• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Scoping for a coin operated laundromat

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,400
Searched for but can't find any scoping requirement for a commercial laundromat (5% but not less than 1 type language). Without scoping, do I revert to all machines?
 
2010 ADA Standards 214 (which California has copied as CBC 214):

1659131962404.png
1659131985833.png

Note that your local jurisdiction may be more stringent.

Also, if federal funds touched the project or site - - for example, if the laundromat is an onsite amenity for a federally funded affordable housing complex - - then going beyond ADA, HUD says Section 504/UFAS will require 100% of washers and dryers to be accessible.

For ADA 611, note that "operable parts" also means the coin slots, etc. on the machines.

1659132637272.png
Lastly, anything else the public would touch as part of their use of the facility - such as vending machines, machines that exchange paper money for coins, etc. - would be scoped under ADA, as well as the paths-of travel, etc.
 
Thanks Yikes. That is the type of scoping language I was looking for, but I can't cite the ADA, only ANSI. I will request they provide accessible machines, coin changers, vending etc., per the technical standards. The only scoping I can find for W/D in the IBC is in appx. E (which surprises me), which is not adopted. When/if they come back and ask how many I will explain the scoping from the appx. and how it would behoove them to follow it as it is identical to the ADA scoping.
 
It is for the AOR to indicate to his client that ADA and local amendments often exceed ICC (it only being a model code)
 
It is for the AOR to indicate to his client that ADA and local amendments often exceed ICC (it only being a model code)
Agree, but from what I can tell that doesn't always happen, and in this case would almost guarantee it won't happen.
 
Back
Top