Accessible dining as part of bar - clear floor space

[tabushabu]

I'm a small restaurant owner in Texas (Tabu Shabu) and we are battling with our landlord to get through our final TAS (Texas Accessibility Standards) inspection and violations. I have a number of items I would like to get some opinions on, including this one. I have a separate post for a different question. For reference, this was a brand new shell space and we opened for business in September 2022. We are a Japanese hot pot restaurant and the entire dining area is a U shaped bar (picture below).

The inspector has called out our ADA accessible bar section as not having enough clear floor space. (902.1 General)

Compliant clear floor space at “accessible” bar counter not provided. 45.5” is provided. 60” minimum clear width for 2 accessible spaces.
They did not call out the width of the actual surface, but the area underneath. We have a section at one end that was designed to be accessible with the correct amount of knee and toe clearance.

Question: Under the accessible section, one side is a wall as part of the overall bar structure, but the other side is open. Could the open side be considered for clear floor space to meet the 60" requirement?

Thank you!

 

[bill1952]

If I understand it, you have 45.5" linear of counter for those two spaces? So one person gets 30 and the other 15.5"? Is there another 36" beyond that because the clear area for a wheelchair space can't overlap the aisle. I'm guessing there is barely 36" from end of bar to wall.

I also would wonder if when a wheel chair is in it's 30x48" space, if there is 36" clear behind, which is required.

 

[classicT]

Agree with @bill1952

You need to have (2) accessible dining spaces as required by TAS 226. 5% of 35 = 2 seats. Each seat needs to be 30" wide. Both seats need to be roll-under (knee and toe clearance). No, you cannot seat another accessible use patron at the end of the bar as it lacks roll-under.

Texas Accessibility Standards
226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces​

226.1 General​

Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
EXCEPTIONS:

1. Sales counters and service counters shall not be required to comply with 902.
2. Check writing surfaces provided at check-out aisles not required to comply with 904.3 shall not be required to comply with 902.

902.2 Clear Floor or Ground Space​

A clear floor space complying with 305 positioned for a forward approach shall be provided. Knee and toe clearance complying with 306 shall be provided.

305.3 Size​

The clear floor or ground space shall be 30 inches (760 mm) minimum by 48 inches (1220 mm) minimum.

 

[bill1952]

You've got a mess. I'm sorry. Whomever designed this erred and I don't see an easy modification to meet the intent of the law.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Question: Under the accessible section, one side is a wall as part of the overall bar structure, but the other side is open. Could the open side be considered for clear floor space to meet the 60" requirement?

The building official in me, the architect in me, and the accessibility consultant in me for once all agree: No.

It should be obvious that the intent for the clear floor space being 30" wide is to accommodate a wheelchair -- which is approximately 30 inches wide. If the Texas accessibility standards allow you to cluster your two wheelchair seats together like that, then you have to assume that at some time there might be two patrons in wheelchairs dining together. If your counter space is only 45-1/2" wide and the under-counter space to the left is constrained by a vertical barrier surface, what do you have left? The left-hand patron, even with his/her wheelchair as far to the left as possible, takes up 30 inches. If the other wheelchair patron manages to position his/her wheelchair as close as possible to the first one, that second patron is now sitting in front of 15-1/2 inches of dining surface. In other words, he/she is effectively center right on the edge of the table/counter.

As a designer and as an accessibility advocate, my unsolicited opinion is that cramming the two required wheelchair seats together at the end of the counter (at the "back of the bus," so to speak) is poor design anyway. In theaters, each wheelchair seating location is required to have an abutting companion seat. Apparently the Texas standards haven't extended that concept to restaurant seating, but IMHO common sense should do so.

 

[tabushabu]

Thank you all for the insight. Based on the actual violation, I was trying to figure out if we could argue about the clear floor space - not necessarily the counter width as that wasn't called out. I do agree that if we had two wheelchairs at that space, it would be tight and one would be off center of the induction cooktop. For the other cooktops, each seating position only provides about 24 inches for each guest, which is where I think the architect screwed up as it's already somewhat tight for guests, but works out fine.

@bill1952 - There is more than 36" clearance behind to allow for a clear forward approach. The knee and toe clearance also meets code.

I suppose one fix would be to extend the counter and remove the isle. There is already an opening on one side of the bar that would allow staff to move between inside the U and outside. There is one other Tabu Shabu location set up the same way with only 1 opening, and it just creates some additional time to get to the outside of the bar where there isn't an isle.

I'm just a little confused that the initial plan review or final inspection didn't actual call out the surface space not being 30 inches - only the clear floor space. Even the code itself mentions floor or ground space, not surface area.

