required elevator in existing building?

[omahawildcat]

Am I correct in saying there are no exemptions for installing a new elevator into an existing building if that existing building is 3 stories?
I see nothing in the IEBC or the A117 regarding this.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

need more info. What method(s) of the IEBC is being used? Any alterations to the primary area? Change of occupancy to part of the building or the whole building? What occupancy? What kind of work will there be?

 

[arwat23]

I can think of quite a few (potential) exemptions off the top of my head depending on what the scope of the project is.

 

[omahawildcat]

Change of occupancy. Old door and sash business converting to bakery on 1st and r2 on second with basement storage.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We still need a LOT more information.

The basic rule underlying the IEBC is "Don't make the existing building less safe or less accessible." You are saying there are no exemptions to requiring elevators in existing buildings. My question is: Where does the IEBC require elevators? If there is a provision that calls for retrofitting an elevator, does it apply to your building?

Start in chapter 3 of the IEBC, section 306.

 

[jar546]

We still need a LOT more information.

The basic rule underlying the IEBC is "Don't make the existing building less safe or less accessible." You are saying there are no exemptions to requiring elevators in existing buildings. My question is: Where does the IEBC require elevators? If there is a provision that calls for retrofitting an elevator, does it apply to your building?

Start in chapter 3 of the IEBC, section 306.

Yeah, a lot more information. There is not a lot of context here.

 

[steveray]

Let's chum the waters a bit shall we.....

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.

 

[instantmessenger]

It seems to me that a business change from door and sash (light carpentry) to a bakery is not a change in use since both are F1, so no exceptions would be needed since nothing would force requirements to install an elevator.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Where is the charging code language that requires an existing building to install an elevator
An existing building would be limited to a maximum 20% of the renovation cost to provide an accessible route to a primary function.
An addition most likely would trigger an elevator to comply with accessibility requirements.

 

[walker.t]

a business change from door and sash (light carpentry) to a bakery is not a change in use since both are F1

We don’t know the original use of the second floor or basement, might have change of use there.

Last time I worked on changes to an existing building we started by confirming the work area percentage to determine if we were Level 2 or Level 3, that might be what Mr. Inspector is referring to by reference to “method(s)”:

What method(s) of the IEBC is being used?

 

[omahawildcat]

We don’t know the original use of the second floor or basement, might have change of use there.

Last time I worked on changes to an existing building we started by confirming the work area percentage to determine if we were Level 2 or Level 3, that might be what Mr. Inspector is referring to by reference to “method(s)”:

the entire building was sash and door. Upper and basement was storage. main level was office/shop

 

[omahawildcat]

Let's chum the waters a bit shall we.....

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.

This is the item that I would assume means an elevator is required.

 

[arwat23]

This is the item that I would assume means an elevator is required.

What about the "hardship" exception? IEBC 306.7.1, exception 1. That would limit the accessible route costs to 20% of the costs of constriction. Unless this is a big project, I would assume an elevator (or other accessible route between floors) would exceed the 20%.

Even without that, you have the "technically infeasible" route that might be applicable depending on the existing building.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The HUD Fair Housing Act would apply if there are 4 or more dwelling units.

 

[walker.t]

Even without that, you have the "technically infeasible" route that might be applicable depending on the existing building.

From U.S. Access Board Technical Guide “ADA Scoping: Alterations and Additions”

Technical Infeasibility
Compliance in an alteration is not required where it is “technically infeasible.” The term is defined as “something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering 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 that are in full and strict compliance with minimum requirements.

Where technical infeasibility is encountered, compliance is still required to the maximum extent technically feasible.

That quote can be found about halfway down on the page linked below, there’s a link at the top of that page to download a PDF for your offline viewing pleasure:

U.S. Access Board - Chapter 2: Alterations and Additions

The U.S. Access Board is a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and...

www.access-board.gov

the entire building was sash and door. Upper and basement was storage. main level was office/shop

So the woodworking is F-1, but sounds like the storage is greater than the 10% for accessory occupancy so I guess the building was considered mixed use. One way or the other, you have a change of use from S-1 to R-2, that’s a reduction in hazard so that might make some things easier for you but I don’t think it will help with any requirement for elevators.

if we were Level 2 or Level 3, that might be what Mr. Inspector is referring to by reference to “method(s)”

No, I was wrong, I think he was referring to the Chapter 3 compliance methods.

 

[Yikes]

The HUD Fair Housing Act would apply if there are 4 or more dwelling units.

If the new dwelling units are being created via altering the existing building (not by creating additional/new square footage), then FHA would not require the new (privately funded) units to be accessible. See the excerpt below from the "Joint Statement" (Q and A) by HUD and the DOJ:



The OP did not state where the building was located, the applicable codes, era of original construction, public vs. private funding, etc., so any information we provide regarding the dwelling is based on speculation.
omahawildcat, throw us a bone!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

the entire building was sash and door. Upper and basement was storage. main level was office/shop

"Sash and door" is neither an occupancy classification nor a use group. From this description, it would appear that the basement and second floor were Storage occupancies (S-1 or S-2, depending on the nature of what was stored), and the ground floor was a mix of Business (B), and Factory (probably F-1).

Change of occupancy. Old door and sash business converting to bakery on 1st and r2 on second with basement storage.

So the basement does NOT appear to be undergoing a change of use or occupancy, the second floor WILL be undergoing a change of occupancy, and part of the ground floor may be undergoing a change of occupancy.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Yikes, thanks for the clarification.