# Exterior renovations & IEBC 705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

Working on a project for a private school in CT, the client has an indoor hockey rink facility that has severe humidity issues causing condensation to fall from the underside of roof deck into the ice below. Based on our assessment of the problem the issue stems from a poorly constructed / insulated exterior envelope that is letting humid outside air into the very cold & dry indoor atmosphere. The current scope of the project consist of a new roof with increased insulation, completely re-building the exterior walls, some new MEP systems & possibly even building new foundations / frost walls around 75% of the building perimeter. But we are not intending on any renovations inside the exterior envelope.  Under the IEBC the projects currently looks to fall into the Level #2 alteration category. My question to the forum is with regards to section 705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function. None of the existing toilets in the facility are accessible, under the current project scope would we be required to spend up to 20% of the project budget on accessibility upgrades? Technically speaking my project is the entire building envelope with contains an area of primary function inside of it.



705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, 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.


----------



## steveray (Mar 19, 2019)

Start here...
705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is
technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to
the maximum extent that is technically feasible.

But I would argue that exterior improvements are not intended to be included in PFA....Just interior spaces as the primary function does not happen on the outside.....Get an interp or mod?

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
services 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


----------



## RLGA (Mar 19, 2019)

Why does everyone seem to go directly to the Work Area Compliance Method of the IEBC? Why not just call it an “alteration” under the Prescriptive Compliance Method in Chapter 4?


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 19, 2019)

Tim Mailloux said:


> 705.2 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.
> 
> Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, 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.



This does not require new accessible restrooms only the *accessible route* to them.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> This does not require new accessible restrooms only the *accessible route* to them.



 Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, 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._

Its my understanding that toilets are part of the accessible route.


----------



## steveray (Mar 19, 2019)

Rick is correct in that it does not necessarily require you to install them where they don't exist, but upgrade them as part of the 20%....


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

steveray said:


> Rick is correct in that it does not necessarily require you to install them where they don't exist, but upgrade them as part of the 20%....


They do exist, and are not accessible. So they would need to be included in the 20%


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

RLGA said:


> Why does everyone seem to go directly to the Work Area Compliance Method of the IEBC? Why not just call it an “alteration” under the Prescriptive Compliance Method in Chapter 4?


 
Chapter 4 has the same "Primary function / 20%" provision and in my opinion is harder to comply with than the work area compliance method.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

steveray said:


> Start here...
> 705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
> applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
> and Chapter 11 of the International Building Code unless it is
> ...



705.1.9 & 705.1.10 seem to require that the existing toilets and locker rooms be renovated to be accessible or new ones added if the existing cannot be renovated due to technical infeasibility.


----------



## steveray (Mar 19, 2019)

Correct....Commentary....

The purpose of Section 705.1 is to establish the minimum
criteria for accessibility when dealing with existing
buildings and facilities that are being renovated or
altered. The history and efforts involved are similar to
that discussed in the commentary for Chapter 11 of
the IBC.
The code approaches the application of accessibility
provisions to a facility that is altered by broadly
requiring full conformance to new construction,
meaning full accessibility is expected (see Section
705.1.12). Exceptions are then provided to indicate
the conditions under which less than full accessibility
is permitted.
When a facility or element is altered, it must meet
new code requirements. For example, if a door and
frame are removed and replaced, the door must meet
the requirements for width, height, maneuvering
clearances and hardware. If just the doorknob is
being removed, it must be replaced with lever hardware.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 19, 2019)

Tim Mailloux said:


> The current scope of the project consist of a new roof with increased insulation, completely re-building the exterior walls, some new MEP systems & possibly even building new foundations / frost walls around 75% of the building perimeter.


IMHO none of this would trigger work under the 20% requirement because none of it affects the primary function area.


Tim Mailloux said:


> Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, or contains an area of, primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible.


 Maybe the route from the parking into the building but nothing inside the building


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 19, 2019)

In your dreams, The building is an existing non-compliant with the ADA building. The owner has an ongoing obligation exclusive of the code to remove barriers to access.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 19, 2019)

I agree the owner has an obligation under the Federal ADA requirements but under the I-Codes he may not be required to provide upgrades based on the work being done
ME and Fire Protections systems work those cost are excluded from the 20% rule
Re-roof  and added insulation is not work being performed in the primary function area.
Foundation work and frost walls are not within a primary function area
The exterior walls may not be effecting a primary function area.
How many times do you require a re-roof permit to spend 20% on accessibility?
How many times have you required a foundation repair to spend 20% on accessibility?
How many times have you required re-siding and repairs to an exterior wall spend 20% on accessibility?
Non of this work effects a primary function area as defined by the I-Codes
* 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 services 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*


----------



## RLGA (Mar 19, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> IMHO none of this would trigger work under the 20% requirement because none of it affects the primary function area.
> Maybe the route from the parking into the building but nothing inside the building


I agree. The primary function is not affected by exterior improvements.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 19, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> In your dreams, The building is an existing non-compliant with the ADA building. The owner has an ongoing obligation exclusive of the code to remove barriers to access.


