New Accessible Entrance in Existing Building

[Mech]

2009 IBC

Tenant fit out in Existing Building

Tenant has leased a portion of the building where the finished floor is 3 or 4 feet above grade. The interior doors have been locked / removed / made inoperable. Any accessibility the space once had is now gone.

Is an accessible entrance (and route from the parking lot) required in its entirety per 3411.8.1 (code section listed below) or can the tenant utilize the Exception 1 (20% rule) from 3411.7 to only provide part of an accessible entrance and route?

FWIW, it does not matter to me which code section takes precedence; I just want to give the correct answer to our client.

Thanks in advance.

3411.8.1 Entrances. Accessible entrances shall be provided in accordance with Section 1105.

Exception: Where an alteration includes alterations to an entrance, and the building or facility has an accessible entrance, the altered entrance is not required to be accessible, unless required by Section 3411.7. Signs complying with Section 1110 shall be provided.

3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function. 2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs. 3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials. 4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of an existing building, facility or element.

 

[Msradell]

A couple of questions, what of other alterations being made to the building, what is the of the work? Is this going to be a change of use for that section of the building? What type of business is this?

 

[MtnArch]

My first question would be how would you access the space WITHOUT the locked/removed entrance? Obviously there should be a way to access the space, and THAT access would have to be compliant ... right? If there's no other way to access the space (legally) you would have to look at how you COULD access the space legally, and whether it is compliant or not.

 

[Frank]

The renovations cannot reduce accessibility. Any new entrance would be required to be accessible to the extent for new construction. What does sealing these doors do to egress requirements?

 

[steveray]

Change of use requires an accessible route.....alterations require 20% toward upgrading accessibility and we don't get to specify how....Typically I ask people to start in the parking lot and work their way in.....

 

[Mech]

Msradell - Right now all I know is it will be F1 or F2 and B. Not sure of the existing use. They will probably add a couple of partition walls inside their space, new lighting, electrical work for their machinery, and maybe another restroom. They need drinking fountains, a service sink, and maybe a water heater. There is one restroom but they may need a second depending on occupant load.

MtnArch - Right now the space is unoccupied, so accessibility is not required. There is an existing exterior door, so I would assume there are stairs, and that is how the space can be accessed. If there were no exterior door, the landlord would have to give workers interior access to the space in order to cut a new exterior door into the building.

Frank - I agree. Accessibility cannot be removed. Use of the existing exterior door will not provide two doors with adequate separation distance, so they will be getting two new doors.

steveray - Reading your post, it seems the 20% rule may trump the need for providing a completely accessible entrance. (The restroom supposedly is already compliant. No drinking fountains exist, so they must be provided and will not count toward the 20%. So in this case, the entire amount to increase accessibility needs to be spent on the only inaccessible part - the entrance.)

 

[Msradell]

The 20% rule may not even come into play because if they need a new entrance it has to be accessible even if it costs exceed 20% of the total renovations.

 

[steveray]

The 20% rule may not even come into play because if they aired a new entrance it has to be accessible even if it costs exceed 20% of the total renovations.

Correct.....