# Survey towards 20%?



## Rick18071 (Dec 19, 2016)

Minimal alterations for a old "B" building. Looks like an old mansion. Nothing accessible. Needs at least 20% towards the accessible route. There is an accessible parking spot at a building on the same site about 1/4 mile away. Township won't allow more parking spaces on site.  In order for the architect to  give me an accessible route site plan (required by the state) the route to the accessible parking space needs to be surveyed. The surveying will cost more than the 20% of the whole job.

Can the surveying itself count as the 20% towards the accessible route?


----------



## steveray (Dec 19, 2016)

I would say no....should be part of the con docs....


----------



## Keystone (Dec 19, 2016)

Agree with Steveray.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 20, 2016)

IMHO
It should be part of the construction cost but not counted as a part of the 20%
Just like plans are a part of the costs.


----------



## Keystone (Dec 20, 2016)

http://www.dli.pa.gov/ucc/Pages/Tec...s-International-Building-Code-2006.aspx#34094


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Dec 20, 2016)

Playing the devil's advocate again:

I would say that if the cost of surveying exceeds 20% of the overall cost of construction, the building owner can use the survey to say, "I have spent my 20% for this phase of construction to determine technical feasibility.  Now I am done with spending money towards ADA until the NEXT phase of construction.  Furthermore, the survey illustrates that it is technically infeasible to comply.  On top of that, the associated cost of providing an accessible route between parking and the building entrance (unless the governmental boneheads allow new parking in front of the building) would be $1 million - or more than 20% of the overall budget."

More realistically, a 4' wide side walk that extends the 1/4 mile between the parking lot and the building entrance would be $32,000.  And I am always surprised at how little money surveyor's charge for their work.  But I think you get my point.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2016)

The survey requirement is not part of the IBC, therefore nonclaimable towards 20%....IMO


----------



## Keystone (Dec 20, 2016)

While I do understand Mark Handler & BayPointArchitect view, IMO, building plans are required to get a permit which include accessible route. Without the required plans a review & permit can not be issued, its part of the cost to do business not part of a physical improvement.


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2016)

"Township won't allow more parking spaces on site."
Appeal that decision.  If you lose get the township's mandate in writing from the legal people.  Then spend a few dollars on trick landscape.  The plan being that you chose to remove a barrier to a more rewarding day for people with disabilities.

How about re-striping what is there and creating a blue stall.

"There is an accessible parking spot at a building on the same site about 1/4 mile away."
So what?   You would consider that a reasonable accommodation?   Where did this survey requirement come from?   What would a survey tell you that a Smart Level would miss?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2016)

Nothing in the code tells you where to spend the 20%. Unless there is a local or state requirement to spend the 20% on the parking space and the accessible route to the building like in my state you can spend it elsewhere within the building. Spend it on lever door knobs, hand rails extensions, door threshold changes A drinking fountain or any number of other things on a small remodel.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 20, 2016)

Keystone said:


> While I do understand Mark Handler & BayPointArchitect view, IMO, building plans are required to get a permit which include accessible route. Without the required plans a review & permit can not be issued, its part of the cost to do business not part of a physical improvement.


I never said it is part of the physical improvement. It is however a part of Development/construction costs to the owner.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2016)

I agree with MT, I have alot of people improving bathrooms in buildings that wheelers can't get into....


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2016)

steveray said:


> I agree with MT, I have alot of people improving bathrooms in buildings that wheelers can't get into....


Proof yet again that the ADA is a cruel hoax.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2016)

It is not all about wheelchair access

Even though the township will not allow additional parking is there a vehicular way to the building?
will one of the exceptions apply to your project?

Exception: Other than in buildings or facilities containing or serving Type B units, an accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.

1104.2 Within a site.
At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

Exception: An accessible route is not required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements and accessible spaces that have, as the only means of access between them, a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2016)

ICE said:


> Proof yet again that the ADA is a cruel hoax.



