Turning Radius in a Vestibule

[Stanovby]

My office works on a lot of commercial restaurants including McDonalds, & Wendy's. We had a discussion about whether a turning radius is required inside of a vestibule. We used to check that the required door clearance was ADA compliant, but then we started discussing whether or not the vestibule needed to be 60 inches wide. Ansi 404.2.5 says that in Two doors in series situation it needs to be 60 inches clear. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Also are all vestibules doors in a series? A lot of times in our restaurants the interior door is at a 90 degree angle from the exterior door. Is that still two doors in a series?

 

[CR Design]

It seems reasonable to require a width of a vestibule to accommodate an individual in a wheelchair to turn around. If, upon entering a vestibule and finding the second door locked, or something to that effect, the individual will need to be able to turn around and exit the vestibule. The alternate layout (90 degree), would also be doors in series. The graphic below is from the 2017 ICC A117.1.

 

[Stanovby]

It seems reasonable to require a width of a vestibule to accommodate an individual in a wheelchair to turn around. If, upon entering a vestibule and finding the second door locked, or something to that effect, the individual will need to be able to turn around and exit the vestibule. The alternate layout (90 degree), would also be doors in series. The graphic below is from the 2017 ICC A117.1.
View attachment 13679

Thanks. The top image is what we get 90% of the time in the restaurants that we work in. The other 10% is probably the bottom image. We used to look mostly at the ADA requirements which unless I'm mistaken, does not say that the vestibule has to have the 60" clearance. We used to just look at the required door clearance, in our case usually a 54"x60" clearance. This is more of an Ansi standard I guess as opposed to part of the ADA law.

 

[CR Design]

Thanks. The top image is what we get 90% of the time in the restaurants that we work in. The other 10% is probably the bottom image. We used to look mostly at the ADA requirements which unless I'm mistaken, does not say that the vestibule has to have the 60" clearance. We used to just look at the required door clearance, in our case usually a 54"x60" clearance. This is more of an Ansi standard I guess as opposed to part of the ADA law.

ADA requirements are typically not enforced by local AHJ's. The DOJ addresses ADA requirements on a complaint basis. AHJ's enforce IBC and ICC A117.1.

 

[walker.t]

The top image is what we get 90% of the time in the restaurants that we work in.

The diagram you show with both doors swinging into the space between the doors is not allowed per IBC 2018 1010.1.8, 1010.1.8 says the doors have to swing in the same direction or away from the space.

AHJ's enforce IBC and ICC A117.1.

It’s disappointing that A117.1 Figure 404.2.5 uses the same diagram shown in Post #1, I would have hoped that ICC would have better coordinated the IBC with their referenced accessibility standard.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Where did you get that ADA image? I have a copy of the 2010 ADA and the diagram doesn’t say anything about existing facilities.

 

[Stanovby]

The diagram you show with both doors swinging into the space between the doors is not allowed per IBC 2018 1010.1.8, 1010.1.8 says the doors have to swing in the same direction or away from the space.


It’s disappointing that A117.1 Figure 404.2.5 uses the same diagram shown in Post #1, I would have hoped that ICC would have better coordinated the IBC with their referenced accessibility standard.


Where did you get that ADA image? I have a copy of the 2010 ADA and the diagram doesn’t say anything about existing facilities.
View attachment 13681

That's from 2017 ICC A117.1 section 404.2.5. I was told that you should always go with the more stringent option. I have also been told that a permit reviewer doesn't look at ADA. They look at either what IBC says or Ansi which is sometimes referred to by the code.

 

[Stanovby]

It seems reasonable to require a width of a vestibule to accommodate an individual in a wheelchair to turn around. If, upon entering a vestibule and finding the second door locked, or something to that effect, the individual will need to be able to turn around and exit the vestibule. The alternate layout (90 degree), would also be doors in series. The graphic below is from the 2017 ICC A117.1.
View attachment 13679

What section is this image from? I don't see this in section 404

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That's from 2017 ICC A117.1 section 404.2.5. I was told that you should always go with the more stringent option. I have also been told that a permit reviewer doesn't look at ADA. They look at either what IBC says or Ansi which is sometimes referred to by the code.

ICC/ANSI A117.1 is a reference standard of the IBC and it always applies, unless the adopting jurisdiction expressly edits it out when they adopt the IBC.

 

[walker.t]

That's from 2017 ICC A117.1

Thank you. The image I showed is from the 2019 version, it’s on my to-do list to get the new version.

I was told that you should always go with the more stringent option.

