Protrusion limits and circulation path for large restaurant bar

[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, starting with circulation paths. For reference, this was a brand new shell space and we opened for business in September 2022.

The inspector has called out our U shaped bar as being in the circulation path and that the bar countertop extends beyond 4 inches, exceeding the protrusion limit.

307.2 Protrusion Limits - Bar counter appears to protrude 11.5” at 39” and 20” at 29.5”. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches (685 mm) and not more than 80 inches (2030 mm) above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches (100 mm) maximum horizontally into the circulation path.

I've attached 2 items. One is a photo of the finished bar, and the other is the overall floor plan to give some context of where the door and walls are. Our restaurant is Japanese hot pot (shabu shabu) and each guest sits at the bar and cooks their food on induction cooktops. There are no tables or other dining areas in our restaurant.

ASK: Can someone help me understand if the bar is in the circulation path and should it be considered a protruding object. Additionally, since there are always bar stools around the bar, would that be cane detectible? If not, I'm thinking the least expensive fix would be some sort of foot rest that would have to extend out at least 7.5 inches to meet the 4 inch requirement.

Thank you!

 

[bill1952]

What's the dimension from bar edge to wall (at sides)?

(Where are spaces at bar for wheelchairs?)

 

[tabushabu]

The accessible bar area is on the right side of bar closest to the kitchen. I actually have a second post open around the accessible bar here.

The space between the bar counter and the inside wall is 60".

 

[ICE]

My first thought was that you should ask the TDLR for a ruling. So I went to the TDLR and found this:

(3) Space Requirements for Passing. Able-bodied persons in winter clothing, walking straight ahead with arms swinging, need 32 in (815 mm) of width, which includes 2 in (50 mm) on either side for sway, and another 1 in (25 mm) tolerance on either side for clearing nearby objects or other pedestrians. Almost all wheelchair users and those who use walking aids can also manage within this 32 in (815 mm) width for short distances. Thus, two streams of traffic can pass in 64 in (1625 mm) in a comfortable flow. Sixty inches (1525 mm) provides a minimum width for a somewhat more restricted flow. If the clear width is less than 60 in (1525 mm), two wheelchair users will not be able to pass but will have to seek a wider place for passing. Forty-eight inches (1220 mm) is the minimum width needed for an ambulatory person to pass a nonambulatory or semi-ambulatory person. Within this 48 in (1220 mm) width, the ambulatory person will have to twist to pass a wheelchair user, a person with a service animal, or a semi-ambulatory person. There will be little leeway for swaying or missteps (see Fig. A1).

Granted this does not explicitly address your situation however I can see where this could make your situation worse. As it stands now the path is 60" wide but the stools are in that 60" path. I do wonder how it got this far along before the question came up?

I am not well educated in accessibility code nor do I have any knowledge of Texas regulations ... so you should wait for the real thinkers to weigh in. I will add that your restaurant looks great and I hope that you prevail.

 

[bill1952]

By code, iirc, the chair is 19" from table (counter) edge, so only leaves 41". I don't think there is a protruding object issue. From an assembly seating view, I actually think you're ok. (Even though I don't like the wheelchair spaces way back and furthest from the exit.) Aisles all seem wide enough, 36", no steps, serving seating on one side. From their seating area, they can turn and go either direction. Don't know if they can actually pull up to surface - knee space.

Beware most of my work is in theaters, and only a few projects with chairs at tables, so without seeing, I could be missing something. (You're sure it's the counter that is the alleged protruding object?)

 

[tabushabu]

By code, iirc, the chair is 19" from table (counter) edge, so only leaves 41". I don't think there is a protruding object issue. From an assembly seating view, I actually think you're ok. (Even though I don't like the wheelchair spaces way back and furthest from the exit.) Aisles all seem wide enough, 36", no steps, serving seating on one side. From their seating area, they can turn and go either direction. Don't know if they can actually pull up to surface - knee space.

Beware most of my work is in theaters, and only a few projects with chairs at tables, so without seeing, I could be missing something. (You're sure it's the counter that is the alleged protruding object?)

Thank you both for the quick replies. The issues isn't the actual path, but the violation wasn't for the width, but rather for 307.2 - Protrusion Limits. This is to prevent someone with a cane from first walking into an object before their cane can detect it. My biggest issue is that I see obstacles like ours at a lot of other establishments.

The way I understand the code is that is primarily applies to walls where someone with a cane would normally use to find their way around a room. In our case, the walls and window areas have no protruding objects, it's just our bar that seems to be an issue. Also, the other Tabu Shabu restaurants that are in California are mostly set up in exactly the same way and didn't have this issue.


Advisory 307.2 Protrusion Limits. When a cane is used and the element is in the detectable range, it gives a person sufficient time to detect the element with the cane before there is body contact. Elements located on circulation paths, including operable elements, must comply with requirements for protruding objects. For example, awnings and their supporting structures cannot reduce the minimum required vertical clearance. Similarly, casement windows, when open, cannot encroach more than 4 inches (100 mm) into circulation paths above 27 inches (685 mm).

