# dough and show viewing area for children



## Bryant (Dec 10, 2019)

Have one that is defying chapter 11 of IBC for accessibility and it becomes a point of interpretation, which brings me to the point.
Have a dominos renovation level 3 alteration.
They have to the side of the front counter, an area designated as "dough & show" which basically allows kids to go up a set of fixed  box steps (2 risers) and view the show. The problem becomes, what about the other children who are bound to a wheel chair from seeing the same show as the other kids.
Searching thru relevant sections of the IBC/VCC chapter 11, specifically 1103.2 and following, provides no guidance for enforcement, section 1108 in its entirety, a blank. following with section 1109.11 , nothing.

Is this dead on arrival?
I thought perhaps the viewing area "Sneeze panel" could be lowered as such to afford a view for all, with the  countertop services areas allowance referenced per the accessibility standards for countertop accessibility , but again, cannot lock in a code section to back it up...

Thanks


----------



## cda (Dec 10, 2019)

A Sign

“If you need help viewing the dough and prep, please ask”


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 10, 2019)

Similar to a boat show room. We leave they bring in the boats on trailers along with the 3 or 4 step viewing platform to see into the boats. Fixtures and furniture not a code issue


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 10, 2019)




----------



## JPohling (Dec 10, 2019)

I have seem an angled mirror used to allow viewing in cases like this.

Slide 48 from the most recent ADA webinar on accessible restaurants and bars.
"food prep and other areas intended to be visible to the customers should be equally visible to people with disabilities, but this is not addressed in the standard"


----------



## Bryant (Dec 10, 2019)

Yup, that about sums it up, thanks


----------



## SY PE (Dec 10, 2019)

Perhaps this is not a building code issue but an ADA accessibility question for the business owner to consider or the courts to make a determination.  The owner should read up on the need for the "same customer experiences":

"In July 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled in _Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc._, that the Chipotle Experience violated the ADA because there was no “equivalent facilitation” for customers in wheelchairs, who could not see over a wall separating the food from the customers."

https://www.retailconsumerproductsl...ffer-patrons-equivalent-customer-experiences/


----------



## steveray (Dec 10, 2019)

That is a handsome first post you have there!....Welcome!


----------



## DMartin (Dec 10, 2019)

A ramp could be incorporated instead of the boxes depending on the layout. Especially if they are in the midst of a renovation anyways, be ahead of the curve if possible. Sooner or later it is coming. they have already been through the ringer over there website.  I believe the chipotle lawsuit was because they couldn't see to choose toppings for the meals not really for viewing of the process but it could be brought up in future litigations to try and sway a decision.


----------



## Bryant (Dec 11, 2019)

SY PE said:


> Perhaps this is not a building code issue but an ADA accessibility question for the business owner to consider or the courts to make a determination.  The owner should read up on the need for the "same customer experiences":
> 
> "In July 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled in _Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc._, that the Chipotle Experience violated the ADA because there was no “equivalent facilitation” for customers in wheelchairs, who could not see over a wall separating the food from the customers."
> 
> https://www.retailconsumerproductsl...ffer-patrons-equivalent-customer-experiences/



due diligence pays, and so does doing one's homework. I think it can get convoluted when there is no clear path from local interpretation  based on the enforceable codes in one's own jurisdiction. The fact that this subject is bigger than chapter 11 of the IBC/VCC and by proxy ICC A117.1-09, makes for the legal argument that code interpretation could be decided in a court of law as to the enforcement of grey areas that are not clearly defined such as this, Good catch, thinking like a lawyer, kudos to you ...


----------

