# Elevator Accessiblity



## indyarchyguy (Aug 18, 2016)

My client is renovating an existing building. They have installed a new elevator which meets elevator accessibility requirements. There is a second elevator which is existing but is in such bad shape, they are replacing it with a new cab, equipment, machinery, etc. The intent was to reuse the existing elevator shaft and build a custom cab to infill the existing shaft...consequently this does NOT meet accessibility requirements. The cost to "expand" the shaft would result in a burdensome cost that the owner can't afford..not to mention create a huge issue for structural impact (even more $). I was of the mindset the new elevator will serve the accessibility issue...the local is indicating he believes that BOTH the new elevator and the existing shaft would need to meet these requirements. Would love to hear your opinions. Thank you.


----------



## steveray (Aug 18, 2016)

Seems like that could be considered technically infeasible....Is there an "accessibility" governing body in the State or area? I would try to find a way to make it work...

This may sound dumb, but is there actually language that says all elevators need to be accessible? I don't really think so....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 18, 2016)

Label the old elevator "For Zombie use only!" or "service elevator". 

Agree with Stevie, could be technically in feasible!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 18, 2016)

1109.7 Elevators.
Passenger elevators on an accessible route shall be accessible and comply with Chapter 30.

It is plural. However not all elevators are passenger elevators as PC mentioned

3001.4 Change in use.
A change in use of an elevator from freight to passenger, passenger to freight, or from one freight class to another freight class shall comply with Section 8.7 of ASME A17.1/CSA B44.

Can you meet the exception?

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009
407.4.1 Inside Dimensions.
Inside dimensions of elevator cars shall comply with Table 407.4.1.

EXCEPTION: Existing elevator car configurations that provide a clear floor area of 16 square feet (1.5 m2) minimum, and provide a clear inside dimension of 36 inches (915 mm) minimum in width and 54 inches (1370 mm) minimum in depth, shall be permitted.


----------



## JBI (Aug 18, 2016)

Existing building? Shouldn't we start with the applicable provisions for 'existing' buildings? (Chapter 34 or IEBC as appropriate) Depending on the method used to demonstrate compliance, it may well be allowed to remain as is under provisions of the governing Code. Lacking that, I agree that 'technically infeasible' language is in the Code and the standard for just such a situation. (This would be a textbook example of 'technically infeasible' IMHO)


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 18, 2016)

3411.8.2 Elevators.
Altered elements of existing elevators shall comply with ASME A17.1 and ICC A117.1. Such elements shall also be altered in elevators programmed to respond to the same hall call control as the altered elevator.

It sends you to ICC A117.1 which has an exception for the minimum car size


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 19, 2016)

I just went through this, building official agreed that shaft structure is technically infeasible to modify. We did meet the 18 sq. ft. min. exception and gained interior space in the cab by reselecting interior surfaces thereby achieving a min. clr. 30 x 48" footprint to allow a WC to back in. with door closed. FM allowed existing stairwells for gurney/board transfer. Building is only 3 stories.


----------



## indyarchyguy (Aug 22, 2016)

Thank you all for your help and insight. I was arguing technically infeasible as well...I will post to let everyone knows how it turns out.


----------

