Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: ADA (As a reasonable Plan Checker)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>From a state far, far away, in a Municipality where new residential permits
are reviewed within 4 working days (99%) and 4 weeks for commercial permits,
I cannot believe what you have to put up with in the lower 48.  When you
have retrofit project, do you schedule a preliminary with the local building
department to go over the ground rules?  As a "reasonable plan checker", I
have directed designers to chapter 34 of the 1997 UBC and to the ADAAG
manual for special technical provisions for alterations to existing
buildings and facilities.  "Technical feasibility" is not just a buzz word.
If there is a choice between making a building structurally safer and ADA
compliance, and if the project may (actually) hinge on the added cost of
accessibility, we would no doubt allow for minimum ADA requirements.  Enough
said...

-----Original Message-----
From: CarlS95(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:CarlS95(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:46 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: ADA (Almost almost done)


christopher.deneff(--nospam--at)fmglobal.com writes:

<<I also was going to stay out of this thread but the results of a seismic
retrofit project I worked on a few years back were a lot different. The ADA
requirements added so much to the cost of the project (this was a concrete
tilt-up with a small second floor so the costs weren't incredibly high to
begin with) that the owner could not go through with the retrofit.>>

Chris.

For sure.    

Well, its too late to stay out of this thread now, but I think you caught
the tail end anyway.  I noticed Dennis Wish pointed out in a separate
response that some jurisdictions have a "hardship" limit.  In our case, at
the start of the courthouse retrofit project, we made a list of the ADA
upgrades that we felt were appropriate relative to the cost and extent of
seismic retrofit.  The "hardship" limit was discussed but in our case I
don't believe it applied.  The "potential" cost of ADA upgrades was
out-of-sight (it often is, as you noted), but the county mostly accepted our
recommendations after some negotiation.  So, the message is (I think), you
need reasonable people involved (owner, architect and plan checker) who have
a willingness to find a satisfactory middle ground where everyone benefits.

Carl Sramek       

  

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********