This is a really gray area for me - when you are doing renovations of an existing building - when do you need to provide accessibility?
A really common example for me is a building that does not have accessibility, but is being used. An example that is very frequent near me:
- A house that was built in a commercial zone. This house was built as mixed use at its inception - say in 1910. The ground level was always intended as a commercial use, but built 3 or 4 feed above grade. The only entrance is on the property line, so there's no way to build a ramp - it'd need to be on the sidewalk and would need to be 50 or 60 feet long anyway. This same commercial building has a bath that is not accessible. We want to do greater than 50% renovation to this space which should trigger bringing the entire space into compliance. However, the bathroom is not part of this renovation area.
What to propose for accessibility?
- Another example - I'm working on a church that does not have accessibility to it's basement. We are proposing less than 50% renovations. The church wants to put 2 offices in the basement. There isn't money for an elevator. The basement is an existing finished and used space but for assembly not for offices.
I'm thinking telling them they can't do it - but I'd like some guidance.
In my area - they require 20% of the project cost to be dedicated towards improving accessibility, and prioritize these expenditures. Problem comes up when the most basic one - providing access into the building and to the main functions - is not possible.
where do you get the 50%? a renovation is a renovation. as far as i know, if you change anything related to accessibility, you scope the code. mechanical/electrical does not scope the code. outlet heights, switch heights, new carpet may scope the code.
if the house is a house, then i don't think the accessibility portion of the code is scoped, but i don't have much experience with residential.
there is an exception for 'technically infeasible.' that might apply to the entrance. as far as i know, the bath will still have to meet accessibility (up to 20% of the cost of construction).
i've seen the 20% interpreted different in different jurisdictions, and ultimately the AHJ can withhold your client's right to do whatever business it is they do. generally though, i would say if you can't build an elevator for 20% of the cost of construction, then you should find somewhere else to apply that cost.
Here, 50% comes up in the existing building code as to when the project becomes substantial enough to bring the entire building up to code - even if areas are not scheduled to be worked on. Of course, what does 50% mean? If you paint 100% of the rooms, but only gut renovate 10% then are you doing 100% or 10%? obviously, it's up the the AHJ.
And, what does it mean to "bring the entire building up to code"? Frequently, this is not feasible either.
Thanks for the insight.
What I mean by calling the commercial building a "house" is that it's a type 5B building, built and designed the same as a home, but used as a commercial structure. Today, we are putting the ground floor and any accessible entrances of a commercial building at grade, or easily accessible from short ramps, rather than several feet above grade. Wood framed buildings do best when a couple feet above grade, to get out of the water, but this makes accessibility difficult.
We are also subject to the 50% rule. When I've asked AHJ's for clarification they generally say that cosmetic upgrades (new paint, trim, cabinetry, flooring) do not count toward the 50%, but if we are opening up walls and moving openings then that room counts toward the 50%. They are open to arguments; on a current job we are removing all the exterior wall drywall but little work to the interior, and they are not pushing code compliance.
On single family projects I have never found it impossible to bring the entire home up to code. Expensive, yes, but if the client can afford to tear apart 50% of the house, they can figure out how to pay for full compliance.
in our jurisdiction, there is a mandatory 25% of construction budget required to bringing up accessibility to modern standards for alterations to commercial properties. There is a hierarchy that starts with site access > bldg access > to bldg function > bldg wayfinding/signals (basically macro down to micro levels of accessibility). You have to list your improvements and review reasonable upgrades with the jurisdiction (is it reasonable to put 40' of ramp in the front yard of that house being used for commercial? is it reasonable to pay for a lift in lieu of a ramp? [considering budget, scope, hardship to make something work])
[edit]sorry, it sounds like you have a similar path for accessibilty decisions! reading comprehesion!
are you asking about the difference btwn repair & alteration?
i'd agree with wood guy that moving partitions or changing layouts (new doors, etc) comprises an alteration, not a repair of an element to remain
i just looked this up because i'm not doing much else today.
the existing building code outlines 3 levels of alteration. the last level is scoped when your work area exceeds 50% of the building area. i'm guessing that's where the 50% comes in. i don't think that applies to the question being asked here though.
even in the lowest level of alteration for the existing building code, you're required to follow chapter 11 of the building code, which scopes ansi, and the adaag is a federal law so that's always just kind of there. so all new work has to meet code.
the building code (chapter 11 says to refer to chapter 34) and ada also say that the path of travel, including phones, restrooms, and drinking fountains, has to be upgraded meet current code. even if you're only moving one door, the new code is scoped from the point where you get out of your car to the space you're altering (assuming the space you're altering contains a primary function) with respect to accessibility.
of course it's unreasonable to ask you to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on upgrades if you're only moving one door, so both the building code and ada have a provision saying you only have to upgrade the existing stuff up to 20% of the cost of construction. if i worked with a city that raised that to 25% i'd be pissed. not much you can do though.
in your case gruen, a lift is out of the question because it would be sitting on property you don't own right?