 

[bill1952]

You might get away with extending counter but putting the wheelchair spaces furthest from the entrance and now furthest from the restrooms, also furthest from staff assistance, it feels discriminatory.

 

[tabushabu]

You might get away with extending counter but putting the wheelchair spaces furthest from the entrance and now furthest from the restrooms, also furthest from staff assistance, it feels discriminatory.

I agree with you. In retrospect, we should have had the ADA on the end of U closest to the bathroom hallway. To completely retrofit the bar is not something we easily do as there is a dump sink and related plumbing at that end. If open additional locations, I will make sure the accessible seating area is in a better location.

 

[steveray]

Add a flip up counter that you can only use when needed....

 

[classicT]

Add a flip up counter that you can only use when needed....

How would you do that with the hot-pot cooking appliance that is built into the counter?

Beyond that, I would think that the counter would remain up and not serve those needing the accessible feature.

 

[steveray]

How would you do that with the hot-pot cooking appliance that is built into the counter?

Beyond that, I would think that the counter would remain up and not serve those needing the accessible feature.

Sealtite I imagine.....andit doesn't matter what we think....Only what code requires....Ask Mark....

 

[classicT]

Sealtite I imagine.....andit doesn't matter what we think....Only what code requires....Ask Mark....

I was speaking towards code implications of the hot-pot appliance, such as reach range.

 

[steveray]

I was speaking towards code implications of the hot-pot appliance, such as reach range.

Put it in the right place and just worry about flexible wiring...If it works on the other side there is no reason it can't work there, obviously paying attention to hot and sharp stuff....

 

[bill1952]

The right way is to rebuild that end of the counter, but we're I in your position, I'd certainly try the flip up counter. I think it's ok from an egress point of view to block that passage - leaving two near maximum common path of egress travel. Not familiar with hot pot details but maybe a loose (portable) on a cord and plug?

I'm not sure how Texas code would apply but generally a wheelchair space in assembly searing is required to have a companion seat adjacent. In my work I tried to offer the option of a regular seat, removable, or a wheelchair space. Just something to know when considering options.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Thank you all for the insight. Based on the actual violation, I was trying to figure out if we could argue about the clear floor space - not necessarily the counter width as that wasn't called out.

I'm not familiar with the Codes in Texas, but sometimes sitting in another person's wheelchair will give you some perspectives.

Do me a favour. Borrow a wheelchair, and poke about your restaurant. Do try to access both bathrooms. Then repeat with a walker - but have your right foot tied to your butt-cheek so you can't use it. Then put on some gloves, and wrap both hands in duct tape to replicate dexterity challenges. For giggles, navigate with a blindfold.

Things I saw from the pictures:
- not enough space for two wheelchairs at the dining area. This is what you are protesting, and it's obviously insufficient.

You have put the handicapped seating the furthest from the bathroom (unless you want them to go across the tiled area?). That tells me that handicapped folks were an afterthought.

I've circled another area I consider a problem: the second bathroom door, when open lacks sufficient space to park a wheelchair and close the door in one motion. Sinks are too close to the wall to fit a wheelchair under comfortably, too.
Again, dunno what Codes say where you are, but if I saw that come across my desk, it would fail.

 

[steveray]

I've circled another area I consider a problem: the second bathroom door, when open lacks sufficient space to park a wheelchair and close the door in one motion. Sinks are too close to the wall to fit a wheelchair under comfortably, too.
Again, dunno what Codes say where you are, but if I saw that come across my desk, it would fail.

In the newer code only one of those bathrooms has to be accessible....The lav very well may be closer than 15" to the centerline....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm not sure how Texas code would apply but generally a wheelchair space in assembly searing is required to have a companion seat adjacent. In my work I tried to offer the option of a regular seat, removable, or a wheelchair space. Just something to know when considering options.

I mentioned that in post #5. Nobody has commented on it. I agree -- this seems like a poor layout in terms of accessibility and non-discrimination. And we should keep in mind that the root of the ADA is federal civil rights (non-discrimination) legislation. The goal and purpose is to allow people with various disabilities to enter and use facilities pretty mush as easily as the able-bodied. Putting the only two wheelchair dining spots adjacent to one another "at the back of the bus" just seems wrong. What happens if you have a couple come in, one of whom is in a wheelchair? Okay, you put that couple at the end of the bar, the able-bodied person gets the normal space and the wheelchair occupant gets the handicapped space adjacent.

15 minutes later, in comes another couple with one of them in a wheelchair. Now what?

