# 2nd floor break room and labeling use of rooms.....



## righter101 (Sep 6, 2011)

Hey there....

this is an offshoot of my previous thread about a 2nd floor on new construction.

Short story here....

1st fl = F1

they added a 2nd fl during construciton, made it all "offices" as a B, less than 3000 sq ft, so no elevator.

The previous thread discussed the showers on the 2nd floor and how, with a lack of accessible route, would need to provide one on the 1st fl.

that has been resolved.

The next issue that came up was the 2nd floor "employee break room".  I cited 1103.1 and told them the employee break room needs to be accessible.

Revised drawings came in today.....

2nd floor "employee break room" has been relabeled as "open office area". Countertop with sink shown, cooktop not shown.

Rather than make an accessible break room, they have eliminated the break room via the label game....

Would you let this fly??? why or why not??

Thanks.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 6, 2011)

Would you let this fly?

Yes but now make sure the restroom count is still valid for the extra "employees".....


----------



## Msradell (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm not sure what state you're in but some states require that a employee break room be provided.  If that's the case where you are a label game obviously will not work.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 6, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Would you let this fly?Yes but now make sure the restroom count is still valid for the extra "employees".....


The break room had an occupant load based on assembly, if it is now considered an "office" it might go down.

I might check state law about break rooms, but that may be outside the scope of my authority.

This one has been frustrating with the owner cutting every corner possible.

Thanks again guys for the quick feedback..


----------



## fatboy (Sep 6, 2011)

Hang on to the plans and changes........then, it is, what it is.

Ah, labeling, where is George?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 7, 2011)

If the owner uses the open office as a break room, and a handicapped employee can't use it along with fellow employees, there is good grounds for an ADAAG lawsuit.

I guess the owner also calls the extra bedroom in his house a study.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 7, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> If the owner uses the open office as a break room, and a handicapped employee can't use it along with fellow employees, there is good grounds for an ADAAG lawsuit. I guess the owner also calls the extra bedroom in his house a study.


But not the Building Officals concern, It is the Architect and Owner that will be sued.....


----------



## brudgers (Sep 7, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> If the owner uses the open office as a break room, and a handicapped employee can't use it along with fellow employees, there is good grounds for an ADAAG lawsuit.


  Oh, not to worry.   They have a policy to not hire the handicapped.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Oh, not to worry.   They have a policy to not hire the handicapped.


*Damm now i need to change my sign....*


----------



## righter101 (Sep 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Oh, not to worry.   They have a policy to not hire the handicapped.


They haven't quite come out and said it, but it seems to be a bother to comply.  To his credit on this on this one, the architect isn't deliberately trying to skirt the rules, it is plain and simple incompetence.

I am finishing up marking up the plan set now.  Prior to them picking up the plan set, I am drafting a lengthy disclaimer that details information not on the plans that was repeatedly requested and not provided.  I am going to have them sign something that memorializes this and will shift the compliance burden to field inspecitons.

Silly me, thought it was easier to make changes on paper rather than getting out the sawzall.....


----------



## peach (Sep 7, 2011)

You're probably ok as far as Code goes... the DOJ isn't your concern.

If they haven't provided details that you've asked for.. don't issue the permit.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 8, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> They haven't quite come out and said it, but it seems to be a bother to comply.  To his credit on this on this one, the architect isn't deliberately trying to skirt the rules, it is plain and simple incompetence.I am finishing up marking up the plan set now.  Prior to them picking up the plan set, I am drafting a lengthy disclaimer that details information not on the plans that was repeatedly requested and not provided.  I am going to have them sign something that memorializes this and will shift the compliance burden to field inspecitons.
> 
> Silly me, thought it was easier to make changes on paper rather than getting out the sawzall.....


I feel your pain.  I once cited compliance with a specific code section shall be required to be indicated on the plans prior issuance, just so I could make sure the RDP had, one, read my comments, and two, also was capable of opening up their code book (this is not my common modus operandi, and it should be noted that the first two re-submittals did not address half of my comments, let alone provide the minimum required information).  They told me the contractor would figure this out in the field.  Great, another CFO RDP.  I pulled the contractor in for a meeting and asked him if he new the code requirements of this section, or if he even had a code book.  No and no.  Grrrr.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 8, 2011)

Declaration (redacted to protect the innocent)

The undersigned, XXXXX (owner) and XXXXX (Architect of Record) have reviewed the plans approved for issuance and acknowledge the following items:

1)	The original structure was permitted as a single story “F1” occupancy.  Prior to submitting revised drawings, the project was expanded to include a second story.  Work was commenced on this without the benefit of review of construction drawings.

