ada/aba obstructed side range reach i...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Anne Onimous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 09:34 pm:    Wondering if you’ve en"countered" this before – trying to size this up for our standard specs and/or details now. A government client insisted on 24” maximum countertop depth and 23” base cabinets, even though our designers tell me that the standard across the casework industry is 25” countertops and 24” base cabinets. It seems to arise from the client agency's unique interpretation of obstructed high side reach. This is defined by ANSI and the Access Board, see link below. The way the agency reads it is entirely different from how ANSI has interpreted it for us and apparently how all the casework mfrs read it which is the countertop projection does not matter, only the base cabinet in the 24” requirement. Great way to use taxpayer dollars – buy a countertop and cut some of it off, fuss with sinks and things not fitting, and insist on that for every project and pay the resulting increased design costs on future projects. Could this really be what they want? Or do they want electrical outlets mounted on the backsplash (not sure that is always a good idea, zzzzzzzt ouch! Unless they are high enough away from wetting, but got to stay below 46" too) or maybe they want outlets mounted on blocks of wood?? They cite the side reach depth as a problem for a person with disabilities to be able to reach something like an electrical outlet. ANSI tells us you don't count the edge of the countertop. But I suppose all that matters is what the building official's interpretation is going to be from project to project. see figure 308.3.2 in the following link. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards/chapter-3-building-blocks Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 110 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:45 am:    Why not just get an official interpretation from ANSI and the local code official and pass them on to the client rep and their supervisor. Include the part about extra cost. This should work in your favor since I speak from experiance as a project coordinator employed by the state. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 617 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:59 am:    I concur with Richard's statement. I would also include the Architectural Woodwork Standards(AWS). This is the "bible" for the casework industry. Variations from this will have financial consequences as most of the manufacturers would have to readjust their jigs to comply and probably will not. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 610 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 01:27 pm:    In the link you provided, Figure 308.3.2 calls out for a maximum depth of 24 inches and maximum height of 34 inches for the obstruction. My guess is that is what your official is citing. Not much wiggle room there. Curious as to what the industry people are saying about this. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 411 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 01:55 pm:    Just curious, but when looking at a conventional 25-inch deep countertop, isn't the rear 1-inch or so taken up by the depth of the vertical backsplash, making the usable depth of the countertop actually 24-inches? E Jones Senior Member Username: ejonesspec Post Number: 8 Registered: 01-2011 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 03:35 pm:    Except it sounds like they're measuring the horizontal distance from countertop edge to wall-mounted electrical outlets that are up above a non-recessed backsplash, if Ms. Onimous would care to confirm. So is this a detailing issue, and how have others dealt with it? Got me thinking too. Anne Onimous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 03:47 pm:    Mr. Jones yes you have the right idea about why the backsplash is not taking up the extra inch. But does that really make it a detailing matter? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 613 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 09:40 pm:    Sounds more like it is a matter of requiring fabricated casework instead of manufactured casework. That way it's custom to suit your needs. Still, it's disappointing that manufacturers haven't learned to offer ADA-compliant versions of their products. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 274 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 10:17 am:    ADA compliance represents the minimum acceptable accommodation. Try to think of how you can provide the maximum accommodation. Just as controls ought to be at the front of a cook-top, electrical outlets and switches would ideally be provided at the front of base cabinets. This allows easy access for someone with less than average reach and eliminates the 25-inch dilemma. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 614 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 10:22 am:    Great idea Richard. Of course you would have to then design the space to suit your client's needs which again becomes more of a detailing issue as Mr. Jones mentioned. Anne Onimous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 04:06 pm:    Richard(s): Yes we have already taken those exact steps (getting ANSI interpretation, which directly says their intent was the 24" maximum applies to the base cabinet and the extra inch projection of the countertop they say does not matter, and then going to the AHJ who was still not convinced). I should mention there were not only electrical outlets but also switches, flush-mounted on the wall above the backsplash. So the agency's concern, and I think I'm hearing them quite well, is what if an impaired person cannot quite reach the switch for a light or garbage disposal, or plug their whatever into the outlet. The solution that was implemented was adding a 1" collar to all the switchplates and outlet covers. In the future we may want the design to call for cutting the extra inch off the countertops, for this agency and others who have that particular interpretation. Unless somehow our detailing needs to be revised. But I have also looked at AWS like you say (hard to break the habit of calling it AWI!), and found 25" dimensioned from countertop edge to the back of the backsplash, in an enlarged detail on page 613 of the 10/1/2009 edition (Appendix B, 10 - Casework, Basic Cabinetry). They dimension the base cabinet as 24" deep, but not even including the face of the cabinets which appear to have little or no recess back from the edge of the countertop. It could be argued that this detail does not fully comply with ADA/ABA guidelines, when the base cabinet does not even clearly show 24" maximum depth from the wall. So it is helpful on the one hand, outright showing a 25" countertop which is fitted under the backsplash. But not as helpful on the other hand, failing to show a 24" maximum base cabinet. My questions are: 1. Have others faced this same issue, of standard countertops being deemed incorrect for ADA/ABA? (even if you never have, that would also be helpful to know.) 2. If so, what solutions did you employ? 3. What standards would you adopt for future details or specifications? 4. What is the next tree I should bark up? If ANSI clarification did no good, what if we could get an Access Board clarification, perhaps that would do better? Then we could hopefully avoid extra cost on projects and maintaining a non-standard standard. Still the AHJ/agency's interpretation could go against even clarification from the Access Board, they can have things how they want it and everyone else be damned, right? Another outcome is the Access Board could say WE DID mean to count the countertop and everyone else in the casework industry has been doing it wrong - just a possibility! Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 620 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 05:43 pm:    The 2nd Edition of the AWS is being worked on as we speak. I will forward this on to Rob Gustafson at the Woodwork Institute (WI) as he is the prime author. By the way - AWI (American Woodwork Institute)still exists. The AWS (Architectural Woodwork Standards) combined the Manuals of both AWI & WI (formerly the Woodwork Institute of California) The AWS is the Manual for both organizations and AWMAC (Architectural Woodwork Manufacturers Association of Canada) Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 50 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 05:54 pm:    When the feds return to work, contact the DOJ/Access board for an interpretation. Technical Assistance (800) 872-2253 TTY: (800) 993-2822 Fax: (202) 272-0081 ta@access-board.gov That should have a higher level of legal interpretation than the independent ANSI. BTW ANSI is not valid here in California. Anne Onimous New member Username: anneo Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2013 Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 12:49 pm:    Thanks all for the great suggestions so far, including who best to contact next, and the additional thoughts on detailing for outlets/switches on front of base cabinets -- great if there are not small children in the user groups.