That’s what I was taught. By complying with the more restrictive requirement you also comply with the less restrictive requirement. It’s like if a teenager wants to go out with his friends on Friday night, mom says be home by 10:00 p.m., dad says be home by midnight, only way to make them both happy is to be home by 10:00 p.m.

I have also been told that a permit reviewer doesn't look at ADA.

I have also heard this. My understanding is the plans examiner reviews drawings for compliance with the standards adopted by their jurisdiction, not with the ADA requirements. I heard somewhere that sometimes building departments require that references to the ADA be removed from drawings they are reviewing, don’t remember where I heard that to provide a source or link.

I once saw a set of drawings that had a drawing labeled “ADA Mounting Heights” showing the toilet grab bar locations, they showed the vertical grab bar required by A117.1 which is not in the ADA. But at least they showed it, just shouldn’t have used the term “ADA” in the drawing title.

 

[Stanovby]

Thank you. The image I showed is from the 2019 version, it’s on my to-do list to get the new version.


That’s what I was taught. By complying with the more restrictive requirement you also comply with the less restrictive requirement. It’s like if a teenager wants to go out with his friends on Friday night, mom says be home by 10:00 p.m., dad says be home by midnight, only way to make them both happy is to be home by 10:00 p.m.


I have also heard this. My understanding is the plans examiner reviews drawings for compliance with the standards adopted by their jurisdiction, not with the ADA requirements. I heard somewhere that sometimes building departments require that references to the ADA be removed from drawings they are reviewing, don’t remember where I heard that to provide a source or link.

I once saw a set of drawings that had a drawing labeled “ADA Mounting Heights” showing the toilet grab bar locations, they showed the vertical grab bar required by A117.1 which is not in the ADA. But at least they showed it, just shouldn’t have used the term “ADA” in the drawing title.

I follow an architect from California on YouTube that does a lot of building code videos & he says the same thing. He was told by a reviewer to take ADA off of his drawings.

archicorner

A channel dedicated to all who simply love architecture and design and wish to know more. An architectural source of knowledge provided for all those eager to learn and advance. A source of awesomeness.

www.youtube.com

 

[walker.t]

He was told by a reviewer to take ADA off of his drawings.

Thank you for sharing about his comment, I’ve watched some of his videos, maybe that’s where I heard it.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The combination of IBC (for scope) and ANSI A117.1 (for technical requirements) complies with almost everything in ADA. In fact, IBC and ANSI A117.1 are more stringent in a few areas, such as covering churches, limit on area before requiring elevators, increased turning radius, & vertical grab bar. When you enforce IBC and ANSI A117.1 you're also enforcing ADA Title III except for a few operational issues that can't be covered in a building code.

 

[steveray]

404.2.5 Two Doors or Gates in Series​

Distance between two hinged or pivoted doors or gates in series shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) minimum plus the width of any door or gate swinging into the space. The space between the doors and gates shall provide a turning space.

 

[arwat23]

If you're going by the ADA, California Code, or any other jurisdiction that uses the 2010 ADAS as a standard, then a turning space not required in this situation. While it's definitely a nice thing to include, it's not mentioned in the scoping or technical requirements as far as I see.

If you're going by ICC A117.1, then it seems the turning space is required.

 

[Yikes]

I follow an architect from California on YouTube that does a lot of building code videos & he says the same thing. He was told by a reviewer to take ADA off of his drawings.

archicorner

A channel dedicated to all who simply love architecture and design and wish to know more. An architectural source of knowledge provided for all those eager to learn and advance. A source of awesomeness.

www.youtube.com

Archicorner generally has good videos (though I disagreed with his Exit Passageway video).
Even though the plan checker doesn't review for ADA, they can't force you to take it off the plans, any more that they can force you to take a blue paint spec off your plans because they don't plan check for paint color.

If a California plan checker were to tell me to remove any references to ADA, I would refer them to CBC 1.9.1, which states the relationship between the CBC and ADA.

As a compromise, on the title sheet of the plans where I have a listing of "applicable codes" I could create another column which lists "Applicable regulations not adopted by, nor plan checked by, the building department of Authority Having Jurisdiction". On many of my projects, these typically can include:

• 2010 ADA Standards
• Section 504, with 2010 ADA Deeming Notice dated 5/23/2014
• Fair Housing Act, with Joint Statement of HUD and DOJ dated 4/30/2013
• Unruh Civil Rights Act physical requirements for Senior Housing in California
• City of Los Angeles Housing Department additional accessibility requirements
• Funder's additional accessibility requirements

 

[Stanovby]

If you're going by the ADA, California Code, or any other jurisdiction that uses the 2010 ADAS as a standard, then a turning space not required in this situation. While it's definitely a nice thing to include, it's not mentioned in the scoping or technical requirements as far as I see.

