Do we need an elevator in our building?

[Tim Mailloux]

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.

As far as the sprinkler go, let the plan reviewer / AHJ know those will be a differed submittal as allowed under IBC 107.2.1 and 107.3.4.1.

on my code summary drawings I typically list all the deferred submittals the AHJ can expect over the course of a project, and a deferres submital has never held up a permit on one of my projects.

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you Tim. So the things holding up the permit sir are:

-Fire Protection Review of Sprinklers (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Fire Protection Review of Fire Alarm System (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Whether or not I am adding an elevator to the building, or electing the 20% disproportionality rule. If I am electing the 20%, then what is it being spent on upfront to upgrade the path of accessibility.

Can all these 3 items be a differed submittal as allowed under IBC 107.2.1 and 107.3.4.1?

 

[walker.t]

You can't deduct the cost of resurfacing the entire parking lot.

I was wondering about that. Fixing potholes would be maintenance, if maintenance counted towards improving accessibility then building owners would be able to say they are constantly “improving accessibility” by making necessary repairs.

And by the way, your #19 post is a helpful point-by-point response.

parking lot replacement in concrete

It’s your parking lot so you can do what you want, but I’m curious why you’d consider concrete instead of asphalt. I’m assuming you had the potholes because of winter freeze-thaw, I would assume asphalt is easier to repair and you can resurface it and re-stripe it to freshen it up as needed.

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

Thank you, your appreciation is gift enough.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Thank you Tim. So the things holding up the permit sir are:

-Fire Protection Review of Sprinklers (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Fire Protection Review of Fire Alarm System (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Whether or not I am adding an elevator to the building, or electing the 20% disproportionality rule. If I am electing the 20%, then what is it being spent on upfront to upgrade the path of accessibility.

Can all these 3 items be a differed submittal as allowed under IBC 107.2.1 and 107.3.4.1?

FWIW I am not an AHJ, I work on the design side. But IMO the two fire protection related items should be allowed as deferred submittals as this scope is routinely a design build item engineered by the sub-contractor responsible for the work well after initial permits are issued. That being said I don't think any AHJ is going to issue a permit with open accessibility issues on the table.

 

[mlarsen2000]

Thank you Tim. So the things holding up the permit sir are:

-Fire Protection Review of Sprinklers (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Fire Protection Review of Fire Alarm System (new system in my building as of 2020)
-Whether or not I am adding an elevator to the building, or electing the 20% disproportionality rule. If I am electing the 20%, then what is it being spent on upfront to upgrade the path of accessibility.

Can all these 3 items be a differed submittal as allowed under IBC 107.2.1 and 107.3.4.1?

Also, it is the fire Inspector of our city who contracts out the fire protection review, and not the new code enforcement guy.

FWIW I am not an AHJ, I work on the design side. But IMO the two fire protection related items should be allowed as deferred submittals as this scope is routinely a design build item engineered by the sub-contractor responsible for the work well after initial permits are issued. That being said I don't think any AHJ is going to issue a permit with open accessibility issues on the table.

Thank you. Good point on the open accessibility issues.

 

[mlarsen2000]

I was wondering about that. Fixing potholes would be maintenance, if maintenance counted towards improving accessibility then building owners would be able to say they are constantly “improving accessibility” by making necessary repairs.

And by the way, your #19 post is a helpful point-by-point response.


It’s your parking lot so you can do what you want, but I’m curious why you’d consider concrete instead of asphalt. I’m assuming you had the potholes because of winter freeze-thaw, I would assume asphalt is easier to repair and you can resurface it and re-stripe it to freshen it up as needed.


Thank you, your appreciation is gift enough.

My whole parking lot is 30 years old and needs replaced. Not just a few potholes but major issues that cannot be fixed easily.

 

[classicT]

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.

Ditto

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

Your point is well taken, but the code discusses the accessible route to the added or altered space. The new second story infill of the former sanctuary is the new "primary function area," and by definition the toilet rooms serving that primary function area will be the new toilet rooms being created. Therefore, I believe those costs count toward the 20%.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My whole parking lot is 30 years old and needs replaced. Not just a few potholes but major issues that cannot be fixed easily.

