• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Accessible single office clearances in an open office space

walker.t said:
I asked myself the same question. Maybe to show compliance for requirements for aisles per 1018.1, “Aisles or aisle accessways shall be provided from all occupied portions of the exit access that contain seats, tables, furnishings, displays and similar fixtures or equipment.”? But if that was the case then there’d be a few dimensions showing how much space is available around the furniture.

My guess is that the plan with the furniture was intended to be the “pretty picture” to get owner approval and they left the furniture on for the permit drawings without thinking about it. I’ve seen a few sets of drawings with building sections showing scale figures and cars and trees in the background - none of which were needed for drawings for permitting and construction.
Click to expand...
I am required to show furniture (existing and new) on the furniture/equipment plan. The demo plans are required to show the furniture in grey so when the furniture contractor comes in, they know what is to be removed and what is to remain. All removed furniture is given back to the client for storage and potential reuse down the road.

The exisitng and new furniture has it's own furniture and equipment plan but is shown diagramattically. It is required by the tenant/owner/permitting because it shows proper clearances that must be maintained and for fire egress plan. The furniture plan also is sent to the furniture rep so they make sure all their little bits and pieces don't encroach. Basically I am tasked to coordinate this stuff. I have a seperate plan for just construction.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
I used to know my state's licensing board representative to the NCARB and NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board). (He has since rertired, moved out of state, and may no longer be with us.) I had this argument with him, and he adamantly insisted that the NAAB requires architecture school curricula to include codes, as a prerequisite to accreditation. And yet even licensed architects, who theoretically have survived the intern development program and passed a professional examination, still seem generally to be clueless on this stuff. As a licensed architect myself, I find it distressing.
Click to expand...
I know many folks that are "licensed architects" because they were able to pass the exams. Ask them to do roof details, code compliance etc, and they get that Homer Simpson blank stare.

And don't get me started on the exams and how they really don't provide anything except help the general public feel like they are dealing with someone competent. I have NEVER in my 23 years in the field had someone give me a question, and if I didn't know the answer, I had 4 options to choose from. You never guess at something in your drawings, you either know it, or you find the answer. BTW, it took me 3 tries to get through the Planning and Zoning exam because I ran out of time using that janky cad program the exams used. When was the last time your boss came to you and said, "here's the problem, you have 45 minutes to solve it, if not, you are fired." Yet that's what happens when you run out of time on the exam. Yep, I am still bitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAC
Yikes said:
SmileyO, let's get a little deeper into the weeds. Depending on the kind of office use and a few other things, the particular room in question may or may not be subject to compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Owner is responsible for providing reasonable accommodation and not discriminating against person with disabilities. If you are specifying and designing furniture locations, the Owner may (or may not) be relying on you to provide an ADA-compliant solution.

But ADA compliance is a different topic: you have asked specifically about IBC 2021 compliance. (ADA is civil law, and as such is enforced by the courts. It is NOT enforced by the local building department.)

The local building department is enforcing the 2021 IBC, which may have similar door clearances as ADA, but its scoping and enforcement is different.
View attachment 12837
1101.1 says that IBC chapter 11 covers design and construction of facilities. You are neither designing nor constructing this existing office. It's already there, and you aren't changing it.
From IBC 202 definitions:
View attachment 12836
Note that the definition of "Facility" does not appear to include non-fixed furnishings.

Now look at the overall scoping of 2021 IBC as it relates to existing structures that aren't changing.

View attachment 12835
What I'm saying is, your plan already complies with 2021 IBC as that code applies to existing spaces that were previously legally permitted and are not being changed. There should be no accessibility corrections from your plan checker regarding the pull side clearance of that particular door, especially if you mark it "existing - no change".

Again, that doesn't let you off the hook for ADA compliance (for which door clearance around office furnishings may be evidence of good faith effort towards nondiscrimination), but that's a different question. And ADA has multiple options for existing/ no change offices to comply.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and thank you from someone that orignally asked for the code sections. The "challenge" is, a comment came up that was outside the area of work (because the office was existing to remain) but was within the suite. Another wrench in the gear is, this entire suite is occupied by the "equality" division. No joke. So I guess in the end, even if it's not compliant but existing, but it is in this suite/division, they want it shown correctly. If someone moves it after the fact, then it's out of my hands. I'll have to connect with one of my old colleagues though because they ran into this and found something in the code....but then again maybe the code has changed.

And you are also correct about ADA wording but I wasn't sure if everyone knew if I said "ANSII A171.1".
 
It's been more than 50 years but I still remember what my education is codes was. We had a one-semester class called "Professional Practice" that met for one hour, one morning per week. In one of those sessions, the instructor held up a book and said, "See this? It's a building code book. Remember this, because you might need to look at it some day." He then set the book down and proceeded to talk about more interesting (to him) topics.

We were never required to consider building codes in any of our designs in school -- not even for the thesis project.

No, I am not exaggerating. As I said, "Lip service."
 
  • Wow
Reactions: VAC
I had a similar experience to YC, except it was an assignment in our codes class from the textbook to create a plumbing isometric sized with the fixture units. Having been working for architects for the previous three years I had done many plumbing isometrics by that time; however, the textbook was wrong and at the next class I brought this up to the teacher (someone actually from the field). He looked at what I had done, looked at the book, and said that we'd just assume the book was right and move on.

Yep .. not the greatest "teacher".
 
When I was in architecture school in the mid-60s we had a project where we had to design to a code, I think it was the old National Building Code. Back then the codes were short and simple enough that we could actually understand and follow them.
 