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I enforce ICC/ANSI A117.1, and Chapter 10 of the IBC which also has the same sections on protrusions into the into the circulation path. The circulation path is not the same as an accessible route or Means of Egress. The protrusion sections are to comply if they are or are not in an Accessible Route or Means of Egress width.
I don't think your bar is in the circulation route. No one would be walking there because of the stools. If it was a violation all the tables that they make with just one column and base in the middle of the table would be banned.

 

[steveray]

307.2 seems to match up to ANSI 117 which specifies circulation paths....Shirley the inspector is not calling the areas the chairs are in a circulation path.....

 

[steveray]

I enforce ICC/ANSI A117.1, and Chapter 10 of the IBC which also has the same sections on protrusions into the into the circulation path. The circulation path is not the same as an accessible route or Means of Egress. The protrusion sections are to comply if they are or are not in an Accessible Route or Means of Egress width.
I don't think your bar is in the circulation route. No one would be walking there because of the stools. If it was a violation all the tables that they make with just one column and base in the middle of the table would be banned.

Yeah...ditto

 

[classicT]

The inspector is not using his/her common sense. The chairs prevent the space along the counter from being part of the circulation path. This should be a non-issue.

 

[tabushabu]

I enforce ICC/ANSI A117.1, and Chapter 10 of the IBC which also has the same sections on protrusions into the into the circulation path. The circulation path is not the same as an accessible route or Means of Egress. The protrusion sections are to comply if they are or are not in an Accessible Route or Means of Egress width.
I don't think your bar is in the circulation route. No one would be walking there because of the stools. If it was a violation all the tables that they make with just one column and base in the middle of the table would be banned.

I'm still concerned that the definition of circulation paths would still apply to our front of house area. What I don't understand is why almost every other retail space or restaurant that I've ever been to is also non compliant. Walk into a small clothing store for example and there would be clothes fixtures with arms sticking out everywhere.

I did find this site that did a pretty good job of explaining this - even if it goes against what I'm trying to do. http://abadiaccess.com/circulation-paths/

 

[tabushabu]

The inspector is not using his/her common sense. The chairs prevent the space along the counter from being part of the circulation path. This should be a non-issue.

I like your thinking for sure!

 

[ICE]

The counter is not a protruding object. You could rightly label it a protrusion but try as you might, you can't run into it as you migrate down the circulation path. Rub against it for sure but slam into it, no. No harm, no foul.

 

[ICE]

I'm still concerned that the definition of circulation paths would still apply to our front of house area.

California Building Code:

CIRCULATION PATH. An exterior or interior way of passage from one place to another for pedestrians. [DSA-AC] An exterior or interior way of passage provided for pedestrian travel, including but not limited to, walks, hallways, court-yards, elevators, platform lifts, ramps, stairways and landings.

Pretty much anywhere a person can walk is a circulation path.

 

[bill1952]

If it were not allowed, no restaurant or dining room with tables and chairs would be allowed.

Were the chairs in place when the inspector was there? I'd assume so since your opened in 2022, but have to ask.

On the face of it, responders here seem to show consensus. I always have wonder what I didn't see.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

307.2 seems to match up to ANSI 117 which specifies circulation paths....Shirley the inspector is not calling the areas the chairs are in a circulation path.....

It appears that the inspector is considering the seating area (the space occupied by the chairs/stools) as the circulation path.

In other words -- the inspector is an idiot. Blind, wheelchair-bound, or able-bodied -- people don't normally circulate through chairs -- especially if the chairs have people seated on them.

If you read the IBC commentary on seating and aisles in restaurants, they talk about the chairs being a prescribed distance from the table edges, and the circulation path (the aisles and aisle access) being beyond that.

 

[tabushabu]

Thank you again for all the replies. I'm in complete agreement about the circulation path and the barstools. They have always been in place, including when inspector can for final inspection as we had been open for 6 months at the that point.

Our landlord (building owner) who has ultimate responsibility for signing off that our violations have been addressed refuses to. He said it's not up to him to confirm our fixes accept our reasoning on issues like this one. I'm wondering if I can just find another RAS inspector who will not see things the same way.

 

[Jay Smith]

Thank you again for all the replies. I'm in complete agreement about the circulation path and the barstools. They have always been in place, including when inspector can for final inspection as we had been open for 6 months at the that point.

Our landlord (building owner) who has ultimate responsibility for signing off that our violations have been addressed refuses to. He said it's not up to him to confirm our fixes accept our reasoning on issues like this one. I'm wondering if I can just find another RAS inspector who will not see things the same way.

I’d probably just call TDLR and ask for an interpretation. The tech info number is 512-539-5669.

 

[tabushabu]

I’d probably just call TDLR and ask for an interpretation. The tech info number is 512-539-5669.

I tried to reach out to TDLR and they said they could only talk to the owner or owner designee. Since the landlord is making this hard, they would not agree to add me as an owner designee.

 

[Jay Smith]

I tried to reach out to TDLR and they said they could only talk to the owner or owner designee. Since the landlord is making this hard, they would not agree to add me as an owner designee.

That surprises me. I once called them for an interpretation on scope for a hypothetical situation and they answered the question without even asking for my name.

 

[tabushabu]

That surprises me. I once called them for an interpretation on scope for a hypothetical situation and they answered the question without even asking for my name.

I will have to just try calling and asking for the hypothetical as you suggested. I sent an email with pictures and that's what they responded to.