• 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.

mezz adjacent to second floor office

H

Hyrax4978

REGISTERED
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
238
Location
Hartford, CT
I have a client who had a preliminary floor plan from someone that had a 2,950 SF two story office space adjacent to a 12,000 sf open shop space. They had a mezzanine backed up to the office, with the floor elevation of the mezzanine and second floor at the same elevation and two doors from the 2nd office space to the mezzanine. The mezzanine is open to the shop space. I struggle with the two doors from the office as the access to the mezzanine

Any comments or thoughts?

It doesn't seam like its still a mezzanine at that point, but i can't seem to find where it might say that its not just because its accessed from a second floor office.
 
Does it need to be a mezzanine for some reason? If there is already a second story it does not seem like you would need a mezzanine unless it is to get out of accessibility or maybe and egress gimme?
 
If its not a mezz, then an elevator would be required. and he wants to avoid that. originally his 2nd story office was around 4,000 sf by itself (he still had the mezz at that time), and i told him he would need an elevator. thats when he said lets make the office smaller. now all im struggling with is his mezzanine with two doors from his 2nd floor office. He is talking with two designers, the other guy said its fine, but im struggling with it. This seems like a lame loop hole to still have second floor over 3,000 sf without an elevator. But i can't find anyplace that says you can't access the mezzanine from a second floor office. If you still meet common path and travel distances. Again, it doesn't feel right, but i can't find anything that says otherwise.
I am just so use to mezzanines having their own stairs/exits.
 
Hyrax4978 said:
If its not a mezz, then an elevator would be required. and he wants to avoid that. originally his 2nd story office was around 4,000 sf by itself (he still had the mezz at that time), and i told him he would need an elevator. thats when he said lets make the office smaller. now all im struggling with is his mezzanine with two doors from his 2nd floor office. He is talking with two designers, the other guy said its fine, but im struggling with it. This seems like a lame loop hole to still have second floor over 3,000 sf without an elevator. But i can't find anyplace that says you can't access the mezzanine from a second floor office. If you still meet common path and travel distances. Again, it doesn't feel right, but i can't find anything that says otherwise.
I am just so use to mezzanines having their own stairs/exits.
Click to expand...

Since 2012, less that 3 stories has no area limitation for the exemption... Elevators are not required in facilities under three stories OR with fewer than 3000 square feet per floor.
 
Does the egress off of the mezz meet egress through intervening spaces? If so, its a little cheaty, but it might work....

Watch out for the word "aggregate"
1104.4 Multistory buildings and facilities. At least one
accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine
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 (278.7 m2) and are located
above and below accessible levels.
 
I've read that section many times, but its really has me thinking this time.
I see that term aggregate. That seems like an important piece of this pie.
Also...
"and are located above and below accessible levels" I read that to say that if i had an accessible second floor, and the mezz was at the same floor elevation, then the mezzanine would have to be accessible.
 
Just an updated, CT modified section 1104.4 and does not have the term "aggregate" in there. they refer back to 1103.2.15 and 1103.2.16 which are also CT specific.
 
I assume CT didn't mean to get rid of the "aggregate" terminology for any specific reason. And i think this example is a perfect reason to have it. I can only assume it was a slight of words when they amended it. But i guess its hard to argue my side in CT without "aggregate". They do say aggregate mezzanines however.
 
Because we screw things up when we put them in statute and can never get them back out...

Sec. 29-274. (Formerly Sec. 19-396c). Exemptions from State Building Code standards. (a) The provisions of section 29-269 shall not apply to detached one and two-family dwellings.

(b) The provisions of section 29-269 shall not apply to the renovations, additions or alterations to existing buildings above the street floor being converted to use group B, “Business Buildings”, as defined in the State Building Code, provided: (1) Each story above the street floor contains less than three thousand square feet of total gross area per floor; (2) the street floor is renovated or altered to comply with the provisions of section 29-269; and (3) the nonaccessible story above the street floor does not include the offices of health care providers, municipal or state agencies or passenger transportation facilities or offices located in airport terminals.

(c) Any building consisting of three stories or less, not otherwise exempted from the provisions of section 29-269 shall be exempt from said section if (1) each story above or below the street floor contains less than three thousand square feet of total gross area, (2) the street floor is designed, renovated or altered to comply with the provisions of section 29-269, and if applicable, section 29-273, and (3) the nonaccessible story above or below the street floor does not 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.

Sec. 29-269. (Formerly Sec. 19-395a). Standards for construction of buildings to accommodate persons with physical disabilities.
 
steveray said:
Does the egress off of the mezz meet egress through intervening spaces? If so, its a little cheaty, but it might work....

Watch out for the word "aggregate"
1104.4 Multistory buildings and facilities. At least one
accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine
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 (278.7 m2) and are located
above and below accessible levels.
Click to expand...

That will reign in lot of the area the 'OR' let out.
 
Hyrax4978 said:
I assume CT didn't mean to get rid of the "aggregate" terminology for any specific reason. And i think this example is a perfect reason to have it. I can only assume it was a slight of words when they amended it. But i guess its hard to argue my side in CT without "aggregate". They do say aggregate mezzanines however.
Click to expand...

You could always call Joe or Darren at OSBI...They don't like to get too into interpreting Statute, but they might say what they have seen....
 
Does the ADA requirement match the model code? CT may have amended the model code but if it differs from ADA that doesn't mean you can ignore ADA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top