drawing the line

[jim baird]

Maybe this is the wrong thread.

Architect on project for the little town I work for designed a restoration for an old building. Showed two exits, but did not show any landings.

(I did not participate in development, review, or approval of hte plans)

Now close to the end, there are problems attaining accessible route to exit/entries.

Architect says those problems are the town's, as they entail "site work", not included in his design.

Have you ever heard of an exit design that did not include as a component even a landing?

 

[Mule]

In our state the architect is required to submit all plans in excess of $50,000 valuation to the state for review. Even if the valuation for a project is under $50,000 the structure is still required to meet all requirements for accessibility. The state will bust a cap in their hiney if they don't comply.....the architect is the resposible party!

Architect says those problems are the town's, as they entail "site work", not included in his design.

Ummmm isn't that still on private property???

Who verifies compliance in your state?

 

[steveray]

Sounds like IEBC....what is actually needed? I know not full compliance (depending on level of alteration)...is it an (open to the) public building? Sometimes the site engineer will do sidewalks and such, was anything shown on the site plan? We try to get involved at the planning stages for site accessibility and lot line issues, to try and clarify some of these issues and get everyone on the same page...

 

[jim baird]

Thanks for replies.

As often is in small-town politics this project was done "under the radar", as for an interim there was no inspector at all. Now there is just me, as an hourly "contract" inspector.

A former clerk who "ran everything" shepherded the project through (bldg is City property). By the time I got here the deal was done, former clerk retired soon as the paperwork was done. Road has been bumpy, and curiously all funded via a state grant. Contractor mishandled some minority set-aside paperwork to boot. What a mess.

Original question: Have you ever seen a design for existing building that showed an exit, but no landing?

 

[brudgers]

Architect says those problems are the town's, as they entail "site work", not included in his design.

Sounds like a contractual issue. Based on past experience, it would not surprise me if the "little town" limited the contract scope in order to save money...or it's just their standard contract.

 

[MarkRandall]

My thinking is along the lines of brudgers. Most likely, the architect had a limited scope of services for alterations inside the building. Anything outside the building may be the responsiblility of the civil engineer which it sounds like (there was none). The architect should have had the awareness that there was an issue and should have brought the topic up before construction, but that doesn't mean he was contractually obligated for the site improvements.

 

[TimNY]

possibly.. I suppose it depends on the contract language.. but did the language also say "shall comply with the building code"? I mean, if he's ignoring parts of chapter 10...

if the arch needed an exit off the second floor to meet egress requirements, would he just punch a hole in the side of the building and ask the civil engineer to design the stairs?

I won't pass judgment since it's all in the language.. but seems unreasonable to me.

 

[MarkRandall]

If the contract says what I think it probably says, he may not be designing something against the code, it may have just been someone else's responsibility. I don't really like standing up for him (the architect) as I (as an architect) would never have let a condition get this far without making sure someone was handling the issue. I've done several projects where my design responsibility ended at the door openings when the owner had other consultants on board for the site, but it didn't mean I didn't coordinate with the other parties to make sure everything is covered. Can't really compare this to your 2nd floor example as the stairs would more likely fall into the scope of the structure and not the site, but a concrete landing and ramp would likely fall into the site improvements.

 

[ewenme]

Chapter 11 of the IBC requires an accessible route. I would disagree that the access is compliant without a landing/ramp or otherwise accessible route. Depending on the renovation work done, the IEBC requires a minimum of accessibility. Like others asked: who did the plan review? Were they negligent? And was the City Clerk qualified to inspect and approve the work? Or did she just watch? ;-)

 

[Mark K]

Would suggest that as an inspector that you differentiate between code issues and contractual issues. Note that the exiting is not fully resolved and that a certificate of occupancy cannot be issued until it is. Let the person responsible for the project determine who resolves the problem.

 

[brudgers]

possibly.. I suppose it depends on the contract language.. but did the language also say "shall comply with the building code"?

I doubt the architect warranted their design in such a way. If they did, they're not insured for it. Architects are insured against errors and omissions and are expected to use a professional standard of care - not achieve perfection.

I would not be surprised if the small town planned to use its own forces for the site work and did not prepare any drawings. If the architect's responsibility was for interior renovations only, then specifying a slab outside is irresponsible...the landscape architect may specify brick pavers etc or the owner may choose permeable concrete etc. In other words a concrete landing is not the only compliant surface.

