• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Elevator in a 3 story 1969 built property (Houston Texas). Aprox 300 units

Yes, this is a very common design: 3-story walk ups.
My point was … even nice modern apartments have no problem getting near-full occupancy without an elevator. Not to say older buildings couldn’t have one as an amenity, but to say one is needed in order to get tenants is not correct.
 
The elevator was not originally code required yet provided. I think your going to have a difficult time removing the elevator access thereby reducing accessibility.
 
The elevator was not originally code required yet provided. I think your going to have a difficult time removing the elevator access thereby reducing accessibility.
Yeah that was my experience with other situations, and my immediate response. It's been pointed out to me several times here that I live in CA, I guess things are a little different here, for what that's worth...
 
Yeah that was my experience with other situations, and my immediate response. It's been pointed out to me several times here that I live in CA, I guess things are a little different here, for what that's worth...
Had to look up where Myrtletown was, as soon as saw Humboldt County, first thought was it's most infamous agricultural product, "weed". :)
 
Texas has its own accessibility standard enforced locally, I would start with the local building department and see if it is allowed to be removed.

IF they don't object, you next call might be the tech line at the US Access Board to see how they view it.

I guess my mind thought is on a property that large did you not have a 3rd party inspection done by a professional to verify if any compliance issues or problems may be hidden?

You might want to think about looking at BOMA.org, they have a lot to offer someone in your profession.

Except for a delay in parts availability for elevators, not sure why fixing it would be an issue, unless a total replacement is necessary because of its age and non-prior upkeep has put it into disrepair.

As to section 504, if they are claiming ADA, not sure what section 504 has to do with it, as its for Stairways.


Just what comes to mind off the top of my head.
 
Don't count yourself out so quickly Joe.....Facilities that are exempt from ADA are not exempt from code...

705.1.13 Extent of application. An alteration of an existing
element, space, or area of a facility shall not impose a
requirement for greater accessibility than that which
would be required for new construction. Alterations shall
not reduce or have the effect of reducing accessibility of a
facility or portion of a facility.


705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is
technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to
the maximum extent that is technically feasible.
A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible
shall be maintained accessible during occupancy.



You're all probably correct, I live in CA and it's a whole other can of worms here. And yes, pending finding out why it was installed in the first place will probably answer the question.
 
Don't count yourself out so quickly Joe.....Facilities that are exempt from ADA are not exempt from code...

705.1.13 Extent of application. An alteration of an existing
element, space, or area of a facility shall not impose a
requirement for greater accessibility than that which
would be required for new construction. Alterations shall
not reduce or have the effect of reducing accessibility of a
facility or portion of a facility.


705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is
technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to
the maximum extent that is technically feasible.
A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible
shall be maintained accessible during occupancy.
That's really twisting the intent of the code. I'm not sure why you didn't highlight the first sentence of 705.1.13. Current code doesn't require elevators in 3 story R-2. The second sentence applies where you can't bring the existing building up to current code, you have to keep it at least as accessible as it was prior to the work.
 
The question in the OP was trying to gather information, not get a verdict per say,

If the building was doing a complete remodel and update, would not that trigger full compliance and as thus for the AHJ no elevator required.

However, does the Texas State Access code require it to be maintained no different than an extra stairway provided over the required minimum?

Hence if there, must it be maintained is the question.

As thus, could a non-required stair flight be closed off and removed? Then why not an elevator?

And if removed, could it not be turned into a storage closet for the Maintenace of the building on each floor level?

Not familiar with what Texas requires, but any elevator I have seen installed, must be maintained, as to it being allowed to be shut down and removed I haven't a clue, just questioning why not, when not required in the first place?
 
Had to look up where Myrtletown was, as soon as saw Humboldt County, first thought was it's most infamous agricultural product, "weed". :)
There are far more infamous thing this area should be known for. A lot more money has been made from redwoods than weed ever could come close to... And lately the weed industry has tanked here.
 
That's really twisting the intent of the code. I'm not sure why you didn't highlight the first sentence of 705.1.13. Current code doesn't require elevators in 3 story R-2. The second sentence applies where you can't bring the existing building up to current code, you have to keep it at least as accessible as it was prior to the work.
No...not twisting....quoting.....And I was speaking in a grander scale where code "updates" may supersede ADA or whatever. I do agree that if it not required in new than it is not in a remodel....You just may have a struggle on the definition of "classes of units" and dispersed...in a 3 story building....Not sure if there has been any opinions on that....

1107.6.2.2.1 Type A units. In Group R-2 occupancies
containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping
units, at least 2 percent but not less than one of
the units shall be a Type A unit. All Group R-2 units
on a site shall be considered to determine the total
number of units and the required number of Type A
units. Type A units shall be dispersed among the various
classes of units.
 
Perhaps a factor to consider here also is that the Houston amendment replaces the entire content of IBC Chapter 11 with a reference to “the Texas Accessibility Standards and federal law.”
 
While obviously the ADA was not adapted until after this building was built my gut feel says that since it was operational when the ADA was enacted it will have to be maintained.
 
Seems that the ADA aspect has been addressed,
SO isn't the real question, that a project that had 2 elevators as part of the APPROVED DRAWINGS, is then Allowed to ABANDON the EXT"D ELEVATOR without An Official Permit to legalize their Abandonment?

Seems like the AHJ has a role in this decision! The Bldg Official might want to ask the opinion of the Fire Marshall about the Life Safety aspects with such a large number of Occupants as well

IMHO
 
No recent responses from the OP. I have a feeling he wasn't liking the answers he got from his local AHJ so he started fishing for free advice...
 
My understanding of the Fair Housing Act (FHAG) is if your facility was built before the law passed in 1991, your units built in 1969 are not covered by the FHAG at all. None are required to have FHAG adaptive accessibility features.
 
Top