If you're going by ICC A117.1, then it seems the turning space is required.

It sounds like there are two things going on. What the plans reviewer is going to look at, and what a person in a wheelchair might complain about. There is an outside company that gets paid to do the survey and sometimes they are not accurate. It could be costly to totally fix a vestibule that is a couple of inches shy of 60 inches wide. We might just have to look at it on a case to case basis. I will bring the issue up to our lead architect when I see it. If he is comfortable signing off on it we might let it go. A lot of the times the vestibule is not dimensioned and we might not say anything about it other that putting new finishes & ceiling grid in.

 

[Sifu]

The 2017 ANSI 117.1 increased the turning space for new buildings from 60" to 67". In 404.2.5 for doors in series they require "a turning space". They do not use language found in many other places such as "a turning space in accordance with 304". They then provide multiple illustrations showing a 60" turning space for new buildings. Just going by the language are we to presume the "a turning space" is as required by 304? Or since they provide the illustrations that show a 60" turning space that the turning space is permitted to be 60"?

So really two issues: 1)what prevails when a conflict is found between language and illustration? and 2) Is there a conflict if the language does not include any metric for the requirement (a turning space without any metric could mean anything)?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So really two issues: 1)what prevails when a conflict is found between language and illustration? and 2) Is there a conflict if the language does not include any metric for the requirement (a turning space without any metric could mean anything)?

For the 50+ years I've been licensed as an architect, it has always been taught that the written text prevails in case of a conflict with an illustration.

 

[Sifu]

I would agree, but in this case the written text does not provide a metric. For example anywhere the ANSI standard specifies operable parts for an element it does so by saying the operable parts shall comply with section 309. In some places it will require compliance with an accessible route, yet in others it requires an accessible route complying with 402. In the case of doors in series it just says to provide a turning space. I am going to assume it really wants to say complying with 304, but didn't. I'll let them argue their case.

 

[walker.t]

1)what prevails when a conflict is found between language and illustration?

You’re asking about A117.1, but the ADA has language addressing this topic:



“Unless specifically stated otherwise, the…figures…do not establish enforceable requirements.” My translation: “The diagrams are only enforceable to the extent they accurately communicate the text they are intended to represent.” That can open a can of worms regarding whose interpretation of the text is correct, but at least this language (in my opinion) is saying that the text prevails.

 

[Sifu]

I look at the disparity between figures and text like this: If the text says to do something per a table or figure then I use that table or figure. If there is a difference I would usually go to whichever is more restrictive. Sometimes there is not a "more restrictive" just a difference, then I just have to decide. In the case I am posting about the real issue is that the text uses a generic "turning space", without a reference. Usually in most codes "turning space" would be a defined term, and the definition would cover the question, OR as is often the case the non-defined term would reference you back to the appropriate code section.

In the 2017 ANSI 117.1 turning spaces have been enlarged and the 5' diameter is no longer adequate. If the code said to provide a turning space in accordance with 304, the conflict is over. But it doesn't, it just says provide a turning space. I am left trying to figure out if this is a case where they just didn't go through the requirements and change all the places a turning space should have changed OR if they decided that the old turning space dimension was good enough for some places, or if they decided there were no absolute dimensions for a turning space at all in this instance.

The 2009 standard clearly did it with intention. 404.2.5 says to provide a turning space complying with 304. (No need for a defined term because it sends you to the requirements in the text.)

The 2017 standard now just says to provide a turning space, and then illustrates it with a 60" turning space. The language does not say to provide a turning space complying with 304, nor does it say to provide a turning space complying with one of the illustrations. It just says provide a turning space and provides illustrations without a direct tie to the text. The illustrations only show a a T-shape space for new buildings, not a circular, but those are also in conflict with 304. The only tie I see to the figures comes from the commentary.

Following 304 a turning space is not a turning space if it does not comply with 304, and that would be the end of the story if there were no conflicting illustrations. If I make this comment I suspect the applicant will make these arguments because it is not an insignificant change to enlarge their vestibule.

I just remembered I was asked to evaluate the 2017 standard by an AHJ tht was adopting by reference in the '21 IBC. I made a list of markups. Here is one I made about this in March of 2021. At least I am consistent in my confusion.