I believe it is a combination of the 1103 section you posted and a little bit of this:

1104.3.1 Employee Work Areas​

Common use circulation paths within employee work areas shall be accessible routes.
Exceptions:
  1. Common use circulation paths, located within employee work areas that are less than 1,000 square feet (93 m2) in size and defined by permanently installed partitions, counters, casework or furnishings, shall not be required to be accessible routes.
Bob's office is exempt until Bob needs an accommodation...But in the meantime you might want to make sure Bob can be visited by someone who needs accessible features....But even that seems to get a bit much of a pass IMO....
 
MtnArch said:
I had a similar experience to YC, except it was an assignment in our codes class from the textbook to create a plumbing isometric sized with the fixture units. Having been working for architects for the previous three years I had done many plumbing isometrics by that time; however, the textbook was wrong and at the next class I brought this up to the teacher (someone actually from the field). He looked at what I had done, looked at the book, and said that we'd just assume the book was right and move on.

Yep .. not the greatest "teacher".
Click to expand...

I had a professor in one of my first year classes in architecture school who did the same thing. He made a statement in class. I went home the following weekend and brought back one of my undergraduate text books that both stated and proved the exact opposite.

The professor declined to acknowledge me for the duration of the class.
 
SmileyO said:
I agree with you and thank you from someone that orignally asked for the code sections. The "challenge" is, a comment came up that was outside the area of work (because the office was existing to remain) but was within the suite. Another wrench in the gear is, this entire suite is occupied by the "equality" division. No joke. So I guess in the end, even if it's not compliant but existing, but it is in this suite/division, they want it shown correctly. If someone moves it after the fact, then it's out of my hands. I'll have to connect with one of my old colleagues though because they ran into this and found something in the code....but then again maybe the code has changed.

And you are also correct about ADA wording but I wasn't sure if everyone knew if I said "ANSII A171.1".
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that most building code jurisdictions don't adopt or enforce "the ADA" -- they adopt and enforce A117.1. "The ADA" is, fundamentally, federal anti-discrimination, civil rights legislation. The actual ADA says very little about the architectural design of anything. In fact, for public agencies, physical/architectural "ADA compliance" isn't required at all in existing facilities -- an agency or entity can choose to comply by arranging that a person with a disability can call the office and a staffer will go down to meet the person in the lobby, or even at their car if they literally can't get into the building.

When we as architects and code officials think and talk about "ADA compliance" we aren't talking about equal access to programs and services, we're talking about physical access to facilities. Most code jurisdictions address that by adopting ICC/ANSI A117.1. A117.1 fairly closely mirrors the technical, physical design requirements in an ADA supplemental publication called the ADA Architectural Guidelines (ADAAG). Depending on which version of A117.1 and which version of the ADAAG you have in front of you there will be some discrepancies but, in general, the requirements are very similar, and some of the diagrams are nearly identical.

In general, neither the ADA nor A117.1 addresses the arrangement of furniture and equipment in a room or space. The address the design of the building. Especially in an office building, furniture arrangement for access is treated on a case-by-case basis -- which is what the ADA is all about. If that office with the column is assigned to a blind person, that person doesn't need the extra maneuvering clearance at the door. That person needs a computer with text-to-speech and speech-to-text software. If the occupant assigned to that office is deaf, he/she doesn't need the extra maneuvering clearance at the door, that person needs a telecommunication device for the deaf. The original layout portrayed by SmileyO is fine, unless the person assigned to that office is a wheelchair user. In that case, the specific accommodation the employer would need to make could be as simple as shifting the desk around to the orientation I showed in my revision to the original plan.
 
walker.t said:
Wouldn’t the common use circulation path end at the exterior face of the office door? Or are you saying the common use circulation path includes a person’s ability to enter and exit the employee work area (the office) per 1103.2.2?
Click to expand...
Guess that depends on whether or not people are anticipated to enter the office besides the occupant.....
 
steveray said:
Guess that depends on whether or not people are anticipated to enter the office besides the occupant.....
Click to expand...
Agreed, I guess it's an interpretation and who is reviewing and how they are interpretating the code. If it's a single person office, it's for a SINGLE person. If it's a conference or team room, then you have to take into account the circulation path.

I guess I will have to chalk this up to "arbitrary" as one person can see it one way vs. the other. The good thing is, the office itself CAN be made accessible if the single person user requires it to be.
 
If a disabled person visits the office in the OP they can still enter and exit. It's good manners for the occupant to open and close the door if they want to have a private conference, whether the visitor is disabled or not.
 
SmileyO said:
Agreed, I guess it's an interpretation and who is reviewing and how they are interpretating the code. If it's a single person office, it's for a SINGLE person. If it's a conference or team room, then you have to take into account the circulation path.
Click to expand...

The question under discussion here is THE single-occupant office with a column protruding into the window wall. Conference rooms are a different matter.

When the U.S. gummint adopted the 2010 ADA standards, they published a companion Guidelines document that may shed some light on this question:

1707868463175.png

1707868573067.png

IMHO, an existing small, single-occupant office doesn't have to do anything more than provide the required maneuvering clearances at the door when there is no furniture, and if the office is under 300 square feet it may not even have to do that (but it should). The furniture layout is a matter of individual employment accommodation, not the technical construction standards.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The question under discussion here is THE single-occupant office with a column protruding into the window wall. Conference rooms are a different matter.

When the U.S. gummint adopted the 2010 ADA standards, they published a companion Guidelines document that may shed some light on this question:

View attachment 12870

View attachment 12871

IMHO, an existing small, single-occupant office doesn't have to do anything more than provide the required maneuvering clearances at the door when there is no furniture, and if the office is under 300 square feet it may not even have to do that (but it should). The furniture layout is a matter of individual employment accommodation, not the technical construction standards.
Click to expand...
Excellent, this is what I was hoping to see from my initial discussion. Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top