 

[jim baird]

Thanks for the replies based on such little info.

Architect now says he understood the town was going to pave adjacent lot to provide accessible route. A sort-of site plan exists, but just shows an asphalt parking layout and does not address building at all. I let architect know that need for CO would fall far sooner than any lot paving, and accessible route is now being planned via a sidewalk from existing paving.

Our state uses NFPA101 Life Safety as a prime reference for Occupancy, Exit, and Extinguishment requirements (go figure). LSC is slightly less restrictive than IBC. For instance it allows floor level at an exit to step down outside one riser for an existing building, which allowance negates accessibility.

Accessibility is under state's own code, under Fire Marshal's Office. (Turf is divided into many fiefdoms. Did I mention GA has more counties, at 159, than any state in the Union?) Accessiblity allows an existing building to provide accessible exits in equal number to number required if not every one is accessible. Because the front one of this building is not accessible due to step down at front, two accessible exits are provided on the side of the building.

There was faint hope, I think, by all the parties that this project could dovetail with a CDBG funded sidewalk project that was done just prior, but that did not happen.

 

[TJacobs]

I agree with Mark K. All you can do at this point is document the obvious.

 

[brudgers]

Architect now says he understood the town was going to pave adjacent lot to provide accessible route. A sort-of site plan exists, but just shows an asphalt parking layout and does not address building at all. ...[snip] There was faint hope, I think, by all the parties that this project could dovetail with a CDBG funded sidewalk project that was done just prior, but that did not happen.

City Facilities department: "Site Plan? We don't need no stinking site plan!"

Looks like a scope issue to me. IMO the town should pay the additional services.

 

[peach]

We see MANY (many, many, many, many).. did I say MANY existing buildings that will NEVER comply with today's codes (for a lot of reasons.. right of way issues, landings, existing stairways, head room)... all depends on the jurisdiction what is allowed.. do a good plan review.

 

[jim baird]

"...do a good plan review...."

Exactly what was not asked for nor directed. Person in charge for City played cards very close to chest, did not invite anyone else's input. As soon as job was awarded he retired and was gone and inaccessible. (Small town life)

 

[Gene Boecker]

Jim, I still have a couple of questions.

In general there is no requirement for an accessible means of egress to be created in existing buildings. Getting out isn't the issue. However, getting IN is an issue. Access into the building is a concern - both from a building code and federal accessibility perspective.

You mentioned a renovation for an "old" building. Is it designated as historic? If it is designated as historic, then the landing may not be required if it would interfere with the historic character of the building as determined by the historic preservation officer; but, access would need to be provided at another entry into the building. So, regardless, there is a requirement under the building code to provide an accessible entry (either 3411.8.1 of the 2009 IBC or 605.1.1 of the 2009 IEBC), and as barrier removal under Section 36.304 of the ADA law itself.

The question about whose responsibility it is for the outside sidewalk is an important one and it varies depending on where you are in the country. each state and municipality can address this in a different manner. In principle, if the sidewalk outside the building is in the public right of way, it is the municipality's responsibility. that being said, there are often laws in place to shift that responsibility to the building owner. For example, in New York City, the sidewalk must be designed to meet the city's criteria for accessible design but the design, installation and maintenance is up to the owner. The city is clear about whose responsibility it is to accomplish building access - the owner's. In the village I lived in a couple of decades ago, the Village was responsible for maintaining the sidewalks but design and installation was up to the owner. In some of the suburbs where I live now, the city will dictate how the sidewalk is to be designed and must approve that (through zoning) before the sidewalk is installed.

So, the IBC, IEBC and federal ADA require access into the building. Whose responsibility it is to address the design outside the front door is a question that needs to be addressed locally. And, as Mark mentioned, it should have been a contractual item covered in at least one of the contracts for the project. Usually the architect gets hung out to dry for anything that's missed.

 

[Yikes]

I have been in this situation before. I've had a municipality specifically limit my scope of work at the line of the exit door. Usually it was an economics issue: they didn't want to pay for the site work until the following fiscal year, or they wanted the professional fees to be under the cap for a simple purchase order, etc.

When I ask the city rep what the building official will do when he sees this, they might say something like, "don't worry, he's working with us on this one".