# ANSI 117.1 (Interior Fit-Out) Clearances per "New/Addition" or "Existing Building"?



## Tektonic7 (Oct 7, 2018)

The update to ANSI 117.1 has different required accessible maneuvering clearances
for "New Buildings vs. Additions" or "Existing Buildings."  Which should a
non-structural interior fit-out commercial office) follow?  This does not seem to
be clearly defined by the ANSI 117.1 definitions.

a. Is the fit-out interpreted as an "Addition"?
   -or-
b. Does it simply follow the same clearances that followed when its base building
was permitted? (If building permit was issued prior to the adoption of the 2017 ANSI
117.1, this would then be an "Existing Building"


----------



## fatboy (Oct 7, 2018)

I'll have to look at the A117.1 when I get in tomorrow, but regardless of what the code says, at the end of the day, the ADA kicks in, you can roll the dice and hope that the site is not turned into the DOJ.

BTW....welcome!


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2018)

Another case of non-alignament of law vs code and performance vs prescriptive/specific direction.


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 9, 2018)

By the way, the project is in New York City, and the building is under the 2014 NYC Building Code, which references the A117.1 for accessibility design...

I'm wondering if the interpretation of Addition vs. Existing is under the scope of the NYC DOB to determine?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 9, 2018)

Please describe the scope of the "fit-out" improvements. Is it within an existing space? Is the space accessible? Any built-ins proposed?


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 9, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Please describe the scope of the "fit-out" improvements. Is it within an existing space? Is the space accessible? Any built-ins proposed?


Thanks for your response. The fit out will consist of several stories within an existing high rise office building. It will need to be accessible. Works include: new interior partitions & doors, suspended ceilings, all MEP / FP / AV / IT services, interior finishes, systems furniture, and the likes.


----------



## steveray (Oct 10, 2018)

Generally.....new work must meet new code. Not a NY guy so can't get into specifics. But usually the problems come in when/where you need to upgrade things that are outside of your planned scope of work. 

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.
A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible
shall be maintained accessible during occupancy.
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.
Exceptions:
1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not
required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the
alterations affecting the area of primary function.


----------



## Builder Bob (Oct 10, 2018)

Generally, if it is an existing building and the restroom is being renovated within the existing walls, then you would have to meet the existing provisions. If you building new space and having to place new sole plates and wall studs, then you would have to meet the new requirements - 

This is one of the few times I liked NFPA's assessment of new versus old - If constructed or altered in the same time period as the original structure was constructed under an adopted code, it is new construction.  If construction took place in a different code cycle, the building was considered existing.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 10, 2018)

So, you are not adding square footage but you are "altering" the space. The altered areas/elements must comply as must POT to the altered area. How old is the base building and has it been upgraded (barriers removed per ADA)?


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 10, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> So, you are not adding square footage but you are "altering" the space. The altered areas/elements must comply as must POT to the altered area. How old is the base building and has it been upgraded (barriers removed per ADA)?



The building was completed in 2017, but construction started several years earlier, so the base building was built under the previous (2010) ICC A117.1. The interior fit-out is converting a vacant interior floor plate into an office space, for which NYC's DOB requires an "Alteration Type 2" permit.

The main differences affecting the layout are the door maneuvering dimensions, which have increased in depth, and the minimum wheelchair turning clearances. I spoke with a local architect, who believes that we should follow the Existing dimensions. But I'm still not entirely clear which category an _*interior renovation*_ falls under.


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 10, 2018)

Tektonic7 said:


> The building was completed in 2017, but construction started several years earlier, so the base building was built under the previous (2010) ICC A117.1. The interior fit-out is converting a vacant interior floor plate into an office space, for which NYC's DOB requires an "Alteration Type 2" permit.
> 
> The main differences affecting the layout are the door maneuvering dimensions, which have increased in depth, and the minimum wheelchair turning clearances. I spoke with a local architect, who believes that we should follow the Existing dimensions. But I'm still not entirely clear which category an _*interior renovation*_ falls under.



Sorry, I wasn't clear there. I know that we need to comply with A117.1-2017 (we are clearly beyond any hardship threshold), but inside of A117.1-2017, they offer _two sets of maneuvring clearances_ (See 404.2.3.2 "Swinging Doors and Gates", for example). So I am trying to figure out which set of dimensions to follow for an interior alteration.


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 10, 2018)

steveray said:


> Generally.....new work must meet new code. Not a NY guy so can't get into specifics. But usually the problems come in when/where you need to upgrade things that are outside of your planned scope of work.
> 
> 705.1 General. A facility that is altered shall comply with the
> applicable provisions in Sections 705.1.1 through 705.1.14,
> ...



Sorry, I wasn't clear in my question. I know that we need to comply with A117.1-2017 (we are clearly beyond any hardship threshold), but inside of A117.1-2017, they offer _two sets of maneuvring clearances_ (See 404.2.3.2 "Swinging Doors and Gates", for example). For new buildings the clearances are larger. So I am trying to figure out which set of dimensions to follow for an _interior alteration_ _within the shell of an existing building_, which doesn't add GFA to the existing building which would make it an _Addition_.


----------



## mp25 (Oct 10, 2018)

I think this link will help clear this up. Based on this, my understanding is that the building in question would follow the existing building dimensions, if it was permitted before the adoption of A117.1-2017.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/ICCA117_12017SC/107-5-defined-terms-existing-building


----------



## Tektonic7 (Oct 11, 2018)

mp25 said:


> I think this link will help clear this up. Based on this, my understanding is that the building in question would follow the existing building dimensions, if it was permitted before the adoption of A117.1-2017.
> 
> https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/ICCA117_12017SC/107-5-defined-terms-existing-building



Thank you so much. This clears it up in my mind.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 11, 2018)

sounds like many civil lawsuits will be coming


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 14, 2018)

What ever you choose it may not be less than ADASAD 2010 minimums.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 15, 2018)

I believe that the existing standards are generally the same as ADAAG and ADASAD.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 15, 2018)

Careful, "generally" may not always be the same as specifically.


----------