2)	Multiple requests for construction details showing accessible elements, including, but not limited to: elements and fixtures in restrooms, size and type of accessible showers, required accessible exit ramps, have been made and to date, details have not been provided.  The plans have been generally noted as requiring compliance with IBC CH 11 and ANSI A117.  Compliance for these items is the responsibility of the owner and Architect of Record and will be subject to field inspection and approval.  Items not noted on this set of approved plans may still be required, per the applicable codes, laws and statutes.

3)	The stairway from the upper floor to the exterior is required to be protected by 1 hour rated construction.  The details provided on this 1 hour construction do not represent a recognized 1 hour assembly.  Construction details will need to be provided that show an approved 1 hour rated construction detail for 2x4 walls, 2x6 walls and a floor ceiling assembly.  They will need to reference a specific assembly found in either the 2006 (or 2009) International Building Code, or the GA-600 Fire Resistance Design Manual.  These will need to be reviewed and approved prior to construction of the rated assembly.

4)	The egress plan submitted showing exit and directional signs has been marked up by XXXXXX County Staff with the approximate locations of required exit and directional signs.  This is the best attempt to represent the code requirements, however, items such as permanent fixtures and shelving may require alteration or addition of exit and directional signs.  This is subject to all the applicable provisions of CH 10 of the IBC and is subject to field approval.

5)	The stairway leading from the upper floor to the exterior will require all 5 doors on the lower floor and 1 on the upper floor to be 60 minute rated.  This has been noted on the plans by XXXXXX County.

6)	The exit serving the upper floor will need a legal, ANSI compliant ramp to grade.  This is required to comply with IBC CH 10 “Accessible Means of Egress.”

7)	The upper floor has a room labeled as “open office area”.  This was previously labeled for use as an “employee break room/lounge”.  Due to the lack of an accessible route, this configuration as an assembly use would not be allowed.  By signing this, Owner and RDP acknowledge that the area labeled “open office area” is not allowed to be used for assembly purposes, conversion to a kitchen, conversion to a kitchenette, use as a break room or similar use without obtaining permits for the necessary upgrades to comply with applicable building codes.

8)	Page 4 of the drawings detail BCI floor joists when the engineering and framing layout specify use of dimensional lumber.  This is subject to field inspection and approval.

9)	All work authorized by this permit is subject to field inspection and approval.

10)	By signing this, Owner and RDP acknowledge that there may be items not addressed on these drawings that are necessary for code compliance.  It is the full responsibility of the Owner and RDP that code compliance is achieved and all work is subject to field inspection and approval.

11)	An allowable area increase for the lower floor was approved based on a “frontage increase”, as detailed in CH 5 of the IBC.  The area needed for this “frontage increase” has been detailed by the owner on a small site plan and will be memorialized before the Final Occupancy of the structure, via a recorded Notice to Title, to be drafted by XXXXXXX County.

12)	XXXXX County is not responsible for any errors and/or omissions on the submitted construction documents.  The issuance of this permit does not presume to waive or violate any applicable code provisions, laws or other statues.

13)	Additional information may be requested as a result of the required field inspection and potential correction notices.

I have read the 13 items listed above, agree with the content of these provisions, have reviewed the notes made on the approved plans, and acknowledge the terms of this letter.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 8, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The undersigned, XXXXX (owner) and XXXXX (Architect of Record) have reviewed the plans approved for issuance and acknowledge the following items:1)	The original structure was permitted as a single story “F1” occupancy.  Prior to submitting revised drawings, the project was expanded to include a second story.  Work was commenced on this without the benefit of review of construction drawings.
> 
> 2)	Multiple requests for construction details showing accessible elements, including, but not limited to: elements and fixtures in restrooms, size and type of accessible showers, required accessible exit ramps, have been made and to date, details have not been provided.  The plans have been generally noted as requiring compliance with IBC CH 11 and ANSI A117.  Compliance for these items is the responsibility of the owner and Architect of Record and will be subject to field inspection and approval.  Items not noted on this set of approved plans may still be required, per the applicable codes, laws and statutes.
> 
> ...


Not that you need to add anything, but I usually note, that lack of information on submitted construction documents may result in increased inspections, longer inspection times, and delays to issuance of certificate of occupancy.  That usually gets somebody's attention, or at the least, a willingness to meet you half way.  I really like number 8, but would like it better if you noted the AHJ's right to revoke occupancy.  It's like those big styrofoam sticks you see at pools, they don't really hurt unless they are holding water.

Good luck.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 8, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> You're probably ok as far as Code goes... the DOJ isn't your concern.If they haven't provided details that you've asked for.. don't issue the permit.


I appreciate Peach's sentiment about not issuing the permit.  This is a revision to an existing permit and I have spent a large amount of time and effort to get it this far, and correction letters close to #10 now.

As much as I would like to take that route, it will only cause more time to be spent on my part, further discussions, more letters, etc.  While I don't mind spending time on things, I have a number of other applicants very eager to get their permits out the door.

Thanks for the feedback to everyone.

subject to field correction.


----------

