# provide same use on mezz as not on mezz??



## Hyrax4978 (Jul 6, 2018)

I use to work with an architect who would require us to provide something that i can not seem to find in the code book. 

If we provided a small mezzanine, with something like a break room on it, the architect would require us to provide a break room on the main floor as well. he said that because not all people can access the mezzanine we have to provide the same use on the main floor as on the mezz. 

Has any one encountered this? 

Some small mezzanines and small second levels that dont have elevators will always restrict some people from having access. are we limiting people when we provide a break room that someone in a wheelchair can not access? 

He also went as far to say you can't ask someone in a wheel chair to exit the building and drive to the back of the building if the second level happened to be at grade on that side. 

Thanks,

Brian


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 6, 2018)

May someone provide additional feedback if project is in CT or if ADA is applicable.

*1104.4 Multilevel buildings and facilities*. At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible level, including mezzanines, in multilevel buildings and facilities.

*Exceptions:
*
1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet and are located above and below accessible levels. This exception shall not apply to:
1.1. Multiple tenant facilities of Group M occupancies containing five or more tenant spaces;
1.2. Levels containing offices of health care providers (Group B or I); or
1.3. Passenger transportation facilities and airports (Group A-3 or B).

2. Levels that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level.

3. In air traffic control towers, an accessible route is not required to serve the cab and the floor immediately below the cab.

4. Where a two-story building or facility has one story with an occupant load of five or fewer persons that does not contain public use space, that story shall not be required to be connected by an accessible route to the story above or below.

5. Vertical access to elevated employee work stations within a courtroom is not required at the time of initial construction, provided a ramp, lift or elevator can be installed without requiring reconfiguration or extension of the courtroom or extension of the electrical system.

*1108.2.9.1 Dining surfaces.* Where dining surfaces for the consumption of food or drink are provided, at least 5 percent, but not less than one, of the dining surfaces for the seating and standing spaces shall be accessible and be distributed throughout the facility and located on a level accessed by an accessible route.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 6, 2018)

Hyrax4978 said:


> I use to work with an architect who would require us to provide something that i can not seem to find in the code book.
> 
> He also went as far to say you can't ask someone in a wheel chair to exit the building and drive to the back of the building if the second level happened to be at grade on that side.
> 
> ...



It depends on the code adopted where applicable in existing buildings or for new construction?

*1104.5 Location.* Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path. Where the circulation path is interior, the accessible route shall also be interior. Where only one accessible route is provided, the accessible route shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, closets or similar spaces.
Exceptions:
1. Accessible routes from parking garages contained within and serving Type B units are not required to be interior.
2. A single accessible route is permitted to pass through a kitchen or storage room in an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 6, 2018)

ADA is a civil rights issue - the architect was wise and tried to prevent ADA lawsuits for discrimination. The intent is that everybody has the same options --- i.e. If my child has the ability to go across the stage to receive their diploma, then my child in a wheel chair ought to have the same opportunity.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 6, 2018)

For what it is worth, CT is on 2010 ADA Guidelines based on information found on the web. Sounds like the City of Hartford has had DOJ action against the City.


ALSo Hyrax, it will depend upon the structure being constructed whether it is title II (government - accessibility required period- public fund expenditure.) or a Title III Public Building (Private Funding - no government monies involved)

This is a simplistic statement as to what the differences are from Title II to a Title III Building - Loopholes abound and further study is needed for the exact application.

One resource to better understand why the architect took such a progressive stance on ADA issues, it may be worth your time (and naps) to investigate the DOJ findings for ADA complaints concerning Title II and Title III structures.


----------



## steveray (Jul 6, 2018)

CT amendments:

(Add) 1103.2.16 Statutory requirements. The following additional exceptions to requirements
for accessibility are in accordance with section 29-274 of the Connecticut General Statutes:
1. Accessibility shall not be required in renovations, additions or alterations to stories in
existing buildings above the street floor being converted to Group B provided each
story above the street floor contains less than 3,000 square feet of total gross area
per floor and the street floor is renovated or altered to provide accessibility to persons
with disabilities. This provision shall not apply to stories above the street floor that
include the offices of health care providers, municipal or state agencies or passenger
transportation facilities or offices located in airport terminals.
2. Buildings and structures of any occupancy not otherwise exempted from the
requirements of this chapter shall be exempt if each story above and below the street
floor contains less than 3,000 square feet of total gross area and the street floor is
designed, renovated or altered to provide accessibility to persons with disabilities. This
provision shall not apply to stories above or below the street floor that include the
offices of health care providers, municipal or state agencies or passenger
transportation facilities or offices located in airport terminals or mercantile facilities
having five or more tenant spaces.
(Add) 1103.2.17 Mezzanines. Mezzanines having fewer than 3,000 square feet of gross floor
area, either singly or in the aggregate for multiple mezzanines on any floor are not required to be
accessible and are not required to be located on an accessible route, provided that the goods
and services available on any mezzanine shall be available in accessible areas.


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jul 6, 2018)

Some people get over zealous about things.  I agree that it is a civil issue and some practical sensitivity needs to be applied.  I have a fellow plan reviewer who says that every level within a restaurant needs to be wheelchair accessible.  Seems ridiculous to me that if the same food is being served by the same waiter on the main floor level and a small area addition that is raised only twelve inches to comply with flood plain regulations, that the upper level would need a twelve foot long ramp (1:12 slope).


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 6, 2018)

Love these site specific issues not initially pointed out.
This is a classic "it depends" issue.
Need to see a floor plan if you please?
1. How big is the (+12") area vs the rest of the room?
2. Booths or loose tables and chairs?
3. Note: 12" is a potential trip hazard or does it have a railing?


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 6, 2018)

steveray said:


> (Add) 1103.2.17 Mezzanines. Mezzanines having fewer than 3,000 square feet of gross floor
> area, either singly or in the aggregate for multiple mezzanines on any floor are not required to be
> accessible and are not required to be located on an accessible route, provided that the goods
> and services available on any mezzanine shall be available in accessible areas.



Interesting. So if they run out of chocolate chip cookies on one mezzanine but not the other they could be breaking the law.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 6, 2018)

Don't know about CBC, but the IBC has an exclusion for small dining areas as long as the same food and atmosphere are the same/ exception # 2 IBC section 1108.2.9


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 6, 2018)

The key word is "small"


----------



## Builder Bob (Jul 9, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> The key word is "small"



less than 25% of dining facility in this case --- which in smaller restaurants make it about 250 to 300 sf.


----------