Curt - thanks, this confirms what I've always done/assumed.
Essentially: you can't build new stuff that isn't accessible.
Except: you are only required to spend up to 20% on accessibility upgrades, prioritized per ADAAG.
And except: if it's technically in-feasible you don't have to do it (but should discuss w/the AHJ first)
(as a funny aside, I recently turned down a similar project - owner wanted me to "stamp" the use of a basement as an office - owner didn't see why I needed to do a code study and didn't like that I kept talking about an elevator, sprinklers, tenant separation, etc.)
Certainly around here we have a lot of buildings where getting primary accessibility is extremely difficult. These buildings are always up off the ground & built to the property line, then often do not have space inside for an elevator (example: 1st floor is operational restaurant, 2nd and 3rd floors are small offices and we are proposing renovating the 3rd floor office - to be an office. Whole thing is built on the property line and it's 2 steps up to the 1st floor and a walkup to the 2nd/3rd.)
Example from one state's elevator code: "The Vermont Elevator Board regulations do not recognize or accept ASME A17.7, and do not allow Machine Room Less (MRL) Elevators, unless a variance is granted by the Board."
As far as I know only one variance for a machine-roomless elevator has ever been granted by that board.
When to provide accessibility?
This is a really gray area for me - when you are doing renovations of an existing building - when do you need to provide accessibility?
A really common example for me is a building that does not have accessibility, but is being used. An example that is very frequent near me:
- A house that was built in a commercial zone. This house was built as mixed use at its inception - say in 1910. The ground level was always intended as a commercial use, but built 3 or 4 feed above grade. The only entrance is on the property line, so there's no way to build a ramp - it'd need to be on the sidewalk and would need to be 50 or 60 feet long anyway. This same commercial building has a bath that is not accessible. We want to do greater than 50% renovation to this space which should trigger bringing the entire space into compliance. However, the bathroom is not part of this renovation area.
What to propose for accessibility?
- Another example - I'm working on a church that does not have accessibility to it's basement. We are proposing less than 50% renovations. The church wants to put 2 offices in the basement. There isn't money for an elevator. The basement is an existing finished and used space but for assembly not for offices.
I'm thinking telling them they can't do it - but I'd like some guidance.
In my area - they require 20% of the project cost to be dedicated towards improving accessibility, and prioritize these expenditures. Problem comes up when the most basic one - providing access into the building and to the main functions - is not possible.
where do you get the 50%? a renovation is a renovation. as far as i know, if you change anything related to accessibility, you scope the code. mechanical/electrical does not scope the code. outlet heights, switch heights, new carpet may scope the code.
if the house is a house, then i don't think the accessibility portion of the code is scoped, but i don't have much experience with residential.
there is an exception for 'technically infeasible.' that might apply to the entrance. as far as i know, the bath will still have to meet accessibility (up to 20% of the cost of construction).
i've seen the 20% interpreted different in different jurisdictions, and ultimately the AHJ can withhold your client's right to do whatever business it is they do. generally though, i would say if you can't build an elevator for 20% of the cost of construction, then you should find somewhere else to apply that cost.
Here, 50% comes up in the existing building code as to when the project becomes substantial enough to bring the entire building up to code - even if areas are not scheduled to be worked on. Of course, what does 50% mean? If you paint 100% of the rooms, but only gut renovate 10% then are you doing 100% or 10%? obviously, it's up the the AHJ.
And, what does it mean to "bring the entire building up to code"? Frequently, this is not feasible either.
Thanks for the insight.
What I mean by calling the commercial building a "house" is that it's a type 5B building, built and designed the same as a home, but used as a commercial structure. Today, we are putting the ground floor and any accessible entrances of a commercial building at grade, or easily accessible from short ramps, rather than several feet above grade. Wood framed buildings do best when a couple feet above grade, to get out of the water, but this makes accessibility difficult.
