Navigating requirements for historic buildings

[Sifu]

As a move through the 2018 IEBC for a historic building I am a little puzzled. I have an historic building, undergoing a change of occupancy, with restoration and repair (no alterations". IEBC 401.1 says repairs to a historic building need only comply with ch. 12. Ch. 12 allows repairs and replacement to use like materials and methods. Since this section clearly says that repairs only need comply with ch. 12 then does 305 apply?

305.1 says 305.1 through 305.9 applies to maintenance (undefined), C of O's, additions, and alterations, including historic buildings. By this I take it that repairs are not required to comply with 305, but C of O's are. If the C of O brings 305 in, then 305.4.2 would require 1 accessible entrance, and 1 accessible route. 305.7 tells us that where an alteration affects or contains an area of primary function, then the accessible route must be provided, with the 20% exception. Since there are not alterations occurring, then this section wouldn't seem to apply. Am I then left with 305.4.2 which requires the accessible route and entrance without a 20% exception? That seems counter-intuitive because it seems to say that if your are doing less inside, you must do more outside.

The building has no accessible route or entrance. It is an old two-room dwelling, being minimally restored for use "used for tours (museum)" which is their description in the scope of work. My first reaction was to require an accessible route and entrance, even though no alterations are occurring to the entrance or accessible route. But since only repairs are occurring to the primary function area I am second-guessing this.

I am thinking 305 applies, because the project includes repairs AND a C of O. If this is correct I think 305.4.2 requires the accessible route and entrance, but doubt creeps in because if the were altering the primary function they would only need to comply up to 20%.

I have toured similar facilities, and can't recall for sure but don't think they had accessible entrances or routes, but maybe that was different since they were the homes of presidents, way more historically significant than a small town shack in a city park.

Any guidance or experience is appreciated.

 

[steveray]

To me...The COO just subs in where alteration is?

306.5​

Existing buildings that undergo a change of group or occupancy shall comply with Section 306.7.

306.7​

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

 

[Sifu]

I think I see it....ANY C of O triggers 305.4.1 or 305.4.2. An alteration without a C of O would trigger 305.7 with the exception, A repair without a C of O would not trigger 305. Gonna be a hard pill to swallow for them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Is the building on the federal or state register of historic structures? That makes all the difference.

The fundamental premise for registered historical buildings is to keep everything as original as possible.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

IEBC 1201.1:

[BS] 1201.2 Report. A historic building undergoing alteration
or change of occupancy shall be investigated and evaluated. If
it is intended that the building meet the requirements of this
chapter, a written report shall be prepared and filed with the
code official by a registered design professional where such a
report is necessary in the opinion of the code official. Such
report shall be in accordance with Chapter 1 and shall identify
each required safety feature that is in compliance with this
chapter and where compliance with other chapters of these
provisions would be damaging to the contributing historic
features. For buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category
D, E or F, a structural evaluation describing, at a minimum, the
vertical and horizontal elements of the lateral force-resisting
system and any strengths or weaknesses therein shall be
prepared. Additionally, the report shall describe each feature
that is not in compliance with these provisions and shall
demonstrate how the intent of these provisions is complied
with in providing an equivalent level of safety.

Is there a report? If not ... ask for one.

The commentary for IEBC 1201.1 suggests that the code is concerned more with safety in historical buildings, not so much accessibility:

For buildings identified as Historic Buildings in Section
202, this section provides for a report that documents
the evaluation of proposals providing equivalent performance,
serves as technical backup for the code official
and provides a record of the decisions and the
basis for those decisions for future reference. Contributing
features may be identified in historic designation
reports, historic structure reports or other
documents.
This report also addresses the need for a structural
evaluation of the lateral force-resisting system
in high seismic areas to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the building.
The last sentence of this section allows variations
from the requirements of this code equivalency
demonstrated within the documentation.

That's not a complete exemption: https://adasoutheast.org/understanding-how-the-ada-applies-to-historic-properties/

Back to the IEBC:

306.5 Change of occupancy. Existing buildings that undergo
a change of group or occupancy shall comply with Section
306.7.

306.7 Alterations. A facility that is altered shall comply with
the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International
Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections
306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where
compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration
shall provide access to the maximum extent technically
feasible.

So what does "technically infeasible mean?

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility
that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the
existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration
of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural
frame, or because other existing physical or site
constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements,
spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with
the minimum requirements for new construction and which are
necessary to provide accessibility.

For historic structures, technically infeasible often provides a lot of latitude. If your state has a historic preservation office, I would suggest reaching out to them. If the building happens to be on the federal register of historic structures, I would also contact the National Park Service. (I think that's the federal agency that oversees historic preservation.)

 

[socaldano]

As a move through the 2018 IEBC for a historic building I am a little puzzled. I have an historic building, undergoing a change of occupancy, with restoration and repair (no alterations". IEBC 401.1 says repairs to a historic building need only comply with ch. 12. Ch. 12 allows repairs and replacement to use like materials and methods. Since this section clearly says that repairs only need comply with ch. 12 then does 305 apply?

