and replacing a parking lot?

You can only count work that directly improves accessibility.

* 3. Adding handicap parking spots, along with striping in the parking lot.

Yes, that counts.

*4. References supporting that I can count the two ADA restrooms planned in the new addition, as part of the 20% costs.

That would be covered by the section that spells out the 20% rule. The new rest rooms will serve the new floor space, so they are included by definition. And you should be able to count the ENTIRE cost of the two rest rooms -- plumbing fixtures, walls, finishes, lighting, HVAC, and exhaust fans.

5. Maybe new ADA stalls in existing downstairs bathrooms. The old ones are in rough shape.

Nope. If the existing toilet rooms are already accessible, you don't get to take credit for them again.

6. Maybe replace some handrails on two sets of existing stairs. The old ones are in rough shape....

If the existing handrails don't comply with the current requirements for handrails, the building official may allow new handrails to count. If they are compliant and you're replacing them just because they're shabby -- again, you can't claim maintenance as an accessibility upgrade.

 

[mlarsen2000]

I can't advise you on a LULA. My state amended the elevator portion of Chapter 11 to disallow LULA's except in locations where platform lifts are allowed, and then only after obtaining a waiver from the State. My feeling is that a LULA is largely a waste of money, because it needs all the same machinery as a standard elevator -- all you're saving is the cost of a slightly smaller hoistway shaft and car.

To claim the 20% exemption, you will need to provide a fairly accurate cost breakdown of the total project cost, and the cost of accessibility improvements. The 20% rule is in the code, so yo are entitled to use it. However, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card ... the building official may (and should) require that you provide an accurate cost breakdown, and he should review it to ensure that it's reasonable.



You can't deduct the cost of resurfacing the entire parking lot. You can only count costs that directly relate to the accessible primary function area(s) and the accessible route to the accessible primary function areas. You CAN count the cost of striping accessible parking spaces and erecting the associated signage. You CAN count the cost of making any curb cuts needed to get from the accessible parking to the accessible entrance. If you need a ramp to get from the accessible parking to the accessible entrance, you CAN count the cost of the ramp.



That's up to your building official. I think we would probably allow that to count.



You can only count work that directly improves accessibility.



Yes, that counts.



That would be covered by the section that spells out the 20% rule. The new rest rooms will serve the new floor space, so they are included by definition. And you should be able to count the ENTIRE cost of the two rest rooms -- plumbing fixtures, walls, finishes, lighting, HVAC, and exhaust fans.



Nope. If the existing toilet rooms are already accessible, you don't get to take credit for them again.



If the existing handrails don't comply with the current requirements for handrails, the building official may allow new handrails to count. If they are compliant and you're replacing them just because they're shabby -- again, you can't claim maintenance as an accessibility upgrade.

Thank you again. I have submitted the two bathroom in the addition, a new accessible sidewalk, and striping accessible parking spaces and signage, along with adding an additional bathroom in the childcare room upstairs. Also new handrails. I will see what he says.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

The 20% rule doesn't apply just to upgrades to existing portions of the facility. The 20% rule applies to the accessible route to an altered or added "space containing a primary function." And the definition of accessible route includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains serving the accessible area containing a primary function.

The way I view that, if the new second floor space has new toilet rooms that serve it, the new space must have an accessible route to it. Since the cost of providing that accessible route is limited to 20% of the construction cost, and the new toilet rooms are -- by definition -- part of the required accessible route, if the toilet rooms cost 20% or more of the total -- that's all that's required.

IEBC:



IEBC 306.7.1 is the 20% rule.

based in the commentary to 306.6, I am not sure I agree with your take

Commentary: Additions must comply with new construction. An addition, however, is also an alteration to an existing building; therefore, accessible route provisions for existing buildings are applicable (see commentary, Section 306.7). For example, a new dining area is added in a restaurant. All accessible elements within the parameter
of the addition must be constructed to be accessible. If the route to or from the addition, or the bathrooms or drinking fountains that serve the addition, are in the existing building, the routes must be evaluated for accessibility. Section 306.7.1 specifies that the accessible route would include the route to these elements, the toilet rooms themselves, the fixtures in the toilet room and the drinking fountains.

As any toilet rooms in the OPs addition are required by code to be accessible, they are not improving the accessible route in the existing facility and should not count towards the 20% rule. The intent of 20% rule to to make existing non accessible elements of the building accessible over time during the course of multiple renovations so you eventually have a 100% fully accessible facility.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Thank you again. I have submitted the two bathroom in the addition, a new accessible sidewalk, and striping accessible parking spaces and signage, along with adding an additional bathroom in the childcare room upstairs. Also new handrails. I will see what he says.

do you have an architect for this project?

 

[mlarsen2000]

do you have an architect for this project?

Yes I do. It is kind of crazy though this smaller city is making me do things that even larger cities around me wouldn't be doing, according to my general contractor and city folks he has talked to. I am trying to just get started with construction, but I can't get a permit until all this stuff is final the new code enforcer is telling me. For example the Sprinkler plans are done by a reputable company that handles all of our downtown skyscrapers in Des Moines. They said they have never seen it where all this has to be pre-approved up front like this. To make it worse I have childcare kids enrolled and starting in August. We have a new code enforcer in town that was different than who we worked with previously, the last 7-8 years. My architect did not have any luck working with the 3rd party reviewer of the plans, and didn't see eye to eye. I either have to resolve it myself, or get an attorney for construction delays and to enforce my rights, it appears.

 

[mlarsen2000]

Yes I do. It is kind of crazy though this smaller city is making me do things that even larger cities around me wouldn't be doing, according to my general contractor and city folks he has talked to. I am trying to just get started with construction, but I can't get a permit until all this stuff is final the new code enforcer is telling me. For example the Sprinkler plans are done by a reputable company that handles all of our downtown skyscrapers in Des Moines. They said they have never seen it where all this has to be pre-approved up front like this. To make it worse I have childcare kids enrolled and starting in August. We have a new code enforcer in town that was different than who we worked with previously, the last 7-8 years. My architect did not have any luck working with the 3rd party reviewer of the plans, and didn't see eye to eye. I either have to resolve it myself, or get an attorney for construction delays and to enforce my rights, it appears.

Also I am not opposed to hiring an attorney, but I am just trying to get through this and not delay things any more.