I understand, but you can count the cost of repairing or replacing the entire parking lot toward the 20% cost attributable to accessibility upgrades. Yiou can only apply costs that are directly associated with accessibility.

In fact, other than restriping and repaving the accessible parking stalls, you would be better off NOT doing the rest of the parking lot at this time -- to keep that cost out of the project calculation. Get your new second story infill finished, get your certificate of occupancy, and then replace the parking lot next year.

 

[mlarsen2000]

I understand, but you can count the cost of repairing or replacing the entire parking lot toward the 20% cost attributable to accessibility upgrades. Yiou can only apply costs that are directly associated with accessibility.

In fact, other than restriping and repaving the accessible parking stalls, you would be better off NOT doing the rest of the parking lot at this time -- to keep that cost out of the project calculation. Get your new second story infill finished, get your certificate of occupancy, and then replace the parking lot next year.

I wanted to provide an update with everyone's help here to get some closure to this thread. Everything worked! I laid out all the references mentioned above, and I am no longer required to add an elevator to my two story existing building, but will instead use 20% of the project costs associated with accessibility (mentioned in the items eligible above). I had to show the cost of a new elevator, and the total project cost. Next I just have to get quotes on my eligible accessibility items, and keep records showing I spent 20% on accessibility costs.

The AHJ wrote me tonight:

that is a reasonable approach to achieving the 20%, the only words of caution is I would add is to ensure that only the costs associated with the accessible upgrades are included. For example installing a new water heater to serve the bathrooms would not be considered as part of the costs associated with the accessible upgrades. It however is at your discretion since ultimately if there is an accessibility violation claim with the DOJ you will be in the position of defending the justification of the cost analysis.

I wanted to thank everyone for their help! There is literally no way I could have ever got this done without you!!!!!!! I am forever grateful! CASE CLOSED

 

[jar546]

I wanted to thank everyone for their help! There is literally no way I could have ever got this done without you!!!!!!! I am forever grateful! CASE CLOSED

I think we have a future SAWHORSE that understands the value of this forum.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Your point is well taken, but the code discusses the accessible route to the added or altered space. The new second story infill of the former sanctuary is the new "primary function area," and by definition the toilet rooms serving that primary function area will be the new toilet rooms being created. Therefore, I believe those costs count toward the 20%.

the code commentary is clearly talking about the accessible route thru the existing portion of the building where 306.7.1 is concerned. Again, the intent of 306.7.1 is to upgrade existing non accessible portions of the building over time to eventually end up with a completely accessible building. It seems disingenuous to apply to the costs of new elements with in the addition that are already required by code to be accessible towards the 20% rule, especially when there are known non accessible elements within the existing accessible route.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

What are the ADA requirements for altering facilities? | ADA National Network

All alterations that could affect the usability of a facility must be made in an accessible manner to the maximum extent feasible. For example, if during renovations a doorway is being relocated, the new doorway must be wide enough to meet the new construction standard for accessibility. When...

adata.org

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

the code commentary is clearly talking about the accessible route thru the existing portion of the building where 306.7.1 is concerned. Again, the intent of 306.7.1 is to upgrade existing non accessible portions of the building over time to eventually end up with a completely accessible building. It seems disingenuous to apply to the costs of new elements with in the addition that are already required by code to be accessible towards the 20% rule, especially when there are known non accessible elements within the existing accessible route.

But you can't ignore the definitions. The definition of the accessible route to an area containing a primary function includes the toilet rooms and drinking fountains serving the area containing the primary function. The area in question is the new infill on the second floor. While there should be (subject to spending 20%) an accessible route to the new area on the second floor, by definition any existing toilet rooms on the first floor are not included because they don't serve the new area on the second floor.

It may be argued that the new toilet rooms shouldn't be counted because they need to be accessible anyway, but I would argue that making them accessible works toward the ultimate goal of making the entire building accessible, so they should be counted.

It's a question of perspective.

The AHJ has been satisfied and the OP can move forward, so this has been an interesting discussion.