FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
May 30, 2012
Meeting Held by Teleconference
The
meeting was conducted via teleconference beginning at 2:00 P.M. Members present were: Jack Humburg, Bob Gerwe, Barbara Page, and
William S. Riha. The agenda was
approved. The minutes from the meeting
of March 21, 2012 were approved with one correction to the spelling of a
council member’s name. Applications for
waivers from accessibility code requirements were reviewed as follows, and
recommendations were unanimous unless otherwise noted:
Issue: Vertical accessibility to all levels in three
buildings being converted to a boutique hotel.
Analysis: The applicant requested a waiver from
providing vertical accessibility to all levels in three buildings which were
originally built as apartments, subsequently converted to offices and are now
being modified as a small, boutique hotel.
The application previously came
before the Commission on December 6, 2011, at which time a waiver was granted
for two of the three buildings for which waivers were requested. The third building, #1225, was deferred to
the Council meeting on March 21 to enable the applicant to provide further
information about the costs and structural difficulties of installing an
elevator. The applicant was in contact
with staff and asked that the matter be deferred again to the May 30 Council
meeting. The applicant did not
participate in the May 30 teleconference, and did not submit any additional
information about the project.
Recommendation: Deny, on the basis
that the applicant has not submitted sufficient information to demonstrate a
hardship on which a waiver can be granted.
Issue: Vertical accessibility to the mezzanine
level.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver
from providing vertical accessibility to the mezzanine. The applicant did not participate in the
teleconference. This is an existing one
story retail building with a portion being remodeled into a two level shooting
range with a cost of $230,000.00. The hardship is caused by the expense of
access to the mezzanine is unnecessary since the services are the same on both
levels. The project is under design. The project appears potentially exempt from
the requirement to provide vertical accessibility under ss 553.509(e), F.S.
Recommendation: Approve
upon the condition that the turning radii in the accessible shooting lanes are
increased to five feet and that revised plans are submitted to Commission staff
confirming the changes.
Issue: Vertical accessibility
to the second floor
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical
accessibility to all levels of a 6 level, 124 seat auditorium. The applicant did not participate in the
teleconference. The project is a new
building that is 3 stories and 25,869 square feet. It includes a dining hall, offices, fitness
and an auditorium for 124 people. The
project cost is $2,964,857. The ADA seating is dispersed on the lower level,
which is allowed under the 2012 accessibility code. The hardship caused by the
introduction of a ramping system would significantly reduce available seating. The project is under construction.
Recommendation: Grant, on the basis
of unnecessary hardship. The Council
specifically noted that this recommendation is based upon the revised drawings
submitted by the applicant that provide for companion seating for accessible
seating spaces – NOT the original drawings.
Issue: Vertical accessibility to the second
floor.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver
from providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of a commercial
building. The applicant, Eric Smith,
participated in the teleconference. The
applicant is a new tenant in an existing triplex, and his company is a computer
consulting business. According to the applicant, no alteration work has been
done, work on the building consists of installing firewalls, but a new
Certificate of Occupancy was issued because the building had been vacant. An
estimate of $109,082 for an elevator was submitted.
Recommendation: Defer to the next
Council meeting to allow for involvement of the building owner and provision of
further information about the nature and cost of the work done to the building.
Issue: Vertical accessibility to the second
floor.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver
from providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of a restaurant in a
building that was constructed in the early 1900s. Cody Smith, A.I.A., represented the applicant
at the teleconference. The project consists of alterations to the first floor
and exterior deck area with an estimated cost of $507,339. According to the applicant, more than 20% of
the project cost will be for accessible elements, including parking space,
access aisle, exterior ramp, accessible entry doors and restrooms. Estimates of $35,500.00 and $38,750.00 for an
elevator were submitted to substantiate financial costs that will be incurred
by the owner if the waiver is denied.
The estimates and do not include shaft or alterations to existing
building, which the applicant stated would require reducing kitchen and/or
dining space. The project is under
design.
Recommendation: Grant based on
disproportionate cost and unreasonable hardship.
Issue: Vertical accessibility
to the second floor
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical
accessibility to the second floor sleeping areas in a sorority house that was
built in 1950. The applicant was
represented during the teleconference by Conn & Associates Architects. The project consists of two first floor
additions with approximately 1,328 square feet.
The project cost is $270,000. Estimates of $39,000 and $34,000 for an
elevator were submitted to substantiate the applicant’s statement that it would
be disproportionate and these do not include shaft or alterations to existing
building. According to the applicant,
installation of an elevator would disrupt the configuration of the existing
building and require removal of an existing room on each floor. No work is being performed on the second
floor.
The project is in plan review and was permitted under the 2007 FBC.
Recommendation: Grant based on
disproportionate cost and unreasonable hardship.
Issue: Vertical accessibility to a new deck.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver from
providing vertical accessibility to a new
42’ x 18’ deck that is being added to an existing restaurant. The applicant, Nicolas Kimball, participated
in the teleconference. The cost for the
project is $61,500 and estimates from $47,620 to $137,000 were submitted as the
cost to add an elevator or protected lift to the site. The restaurant is located adjacent to the
ocean and the marine environment makes upkeep and maintenance of mechanical
equipment very difficult and costly.
According to the applicant, family members are helping to build the
project which includes new accessibility features such as an entrance ramp,
accessible front door, and widening of another door. The project is under design.
Recommendation: Three Council
members recommended that the waiver be granted, based on disproportionate cost
and unreasonable hardship. One Council
member recommended that the waiver be denied.
Issue: Vertical accessibility to the second floor of
a medical office building.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a waiver from
providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of a two story medical
office building with 2,995 square feet per floor. The project is in plan
review. The applicant did not participate in the
teleconference. According to application
materials, the building is undergoing a $110,216 alteration to the first floor
only. All medical treatment will be done
on the first floor with the second floor used for clerical offices. Although more than five employees will be
located on the second floor, the Commission may consider disproportionate cost
as a basis for granting the waiver.
Estimates of $39,915 for a LULA and $83,966 for an elevator were
submitted. Federal regulations require
that any building housing the offices of a health care provider must an include
an elevator to levels where such offices are available. Clarification from the Access Board defines
such offices as:
.
(1) For purposes of this paragraph (d) -
(i) Professional office of a health care provider means a location where
a person or entity regulated by a State to provide professional services
related to the physical or mental health of an individual makes such services
available to the public. The facility housing the "professional office of
a health care provider" only includes floor levels housing at least one
health care provider, or any floor level designed or intended for use by at
least one health care provider.
Recommendation: Defer to the next
Council meeting to allow for involvement of the applicant to answer the
Council’s questions about the project and planned use of the space.