vanity counter tops

[Mr. Inspector]

A R-1 500 room hotel. ANSI 1002.11.2.1 requires the vanity counter space in the accessible units have the equivalent size as the non accessible units. The vanity counter tops in the accessible units are 3' and the non accessible units are 5'. This seems silly to me. I must now make them saw off part of the counter in 450 non accessible units to meet this. I this really necessary?

This seems to say that the a accessible units cannot have larger vanity counter tops as the non accessible units either.

2009 ANSI 1002.11.2.1

Vanity Counter Top Space. If vanity counter top space is provided in dwelling or sleeping units not required to be Accessible units within the same facility, equivalent vanity counter top space, in terms of size and proximity to the lavatory, shall also be provided in Accessible units.

 

[SCBO1]

Sounds like the accessible bathroom patron will only be able to put one bag on the vanity counter where the other patron has the advantage being able to put two bags on their vanity.

The bigger question is, where's the coffee pot setting? Is there the same amount of chi tea in both units?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Is this really necessary?

No absolutely not necessary.

Is it a stupid code section? Yes

3 ft is plenty of space for a hotel bathroom counter

 

[Mr. Inspector]

mtlogcabin please let me know where the code section is so they don't need to do this. I can not wave anything to do with accessiblity.

 

[steveray]

I don't think MT was saying it wasn't required....just that it wasn't "necessary" and was stupid code....

 

[mtlogcabin]

If you where in Montana you could use the following

(24) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person

But you are not and therefore you are stuck with a ridiculous code requirement.

No matter what you come up with the cost for 500 units can be significant unless you can make the 12 accessible units have a 5 ft counter. The remainder of the units have to meet Type B requirements which does not mention counter top sizes.

 

[north star]

+ & + & +

Put in some new blades and crank up the saws... It's rippin' time ! :mrgreen:

+ & + & +

 

[fatboy]

I agree with MT, if at all possible reconfigure the 12 units to match the 500............even serious reconfiguration............

 

[Mr. Inspector]

vanity counter tops

They are putting the accessible units In the same size space as the regular units so the accessible units need to have smaller vanities to make the bathrooms work. Since they can't make the accessible vanities larger they will need to make the regular vanities smaller. I told them this during the plan review months ago and now they are asking about it during the finishing work.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If it is not an ADA or Fair housing requirement then have them appeal to your board of appeals that 36" counter is sufficient space

Personally I would not be enforcing this one. A building code is for "minimum" standards, 36" is the minimum length for accessible counters found throughout the different accessibility codes

It may be a stretch but this may help

[A] 104.10 Modifications.

Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner’s representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.

A 500 room hotel and they have to modify 488 rooms to a lesser counter length so they are the same as the accessible unit seems pretty impractical to me. The accessible unit has a 36 inch counter that is consistent with the minimum accessible counter lenght found throughout the code. ANSI is not ment to provide equal rights such as ADA. It is a design standard and the counter length has been met. There is no design reason all counters should be the same length.

 

[skyhook]

As the term equal facilitation continues to expand its scope - and beyond vanity tops - its not hard to imagine all rooms being designed for ADA someday...so they all match.

Non accessible rooms: Place a 36" wide knee, mirror and vanity light over one portion of your counter top. Engrave "Not a vanity" in the remaining 24".

 

[mtlogcabin]

They are 488 rooms that will need some sort of modification. At a mere cost of $50.00 per room you are looking at a possible $24,000.00 dollar expense or maybe even 4 or 5 times that amount.

IBC

1101.2 Design.

Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1.

ANSI A117.1

Chapter 2. Scoping

201 General

This standard provides technical criteria for making sites, facilities, buildings, and elements accessible. The administrative authority shall provide scoping provisions to specify the extent to which these technical criteria apply. These scoping provisions shall address the application of this standard to: each building and occupancy type; new construction, alterations, temporary facilities, and existing buildings; specific site and building elements; and to multiple elements or spaces provided within a site or building.

202 Dwelling and Sleeping Units

Chapter 10 of this standard contains dwelling unit and sleeping unit criteria for Accessible units, Type A units, Type B units, Type C (Visitable) dwelling units and units with accessible communication features. The administrative authority shall specify, in separate scoping provisions, the extent to which these technical criteria apply. These scoping provisions shall address the types and numbers of units required to comply with each set of unit criteria.

Some will say that since Chapter 11 requires compliance with A117.1 then the whole standard is applicable. However the standard requires the AHJ to identify what is applicable and what may not.

Ask your legal counsel if your jurisdiction is in compliance with enforcing all of A117.1 if not it may be the contractor/designers out for these counter top portion.

 

[DonaldsonR]

can you post a sample plan, maybe someone could see a way to add a 2' area close to the lav so you would end up with the total 5' in the bathroom?

 

[mark handler]

If existing, Amenities should be equal. That maybe a fold up shelf to equal the five foot vanities in the comparable room.