305.1 says 305.1 through 305.9 applies to maintenance (undefined), C of O's, additions, and alterations, including historic buildings. By this I take it that repairs are not required to comply with 305, but C of O's are. If the C of O brings 305 in, then 305.4.2 would require 1 accessible entrance, and 1 accessible route. 305.7 tells us that where an alteration affects or contains an area of primary function, then the accessible route must be provided, with the 20% exception. Since there are not alterations occurring, then this section wouldn't seem to apply. Am I then left with 305.4.2 which requires the accessible route and entrance without a 20% exception? That seems counter-intuitive because it seems to say that if your are doing less inside, you must do more outside.

The building has no accessible route or entrance. It is an old two-room dwelling, being minimally restored for use "used for tours (museum)" which is their description in the scope of work. My first reaction was to require an accessible route and entrance, even though no alterations are occurring to the entrance or accessible route. But since only repairs are occurring to the primary function area I am second-guessing this.

I am thinking 305 applies, because the project includes repairs AND a C of O. If this is correct I think 305.4.2 requires the accessible route and entrance, but doubt creeps in because if the were altering the primary function they would only need to comply up to 20%.

I have toured similar facilities, and can't recall for sure but don't think they had accessible entrances or routes, but maybe that was different since they were the homes of presidents, way more historically significant than a small town shack in a city park.

Any guidance or experience is appreciated.

Two thoughts came to mind. As I have not read the existing building code in a while.
1. If this is meant to be a "museum", it is not living space. To modify it might dramatically change its historic value without adding any meaningful safety value. Is it safe for people to duck and enter, or to look inside.
2. Since this is not "living space", marking it as an exhibit, not a living space likely should eliminate any realistic concerns of health and safety. For example, a bedroom must have two exits, and cannot be used for access to another bedroom. A 1940s home was originally 2 bedroom, but a conversion of the closet for an attic staircase to a large room (which could be a bedroom except) the next room requires access via that room. So the house is still a 2 bedroom even though prior to 1970, it might be a 4 bedroom house. ANY of the rooms could be "the bedroom", but neither of the other two could be a bedroom then as you must walk through two of them to get to the third. Both upstairs rooms, had dormers with windows meeting the exit definition.

For instance, we have log cabins in my area which are "museums", which were built in the 1700s and 1800s. NOTHING on these residential buildings meet building code for living space. Door is too short and too narrow, roof too low, window size is too small does not block insects, wind or water, roof fails roofing standards. They are less than 12x12 internally and were often intended for families of 4 or more. But they are perfectly healthy and safe for a museum piece where people might look at, or go inside it for 2 to 5 minutes and move on.

 

[Sifu]

The comment list includes the requirement for the official designation, just like the last 3 with the same players, which they did provide with resubmittal. Why they couldn't anticipate the same comment on this project is a complete mystery. The report requirement is up to the CBO, which we will be discussing, but I highly doubt he will need it. The question that will impact them the most is the accessible route.

The only code path I can see that would not trigger the accessible route and entrance is to NOT make it a C of O. If this were me, I would say it was and SFD, and we are repairing/restoring it. That would eliminate the trigger found in 305.4.2. But since they include "museum" and "used for tours" in their scope of work, and call it a B occupancy, I have to follow the path they lay out for me.

This is a town project, I predict at least 3 meetings, each of which will include a lot of hand-wringing, and each of which will increase in the number of participants at each meeting. This decision will be made by the CBO and town officials. If and when a grade school class shows up and one kid can run around the room, but another can't, it will land on them.

 

[socaldano]

The comment list includes the requirement for the official designation, just like the last 3 with the same players, which they did provide with resubmittal. Why they couldn't anticipate the same comment on this project is a complete mystery. The report requirement is up to the CBO, which we will be discussing, but I highly doubt he will need it. The question that will impact them the most is the accessible route.

The only code path I can see that would not trigger the accessible route and entrance is to NOT make it a C of O. If this were me, I would say it was and SFD, and we are repairing/restoring it. That would eliminate the trigger found in 305.4.2. But since they include "museum" and "used for tours" in their scope of work, and call it a B occupancy, I have to follow the path they lay out for me.

This is a town project, I predict at least 3 meetings, each of which will include a lot of hand-wringing, and each of which will increase in the number of participants at each meeting. This decision will be made by the CBO and town officials. If and when a grade school class shows up and one kid can run around the room, but another can't, it will land on them.

I may be completely misunderstanding... but I think this is truly an ADA not an IBC question. Because the City can grant variances to any and all IBC codes, as they are model codes and the City gets to make decisions based on that. I have many examples in the St Loius Metropolitan area (4 counties) which have done what you want to do without a problem.

So i would consult an ADA attorney, and get variances from the IBC from a P.E. and have it adopted by the City Council by ordinance. This is a museum, a historic artifact, not a modern home or commercial building.

I can think of lots of examples: City Museum City of st loius, absolutely NON IBC compliant except for emergency exit paths/markings, The old courthouse St Loius, which (Before NPS destroyed it with a woke cool remodel where its an artist's rendering of what "should be" ), had many doors, stairs and other areas accessible to the public which violated both IBC and ADA. But thats how it was built in the beginning of the 19th century (about 1820 as I remember). The many antebellum homes and late 19th century homes and log cabins in various parks of St Loius which are completely non compliant with ADA and IBC.

​