# Fire Station vs accessibility



## Examiner (Mar 21, 2012)

Fire Station

2-story

Public Fire Station receives scheduled visitors such as School field trips to the station.

Is the upper floor, containing the dorms and possibly the kitchen, required to be accessible?

Does the upper floor, containing the dorms and possibly the kitchen, require accessibility for the Fire personnel if no field trips are allowed?

Knowing that the first floor (ground floor) of all public buildings are required to be accessible, will the Fire Station require an accessible kitchen, if the kitchen for the fire fighters use only, is on the ground floor?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2012)

Why do you think that all parts of the building do not require accessiblity?

  What are you looking at that makes you think they are exempt?


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 21, 2012)

How large is the upper floor?


----------



## Examiner (Mar 21, 2012)

2006 IBC Section 1104.4 Exception #1

ADA also has a 3,000-sf limit to not require vertical access.

If the upper floor is for dorm use and has a kitchen and all is not more than 3,000-sf then accessibility is not required as I read the section.

If the kitchen is located on the ground floor will the kitchen be required to have accessible counters and controls for the kitchen appliances and sink?

Fire fighters have to be able body to perform their work and they would be using the kitchen for their use no matter what floor it is on.

The Fire Marshall was inquiring about public access to the upper floor for field trips if he had to make the upper floor accessible.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 21, 2012)

We have discussed this before

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7676-Fire-Stations-and-ADA&highlight=Fire+Station

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Coordination and Review Section

DJ 204-45-0 P.O. Box 66118

Washington, D.C. 20035-6118

Sheri E. Long, Esquire

Assistant City Attorney

City of Omaha

Omaha/Douglas Civic Center

1819 Farnam Street

Suite 804

Omaha, Nebraska 68183-0804

Dear Ms. Long:

This letter responds to the issues you raised in your letter of August 2, 1993, and in your December 14, 1993, phone conversation with Anne Marie Pecht, of my staff. In your letter you requested our opinion as to whether certain renovations that the City of Omaha is planning to make in a number of its firehouses will comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). After Ms. Pecht spoke with you she discovered that you had also raised these issues in a letter to Senator Kerrey, which was recently forwarded to this office for our assistance in responding. You may already have received a response through Senator Kerrey's office. Because Ms. Pecht spoke directly with you she was able to provide the additional, more specific, information included in this letter.

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to individuals and entities with rights or obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you in understanding the requirements of the ADA. It does not, however, constitute a legal interpretation and is not binding on the Department of Justice.

As you discussed with Ms. Pecht, you are aware that the ADA does not require the City of Omaha to renovate its firehouses, unless renovations are necessary to provide program access. We understand, however, that you are making these renovations for

other purposes. Section 35.151 of the enclosed title II regulation covers new construction and alterations by entities subject to title II of the ADA, that is, State and local governmental entities such as the City of Omaha. Section 35.151(b) of the title II regulation requires that any alteration to a title II facility that affects or could affect the usability of the facility must, to the maximum extent feasible, be made in such a manner that the altered portion of the facility is "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities." Section 35.151© of the title II regulation currently allows title II entities to meet this requirement by following either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards

(UFAS) or the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG), except that the elevator exception contained in sections 4.1.3(5) and 4.1.6(1)(k) of ADAAG is not available for title II facilities.

We understand that the City of Omaha has selected ADAAG as its accessibility standard. Therefore, the balance of this discussion will refer to the applicable sections of ADAAG. (As you discussed with Ms. Pecht, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) and the Department of Justice are in the process of amending ADAAG to include provisions directly applicable to title II facilities.

After the revised Accessibility Guidelines are adopted by the Department of Justice, title II entities will be required to

follow ADAAG and will no longer have the option of following UFAS. (We look forward to receiving any comments you may have on

the proposed title II Guidelines when they are published by the Department of Justice.)

Your letter attempts to distinguish between renovations to bathroom and shower facilities in fire stations that are used solely by fire fighters (and not open in any way to members of the public) and renovations to those same facilities in fire stations that you plan to use for civil defense purposes. Under title II, however, restrooms and shower facilities (along with employee lounges, cafeterias, health units, and exercise facilities) are considered common use areas, and must be

constructed or altered in full compliance with ADAAG, whether they are open to the public or are planned to be used solely by employees (such as fire fighters) who must meet rigorous physical qualification standards in order to perform the essential functions of their jobs.

Note, however, that areas used only by employees as work areas are subject to a more limited requirement. section 4.1.1(3) of ADAAG provides that employee work areas must be designed and constructed so that employees with disabilities can approach, enter, and exit such areas. The adaptations required by an individual employee with disabilities to permit that individual to work within the work area would, as you pointed out, be treated on a case-by-case basis as a reasonable accommodation under the standards established under title I of the ADA. The requirements applicable to employee work and common use areas are discussed in section III-7.3110 of the enclosed title III Technical Assistance Manual. For your convenience, we have also enclosed a copy of the title II Manual.

