• 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

IBC or IRC?

RJJ read my mind with Toll operation. Accessible parking, entry, bathroom/porta potty, built ins if any to be accessible. Also understand the HVAC system shall properly terminate prior to final CO or use stand alone garage system if still an option.
what if the "sales office" is in the house itself ~4"-6" above the garage floor? None of the houses/townhouses are accessible, so a person in a wheelchair could not live in this development anyway. Does the ground floor bathroom have to be accessible (lavatory, toilet, grab bars, turning space, etc.)?
 
Scenario:

Single family dwelling designed and built under the IRC 2009. No Certificate of Occupancy has been issued at this point

Developer wants to use this single family dwelling and the one next to it as model home. They have decided to turn the garage of this single family dwelling into a “Sales Office” where the public may enter and discuss features, contracts, options, and prices of the homes that the developer has in this future development. There is a common parking lot that serves this structure and a sidewalk from the parking lot to the man-door of the “Sales Office” of this structure

The municipality has no ordnances in effect that would permit the use of a single family dwelling to house a commercial business

The “Sales Office” in this garage is to be used more than 180 days, therefore it is not temporary as per IBC 2009; 3103; potentially in may be in use for 3 - 4 years.

The structure does not meet the requirements of the IRC since it contains another occupancy (B) other than detached one-family and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings; the “Sale Office” is not an accessory to the building

The “Sales Office” in the garage space is not separated with a true fire wall as per the IBC 2009: 706. It would then be assumed that the entire structure is under the purview as a commercial structure as per IBC 2009: 101.2

With the previous scenario being outlined, would it be safe to assume that this building would be treated as a fully commercial permanent structure that is potentially an R3/ B mixed use building?

This building then should provide all of the required features, elements and fixture of a commercial structure as required by the IBC 2009 and potentially all other adopted codes (IPC, IMC, IFGC, IEEC, ANSI A117.1-2003)?
It is not a temporary structure, it is a temporary occupancy.
The structure is permanent, the use is temporary. No to the Mixed use, unless the sales office is occupied at the same time.
In my 40+ years of experience, i have never seen the residence occupied at the same time as the "B" occupancy (sales office).

To go down your path of travel, the entire Home Sales Model Complex, including all the homes would have be accessible, and meet all B requirements. All the model homes are part of the sales occupancy.
 
ADA analysis:
Assumption - members of the public are allowed to enter the site and buildings comprising the model homes.
 

Are model homes places of public accommodation?
Generally, no. A model home does not fall under one of the 12 categories of places of public accommodation. If, however, the sales office for a residential housing development were located in a model home, the area used for the sales office would be considered a place of public accommodation, and shall be accessible. Although model homes are not covered, the Department encourages developers to voluntarily provide at least a minimal level of access to model homes for potential homebuyers with disabilities. For example, a developer could provide physical access (via ramp or lift) to the primary level of one of several model homes and make photographs of other levels within the home as well as of other models available to the customer.
 
In RE: Patricia SAPP and Pat Sapp, Plaintiffs, v. MHI PARTNERSHIP, LTD. d/b/a Plantation Homes, and McGuyer Homebuilders, Inc., Defendants.
Case No. CIV.A.3:01CV284-M; United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. 199 F. Supp. 2d 578 (2002) the court ruled that

Title III of the ADA prohibits any party "who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation" from denying disabled individuals "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a) (1) specifies that one form of discrimination includes failing to design and construct facilities for first occupancy later than 30 months after July 26, 1990, that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this subchapter.

A sales office within the model home constituted a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The ADA provides at 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) a list of categories describing places of public accommodation. Subsection E applies to sales or rental establishments.

"The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce-
... (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;"
[emphasis added]

The court opined that since the public received information about the model home and one room within the model home was being used as the sales representative's office, that part of the building was a "sales or rental establishment" within the meaning of § 12181(7) (E). Plaintiffs had submitted evidence demonstrating that at least one room within the model home, at the time they visited it, was serving as the office of a sales representative, in which the representative stored information about the home development site and met with potential home buyers so that the potential buyers could receive information on the development. The Plaintiffs visited the model home to retrieve from the sales representative floor plans for other styles of homes that could be built at the site. When at least one the purposes of a portion of a model home is storing information about a home product, and brochures and floor plans for available homes, or for meeting with or discussing various matters with prospective home buyers, the Court concluded that, because the evidence in the case revealed that sales and informational activities took place in the room, that part of the home constituted a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The court ruled that since the model home was being used not just as an example of a "good for sale", but also as a place at which potential buyers could receive information and meet with sales representatives about the goods for sale (homes), it is a place of public accommodation that, if ADA-non-compliant, causes disabled individuals to be denied access to those goods (homes).

Additionally, the US Department of Justice, the agency designated to implement the public accommodation provisions of ADA Title III, has issued a Technical Assistance Manual (TAMAN III) that explicitly states upon the issue of whether a model home comes within the purview of the ADA if it functions both as a model home and sales office. The Manual answers the question, "Are model homes places of public accommodation?" It states: "Generally, no. A model home does not fall under one of the 12 categories of places of public accommodation. If, however, the sales office for a residential housing development were located in a model home, the area used for the sales office would be considered a place of public accommodation".

The court found that the US Department of Justice's technical assistance on the issue of whether a model home is a place of public accommodation is congruent with the broad purpose of the ADA and with the precedent that US courts interpretation of the ADA as providing disabled individuals with availability to a seller's goods and services. The Court properly accepted the US Department of Justice's statement on this matter, and concluded that if a model home, although usually just an example of a good for sale and therefore not required to comply with ADAAG, is also used as a sales office, the part of the home used as a sales office and the path-of-travel elements (parking, pedestrian routes, restrooms, signage, doors, etc.) serving it are subject to ADA requirements.

The Defendants in the case attempted to persuade the court by asserting that they were not in violation of the ADA because Defendants had other sales office locations around the city which were ADA-accessible. The Defendants claimed the sales representative could have met Plaintiffs outside of the model home to give them floor plans and answer their questions. The Court ruled that the ADA does not provide for a "separate-but-equal approach" citing since Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). The ADA does not simply require that some of Defendants' sales offices be accessible to persons in wheelchairs; it requires that all of them be ADA accessible.

State building codes further this interpretation so code users should also consult the state adopted code in which model homes are being built.

Keep in mind that for homes built or administered on behalf of or owned by a public entity or provided as part of a public entity's programs and services (homes with project based subsidies such as tax credits, subsidized loans, community development block grants, affordable housing incentives, etc.) those homes (not just the model home) built using such funds are subject to ADA Title II ( 28 CFR 35) and the design standards adopted by the ADA. See 36 CFR 1191, Appendicies B and D.
 
Top