If new construction, full size.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

They where told about this months ago during the plan review and had plenty of time to revise plans or appeal it. This is not my problem but is the builders/owners/designers. Pa uses 2012 IBC ch. 11 and appendix E which includes all of ANSI 2009.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I can't let them go because I think it's a stupid section. I also thing tactile exit signs are stupid.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Agree you did you part and told them. Agree that since this was noted way in the beginning it is not you problem

All that said it is still a bad code provision.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

NOTICE TO GUESTS!

Please be advised you may not use the counter top area either 12 inches to the right or left.

This would constitute an unfair advantage to non-handicapped people. For those who are handicapped, we have made special concessions and modifications to accommodate their specialness, so they can be just like you.

But different. But they are the same, and should be treated the same, except for all the special things we do for them so they can be the same.

Again, thank you for your understanding and not using the vanity on the left, or right for 12 inches (24 inches total) thereby making the world fair and equitable.

The Management.

There is a reasonable solution to all challenges.

Brent.

 

[jar546]

Well, you are in PA and it is not your call. They will have to file an appeal with the Accessibility Advisory Board at Labor & Industry. They were told about it during plan review and it is their problem. You are not making them do anything. They did it to themselves. You will get hung out to dry on your audit. A rule is a rule whether we agree with it or not and they are obligated to conform to it. They put themselves in this position. Not your problem or call.

 

[north star]

= + = + =

"There is a reasonable solution to all challenges.Brent."

All except one !..........That one could be any attorney that decidesto take up the cause for an opportunity for revenue............It does

not necessarily mean it is about fairness or equivalent facilities,

...extra large print or not !



= + = + =

 

[conarb]

I can't let them go because I think it's a stupid section. I also thing tactile exit signs are stupid.

No you don't have to enforce stupid laws, all executive functions of the government exercise discretion, the Chef Executive exercises discretion, he is not enforcing immigration, drug, and even some Obamacare laws because he either thinks they are stupid, or he thinks it would be stupid to enforce them at this point in time. You are on the same level of the executive function of government as cops are, in the Eric Garner case the cop enforced a stupid law and killed a man in the process, had he looked the other way the country would be a lot better off today, just like if you don't enforce stupid accessibility laws the country and the actually handicapped people would be a lot better off. In the cigarette case:

So why dredge it all up again now? Because New York is once again exporting nasty stuff to the commonwealth: crime and big government.

Thanks to New York’s laughably high cigarette taxes ($4.35 state plus another $1.60 in the city) and higher prices generally, a pack of smokes in New York City costs $14 or more. That creates a powerful incentive to smuggle smokes in from states such as Virginia, where you can buy a pack for a third of that price. Fill a Ford Econoline van with a few hundred cartons and you can make a nice five-figure profit in a weekend. Some people do.¹

It's only morally right to exercise discretion, where do you draw the line, if the law says to put Jews in the oven are you going to comply because it's the law? Codes have gone way too far beyond their original mandate of protecting the health and safety and are now instruments of social engineering. The tyrannical attitude of some on their forum is bothersome, if not downright disgusting.

¹ http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/03/how-new-york-citys-steep-cigarette-taxes

 

[jar546]

Wow, what a hyped-up, hypothetical, spin of a response.

 

[ICE]

Wow, what a hyped-up, hypothetical, spin of a response.

Take away the hyperbole and all that's left is the truth.

There's a lot of "If we can't enjoy it, you can't have it" in the ADA law. Lawmakers should be satisfied that an accessible accommodation exists to the extent possible and not be concerned with equality. Accessibility is not a civil right. A compassionate society can choose to provide accessibility but to make it a law defies common sense.

 

[conarb]

Jeff:

You do realize that the disability rights movement is part of the Communist movement?

The following article is a tentative attempt to combine communist theory with the insights of disability activists and theorists in order to promote revolutionary approaches to understanding and overcoming the oppression of disabled people.

Communism: The real movement to abolish disability

The dominant ideas of the ruling class are the dominant ideas of the age. As revolutionaries we know this and must constantly be alert to the ways in which they influence and limit our own conception of how things are and where they might go. We are alert to the fact that in our popular culture it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. In the revolutionary milieu we reject -with varying degrees of success- the universality of wage labour, the state, the nuclear family and so on. In the piece I want to focus on an area most revolutionaries never bring into their analysis of political economy: disability. Disability, I will argue, is a feature of present day social relations, that it is specific to capitalism, that it will not go away as long as capitalism persists and finally that communism presents the answer to the problem of disability. In doing so I locate disability firmly in ‘the present state of things’ that Marx argued communists must seek to abolish.¹

BTW. Libcom is the site of the Libertarian Communist Party, it's based in Britain and is a worldwide movement.

Libcom.org is an online resource on left-wing anti-capitalist social movements, such as anarchism, marxism, and communism. The site includes an extensive library of almost 20,000 articles, books, pamphlets and journals; alongside a forum, blogs, and international coverage of the labour movement. The site also acts as an archive for radical websites at risk of deletion²

¹ https://libcom.org/library/communism-real-movement-abolish-disability

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libcom.org