The basic rule for alterations under ADAAG is that, when existing elements, spaces, or common areas are altered, each altered element, space, feature, or area shall comply with the applicable ADAAG requirements for new construction. See section 4.1.6(1)(b). The requirements for accessible toilet rooms (i.e., rooms that include fixtures such as water closets, toilet stalls, urinals, and lavatories) are located in section 4.22 of ADAAG. The requirements for accessible bathrooms, bathing facilities, and shower rooms are located in section 4.23.

An exception to full compliance with the standards for new construction is made when compliance would be "technically infeasible", as that term is defined under section 4.1.6(l)(j) of ADAAG. If it is technically infeasible to comply with 4.22 or 4.23 when altering toilet or bathing facilities, section 4.1.6(3)(e)(i) permits the installation of one unisex facility located in the same area as the existing facilities, in lieu of modifying the existing facilities to be accessible. If stalls are provided, section 4.1.6(3)(e)(ii) permits the use of one of the smaller alternate stalls where it is technically infeasible to install a standard stall.

As we understand it, there are three possible situations you may encounter in undertaking this renovation project, as follows: (i) an existing men's toilet room and/or shower room will be renovated and comparable women's facilities will be added; (ii) an existing men's toilet and/or shower room will be converted to unisex use; or (iii) a completely new unisex toilet and/or shower room will be added.

With respect to situation (i) above, the renovated men's facilities and the new women's facilities must comply with ADAAG standards for new construction, unless compliance is technically infeasible, in which case you may either install a unisex toilet and/or shower room as provided in section 4.1.6(3)(e)(i), or reduce the stall size as permitted by section 4.1.6(3)(e)(ii)

Please note, however, that the technical infeasibility exception is meant to be a very limited exception to the requirement for

accessibility in alterations. When entirely new facilities (such as the planned women's facilities) are located within an existing building, the exception for technical infeasibility will be very strictly interpreted. With respect to the situation described in (ii) above, it is permissible to convert an existing men's toilet and/or shower room to a unisex room. In the situation described in (iii) above, it is permissible to create a single new unisex toilet and/or shower room. In both cases the new unisex rooms must comply with the ADA Guidelines.

4

For assistance in complying with technical aspects of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, you may wish to contact an accessibility specialist at the Access Board by telephone at 800-USA-ABLE or 202-272-5434, or by TDD at 202-272-5449.

I hope this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Stewart B. Oneglia

Chief

Coordination and Review Section

Civil Rights Division

Enclosures (3)

01-02888


----------



## steveray (Mar 21, 2012)

Unless there is a kitchen and dorm on the first floor......I'd say yes....barring any other exceptions......


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 21, 2012)

The 3,000 sq ft rule excludes the requirement for accessible access 9ramps or elevator to the upper floor. All items installed on the upper floor, Kitchen, restrooms, showers still have to meet accessibility requirements


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 21, 2012)

Fire fighters get injured too.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2012)

Examiner said:
			
		

> 2006 IBC Section 1104.4 Exception #1 ADA also has a 3,000-sf limit to not require vertical access.


  Vertical access isn't required.  How one gets from that to exempting every element on the second floor is a mystery.


----------



## Examiner (Mar 21, 2012)

Thank you all for the responses.  I also got a response from the access board today.  Their opinion is a Title II Fire Statiion will require access to the second floor. Kind of goes along with the related Post that Mark listed to review and its link to another bit of data.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 21, 2012)

The pool and spa will also need to be accessible.....


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 21, 2012)

Could you explain what a Title II fire station is?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 21, 2012)

Goverment owned


----------



## mark handler (Mar 21, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Goverment owned


Titles of the ADA

Title I - Employment

Title II - Public Entities and public transportation

Title III - Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (PRIVATLY OWNED)

Title IV - Telecommunications

Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions


----------



## Examiner (Mar 22, 2012)

Just a follow up on the 3,000-sf rule above or below the accessible floor.  It does read _Private buildings_ and _facilities_ in the 2010 Section 206.2.3 Exception #1.  If you look up the _facilities_ in their definitions it appears that Governmental buildings are not mentioned and are not allowed the Exception.


----------



## steveray (Mar 26, 2012)

Here is an interp from our State office......

STATE BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION NO. I-10-12

March 23, 2012

The following is in response to your request for formal interpretation dated March 21, 2012.

Question:

If a building to be constructed is to be occupied as a fire department facility in a Connecticut municipality, is it excluded by the language of Section 1103.2.15 #2, from the 3,000 square foot exemption and therefore must provide accessibility for fire department personnel (firefighters) to the upper floors even if they are less than 3,000 square feet each?

Answer:

This code section is derived from Connecticut General Statute Section 29-274©, which is based on ADA language and which I cannot interpret, but I will give my opinion regarding the subject. Yes, firehouses have, in the past, been ruled to be a municipal building by this office and would be required to provide accessibility to an upper floor even though it is less than 3,000 square feet.


----------