We are also subject to the 50% rule. When I've asked AHJ's for clarification they generally say that cosmetic upgrades (new paint, trim, cabinetry, flooring) do not count toward the 50%, but if we are opening up walls and moving openings then that room counts toward the 50%. They are open to arguments; on a current job we are removing all the exterior wall drywall but little work to the interior, and they are not pushing code compliance.
On single family projects I have never found it impossible to bring the entire home up to code. Expensive, yes, but if the client can afford to tear apart 50% of the house, they can figure out how to pay for full compliance.
Gruen, you've probably already looked here for guidance, but in case you haven't: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/iebc/2012/index.htm
in our jurisdiction, there is a mandatory 25% of construction budget required to bringing up accessibility to modern standards for alterations to commercial properties. There is a hierarchy that starts with site access > bldg access > to bldg function > bldg wayfinding/signals (basically macro down to micro levels of accessibility). You have to list your improvements and review reasonable upgrades with the jurisdiction (is it reasonable to put 40' of ramp in the front yard of that house being used for commercial? is it reasonable to pay for a lift in lieu of a ramp? [considering budget, scope, hardship to make something work])
[edit]sorry, it sounds like you have a similar path for accessibilty decisions! reading comprehesion!
are you asking about the difference btwn repair & alteration?
i'd agree with wood guy that moving partitions or changing layouts (new doors, etc) comprises an alteration, not a repair of an element to remain
a lift is much more affordable than an elevator
we put one in for a 1920s 5-plex (commercial bldg cuz of # of units)
it was around $17k for a 5' vertical exterior lift to the porch
i just looked this up because i'm not doing much else today.
the existing building code outlines 3 levels of alteration. the last level is scoped when your work area exceeds 50% of the building area. i'm guessing that's where the 50% comes in. i don't think that applies to the question being asked here though.
even in the lowest level of alteration for the existing building code, you're required to follow chapter 11 of the building code, which scopes ansi, and the adaag is a federal law so that's always just kind of there. so all new work has to meet code.
the building code (chapter 11 says to refer to chapter 34) and ada also say that the path of travel, including phones, restrooms, and drinking fountains, has to be upgraded meet current code. even if you're only moving one door, the new code is scoped from the point where you get out of your car to the space you're altering (assuming the space you're altering contains a primary function) with respect to accessibility.
of course it's unreasonable to ask you to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on upgrades if you're only moving one door, so both the building code and ada have a provision saying you only have to upgrade the existing stuff up to 20% of the cost of construction. if i worked with a city that raised that to 25% i'd be pissed. not much you can do though.
in your case gruen, a lift is out of the question because it would be sitting on property you don't own right?
Curt - thanks, this confirms what I've always done/assumed.
Essentially: you can't build new stuff that isn't accessible.
Except: you are only required to spend up to 20% on accessibility upgrades, prioritized per ADAAG.
And except: if it's technically in-feasible you don't have to do it (but should discuss w/the AHJ first)
(as a funny aside, I recently turned down a similar project - owner wanted me to "stamp" the use of a basement as an office - owner didn't see why I needed to do a code study and didn't like that I kept talking about an elevator, sprinklers, tenant separation, etc.)
Certainly around here we have a lot of buildings where getting primary accessibility is extremely difficult. These buildings are always up off the ground & built to the property line, then often do not have space inside for an elevator (example: 1st floor is operational restaurant, 2nd and 3rd floors are small offices and we are proposing renovating the 3rd floor office - to be an office. Whole thing is built on the property line and it's 2 steps up to the 1st floor and a walkup to the 2nd/3rd.)
Don't know the cost but pneumatic elevators are easy to retrofit and don't require a machine room.
And they can't make you alter structural.
Machine-roomless elevators aren't allowed in some states. Check the elevator code before telling your client that's doable.
wow, i've never seen that spontaneous. machine-room-less elevators are awesome. banning them would be one of the dumber things a state could do.
Example from one state's elevator code: "The Vermont Elevator Board regulations do not recognize or accept ASME A17.7, and do not allow Machine Room Less (MRL) Elevators, unless a variance is granted by the Board."
As far as I know only one variance for a machine-roomless elevator has ever been granted by that board.
any idea on the rationale?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.