No....Proof that even after 30 yrs, people are not even trying to make their business accessible...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2016)

20 years not 30 and it should be the property owners responsibility for parking and accessible route into the building not the tenant. JMHO


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2016)

Picky, picky....Thought it was 1990? 26yrs?....I don't care who pays for it, agree it should be the responsibility of the owner, but that should be in the lease for an informed tenant and owner...


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 20, 2016)

There is a sidewalk from parking to the building. I don't know if it is level. I don't think there are any ramps or curb cut-outs.


----------



## Keystone (Dec 21, 2016)

mark handler said:


> I never said it is part of the physical improvement. It is however a part of Development/construction costs to the owner.


it was merely my opinion regarding physical improvement, not meant to imply what was said.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 21, 2016)

The code says "The cost of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20% of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function". It does not say just the cost of construction.

Also in the commentary one sentence on it says: "It is not the intent to exempt for accessibility when the total cost for providing the accessible route exceeds the 20% threshold".

It looks to me that the code is referring to the total cost, including design costs for both the proposed work and the work towards the accessible route.

Please let me have your opinion.


----------



## steveray (Dec 21, 2016)

You don't "need" a survey to provide an accessible route....


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 21, 2016)

Design is a soft cost, if allowed to be included it would be used to dodge the requirement.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 21, 2016)

Severay, in PA we are required to have a stamped plan of the accessible route. The architect won't sign it unless it is surveyed.

ADAguy. If also counting the cost of the design for the alteration they are doing (not counting the accessible route) it could make them do more towards the accessible route.

I think if they want to count the design cost for the accessible route they also should count the design cost for the alterations.


----------



## steveray (Dec 21, 2016)

You can handle it any way you want, but the survey will not "improve" anything and that is the intent of the code section. That would be kind of like me putting in a pool and lift at a hotel and then claiming the value of the pool for my accessible improvements...Maybe a bad analogy, but best I could do on short notice...


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2016)

And people wonder why things are not compliant and why there are so many lawsuits.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2016)

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 a facility

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer service lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.


How much of your "small" remodel is part of the area of primary function? More info might be more helpful


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Dec 22, 2016)

See illustration:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/551cxzfcnh63fwz/Feasibility-Study2.jpg?dl=0

I believe that we should hire SteveRay to make good use of a smart level to ensure that the total rise of each of the five sidewalk segments does not exceed 14 feet vertically.  ADAguy will then double check the sidewalk slope and call for hand rails to be added (each side) for areas that exceed the 1:20 slope but are less than 1:12.  If the building inspector finds any discrepancies, the worst thing that could happen is that the contractor will be expected to fix it and charge an additional cost to the property owner.  If the property owner refuses to pay the change order and takes everyone involved to the court of law, we can employ Mark Handler as an expert witness.  Mark Hander can explain that paying "soft cost" fees for design professionals is a legitimate method of getting something built in the most cost efficient way possible.

Why hire a design professional to help you build it right the first time when you can do everything by "trial and error"?

I just saved someone more money than Geico ever could.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2016)

BayPointArchitect said:


> See illustration:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/551cxzfcnh63fwz/Feasibility-Study2.jpg?dl=0
> 
> Mark Hander can explain that paying "soft cost" fees for design professionals is a legitimate method of getting something built in the most cost efficient way possible.


I did not say that, I said it is a cost


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Dec 22, 2016)

My point is that the creation of a special subcategory of a "cost" is irrelevant.  It is a cost that is either spent in the "design-it-right-the-first-time" phase or the "fix it later" phase.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 22, 2016)

mtlogcabin, they want to move a few non supporting walls around in an office.



steveray said:


> You can handle it any way you want, but the survey will not "improve" anything and that is the intent of the code section. That would be kind of like me putting in a pool and lift at a hotel and then claiming the value of the pool for my accessible improvements...Maybe a bad analogy, but best I could do on short notice...



They could use the survey for future improvements. The survey will cost about half (50%) as much of the alterations they want to do. Next construction job they could use the survey to make the accessible route. The commentary has an example of building just a foundation for an elevator for the 20% to be used for future improvements.


----------



## steveray (Dec 23, 2016)

A foundation is a physical improvement or step in the right direction...paper is paper....


----------