I agree, under federal law (the ADA) the building must be made to comply with accessibility requirements. This is independent of the building code and is not necessarily triggered by a proposed construction project.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 19, 2019)

I’m in a seminar as we speak and she just stated that under the ADA, 20% of construction dollars are required to go to barrier removal; however, “maintenance work” does not apply, such as “replacing a roof...”


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

RLGA said:


> I’m in a seminar as we speak and she just stated that under the ADA, 20% of construction dollars are required to go to barrier removal; however, “maintenance work” does not apply, such as “replacing a roof...”



I would agree with that, but the scope of work here goes well beyond maintenance. We are demolishing & re-building 75% of the exterior walls, and the existing walls to remain are getting a new exterior finish. We are also making major changes / additions to the buildings MEP system.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

RLGA said:


> I agree. The primary function is not affected by exterior improvements.



The code language states that if the project area contains an area of primary function the 20% rule comes into play. So while the area of primary function if not being affected by this project, the area of primary function is technically contained within the project scope (the entire building envelope) and subject to the 20% rule.

_Where an alteration affects the accessibility to a, 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._


Regards of the Primary Function stuff, sections 705.1.9 & 705.1.10 of the IEBC require that the existing toilets and locker rooms be renovated to be accessible or new ones added if the existing cannot be renovated due to technical infeasibility.
_
_


----------



## Steve Vetter (Mar 19, 2019)

*705.2 Alterations Affecting an Area Containing a Primary Function*

Where an _alteration _affects the accessibility to a, 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 and drinking fountains serving the area of _primary function_.

I think that's the key here. None of the proposed alterations affect the accessibility of the facility (in effect not remodeled).  Simply replacing exterior wall and roof in same configuration.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 19, 2019)

ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.

Sounds like everything you are doing is a repair not an alteration by definition


----------



## Steve Vetter (Mar 19, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.
> 
> Sounds like everything you are doing is a repair not an alteration by definition



*REPAIR. *The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.

Someone might see it as an alteration since the proposed scope is more than maintenance and is not damaged but rather not performing as desired.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Mar 19, 2019)

Steve Vetter said:


> *REPAIR. *The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.
> 
> Someone might see it as an alteration since the proposed scope is more than maintenance and is not damaged but rather not performing as desired.



I wouldn't consider rebuilding the exterior walls to improve energy performance and reduce humidity a repair. At a minimum this is a level #1 alteration, but more than likely a level #2 alteration due to the major HVAC upgrades to the building.

SECTION 503
ALTERATION—LEVEL 1
503.1 Scope. Level 1 alterations include the removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

SECTION 504
ALTERATION—LEVEL 2
504.1 Scope. Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 19, 2019)

You don’t elaborate on the MEP stuff, but if the project is just replacing equipment or distribution, then it is not reconfiguration or extension. If you’re extending existing systems or changing their routing, then it is. 

Still, I think you’re reading more into than is intended. If the primary function is not affected inside the building, then nothing needs to be done. The exterior wall reconstruction would only affect the access to the primary function, so new doors and the route to the doors would be the only thing in my opinion that are applicable. 

The ADA requires compliance and 20% of construction costs should be used toward barrier removal, but that does not apply to every project—just that up to 20% of the total cost of construction since 1992 should have been used for barrier removal.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 19, 2019)

The primary function cannot be performed if the environmental envelope is not intact which it wouldn't be given the scope of reconstruction proposed. Stop trying to "dodge" the intent of the ADA! Nothing is achieved by allowing a non-compliant use to continue.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 20, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> The primary function cannot be performed if the environmental envelope is not intact which it wouldn't be given the scope of reconstruction proposed. Stop trying to "dodge" the intent of the ADA! Nothing is achieved by allowing a non-compliant use to continue.


Not sure if you were directing your comment to me or others, but I don’t think the intent is to dodge the ADA, but rather to put the barrier removal where it actually belongs. I don’t think it needs to be tied to the project that Tim is either working on or reviewing. Compliance with the ADA is separate from building code compliance, although there are aspects of accessibility tied to building codes, I don’t believe the project as presented warrants accessibility upgrades to the extent implied by the interpretation made—thus, barrier removal should not be a condition of the permit. 

That said, it does not relieve the owner from complying with the ADA, which does require barrier removal, and people have had almost 30 years to do it. If the building is not compliant with the ADA and the owner has completed several construction projects without any projects for barrier removal since January 1992, the DOJ will look upon that negatively should a complaint be filed.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 20, 2019)

Righto!


----------