 

[tabushabu]

I'm not familiar with the Codes in Texas, but sometimes sitting in another person's wheelchair will give you some perspectives.

Do me a favour. Borrow a wheelchair, and poke about your restaurant. Do try to access both bathrooms. Then repeat with a walker - but have your right foot tied to your butt-cheek so you can't use it. Then put on some gloves, and wrap both hands in duct tape to replicate dexterity challenges. For giggles, navigate with a blindfold.

Things I saw from the pictures:
- not enough space for two wheelchairs at the dining area. This is what you are protesting, and it's obviously insufficient.

You have put the handicapped seating the furthest from the bathroom (unless you want them to go across the tiled area?). That tells me that handicapped folks were an afterthought.

I've circled another area I consider a problem: the second bathroom door, when open lacks sufficient space to park a wheelchair and close the door in one motion. Sinks are too close to the wall to fit a wheelchair under comfortably, too.
Again, dunno what Codes say where you are, but if I saw that come across my desk, it would fail.

View attachment 12763

The bathrooms are compliant for both the toilet and lavatory area, including 60" of clearance and differ from the plans slightly. We did receive a violation that the mens bathroom (the one directly at the end of the hallway) has 17" (instead of 18") of maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door. Our contractor installed a swing in door versus swing out as per plan. We are trying to get them to fix that by reinstalling the door.

As for the issue with the ADA seating at the far end of the bar, our intent was never discriminate against a disabled person. The other restaurants with similar configurations all have accessible seating at the end and we followed that. If we were to place 2 accessible seats in the middle of the bar area, would create issues for contiguous seating for larger parties. In the year and half we have been open, we have only had a single wheelchair bound person dine with us and they were fine with the accommodations. We have a total of 35 spots at our bar (including the 2 ADA). If we were to have more than 2 require the accessible seating, they would have to wait for that area to open up.

I would absolutely reconfigure the ADA to be on the end closest to the restrooms if we had to do it again. Not only is that a straight shot from the entrance, but would be closer to the restroom as you indicated. I believe our path forward to achieve compliance will be to extend the ADA section by 11.5 inches.

 

[bill1952]

I mentioned that in post #5. Nobody has commented on it. I agree -- this seems like a poor layout in terms of accessibility and non-discrimination. And we should keep in mind that the root of the ADA is federal civil rights (non-discrimination) legislation. The goal and purpose is to allow people with various disabilities to enter and use facilities pretty mush as easily as the able-bodied. Putting the only two wheelchair dining spots adjacent to one another "at the back of the bus" just seems wrong. What happens if you have a couple come in, one of whom is in a wheelchair? Okay, you put that couple at the end of the bar, the able-bodied person gets the normal space and the wheelchair occupant gets the handicapped space adjacent.

15 minutes later, in comes another couple with one of them in a wheelchair. Now what?

I get you point but the odds are against it and there are times ambulatory people have to wait for a space. There's 2 spaces for 40 seats here, something like 5%. The actual number of people using wheelchairs who are out and about is around 0.5% .

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I get you point but the odds are against it and there are times ambulatory people have to wait for a space. There's 2 spaces for 40 seats here, something like 5%. The actual number of people using wheelchairs who are out and about is around 0.5% .

Accessibility is not just wheelchairs. It's old folks in walkers, or not-so-old folks recovering from knee surgery. Or the blind. Or war vets who have prosthetics. Or folks who walk with a cane and have good days where they don't need it so much, and bad days where they do.

 

[bill1952]

Accessibility is not just wheelchairs. It's old folks in walkers, or not-so-old folks recovering from knee surgery. Or the blind. Or war vets who have prosthetics. Or folks who walk with a cane and have good days where they don't need it so much, and bad days where they do.

Do you believe a 30x48 space is required for people with those disabilities? We are discussing wheelchair spaces.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Do you believe a 30x48 space is required for people with those disabilities? We are discussing wheelchair spaces.

I'm trying to bring to the forefront the idea that those who design accessible buildings need to think *beyond* wheelchairs.

And likewise for inspectors who evaluate plans/buildings.

 

[bill1952]

I'm trying to bring to the forefront the idea that those who design accessible buildings need to think *beyond* wheelchairs.

And likewise for inspectors who evaluate plans/buildings.

OK. But the OPs question was wheelchair spaces, so I'm just addressing his question. You're giving Mark K exactly the ammunition he needs to complain about building official overreach.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

OK. But the OPs question was wheelchair spaces, so I'm just addressing his question. You're giving Mark K exactly the ammunition he needs to complain about building official overreach.

FYI, the kind of things I'm addressing *are* Code violations in our jurisdiction.