Jim B
Silver Member
Here is a hypothetical situation:
Alterations are occurring to an existing A2 restaurant. The space has an existing raised dining area.
The design professional has applied upgrades to say 10% above the budget for accessibility, with the upgrades full accessibility compliance is met, except for an accessible route to the raised dining area.
If design was under the IEBC 2009, Section 605.1.5 would not require the accessible route to the raised dining.
If design was under the IBC 2009, Chapter 34, there is no provision that would exempt the accessible route and addition money should then be devoted until the 20% threshold was met.
I guess I cannot fathom why the IBC and the IEBC would have differing requirements on this accessible route. Any thoughts?
Alterations are occurring to an existing A2 restaurant. The space has an existing raised dining area.
The design professional has applied upgrades to say 10% above the budget for accessibility, with the upgrades full accessibility compliance is met, except for an accessible route to the raised dining area.
If design was under the IEBC 2009, Section 605.1.5 would not require the accessible route to the raised dining.
If design was under the IBC 2009, Chapter 34, there is no provision that would exempt the accessible route and addition money should then be devoted until the 20% threshold was met.
I guess I cannot fathom why the IBC and the IEBC would have differing requirements on this accessible route. Any thoughts?