Children ADA Rough in conflict

[Dinheru]

PA: Building was designed under Chapter 11, ICC a117.1 - 2017
Day before bid courtcase threw the state back to the 2009 version of the ICC
Was not picked up during permit review
in the 2009 : Image 609.4.2 Position of children grab bar has the adult 12-24 split at the rear grab bar, requiring the grab bar 12" shift to the side wall, 604.11.2 calls for a 12-18 inch rough in, which if the 609.4.2 holds up can never be less then 14 inch.

604.11 loops to 604.5, loops to 609.4, which goes back to 604.11
Thoughts?

 

[walker.t]

Was not picked up during permit review

So someone set the toilet for children’s use 12” from the finished face of the wall and now they can’t install a compliant rear grab bar? My understanding is that approval of a plan does not relieve the applicant from complying with the codes, which would put the responsibility of coordinating the toilet placement and grab bar on the architect (if the work required architectural drawings) or the contractor.

This is an example why designers should not reproduce dimension ranges on their drawings but should instead specify a specific dimension within that dimension range, then those two specific dimensions can be reviewed to make sure they both comply with the code.

Makes me think of the maximum stair tread projection, maybe the designer goes into it thinking they need to comply with ADA and A117.1…

1 1/2” per ADA 504.5.
1 1/2” per A117.1-2021 504.5.

But then - oops - forgot to confirm what’s in the IBC…

1 1/4” per IBC 1011.5.5.1.

Hope they caught that before the stairs were built!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is an example why designers should not reproduce dimension ranges on their drawings but should instead specify a specific dimension within that dimension range, then those two specific dimensions can be reviewed to make sure they both comply with the code.

That would require work. Most architects whose drawings we see now include an entire sheet (in the front, in the "General" sheets) that consist of nothing but scanned images of the diagrams out of the ADA (even though our state uses A117.1, not the ADAS). I have found multiple instances in sets with those diagrams where the actual construction floor plan has doors and walls configured in ways that don't -- and can't be made to -- conform to the maneuvering clearances in A117.1/ADAS.

Makes a lad wonder why they bother to include the diagrams, if they aren't even going to look at them.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

PA: Building was designed under Chapter 11, ICC a117.1 - 2017
Day before bid courtcase threw the state back to the 2009 version of the ICC

I was waiting for something like this to happen. I'm glad it did not happen to me. PA is going to the 2021 I code this July, but no one is sure which ICC A117.1 we will be using yet in PA.

 

[princeofpen]

I was waiting for something like this to happen. I'm glad it did not happen to me. PA is going to the 2021 I code this July, but no one is sure which ICC A117.1 we will be using yet in PA.

From a discussion with head of the RAC we will use CH 11 of the 18 code and references to 09 ANSI as accessibility is under "the dept" . I would expect legislation directly to move accessibility up into the 21

 

[Mr. Inspector]

From a discussion with head of the RAC we will use CH 11 of the 18 code and references to 09 ANSI as accessibility is under "the dept" . I would expect legislation directly to move accessibility up into the 21

I would expect legislation to make use 4 different editions of the code instead of just the 3 we use now.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

604.5.2 exception 2 which allows for the rear grab bar to be split or shifted to the open side of the water closet flush value controls interfere with the location of the rear grab bar.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

That would require work. Most architects whose drawings we see now include an entire sheet (in the front, in the "General" sheets) that consist of nothing but scanned images of the diagrams out of the ADA (even though our state uses A117.1, not the ADAS). I have found multiple instances in sets with those diagrams where the actual construction floor plan has doors and walls configured in ways that don't -- and can't be made to -- conform to the maneuvering clearances in A117.1/ADAS.

Makes a lad wonder why they bother to include the diagrams, if they aren't even going to look at them.

hey, I don't scan those diagrams, I meticulously redraft them every time we change software applications.

 

[arwat23]

Makes a lad wonder why they bother to include the diagrams, if they aren't even going to look at them.

Simple. It's easier and requires less thinking.

We hired someone recently who tried to do this for restrooms. I told them they couldn't, that at least the floor plan of the accessible restroom detail needs to be project specific. They basically threw a fit, saying it's a waste of time and not necessary. I checked their plan and, to no ones surprise, the restrooms weren't accessible.