The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1987-04-09 Discussion Item (4)r � i Report on Bayside Project: by Daniel S. Holder Deputy Director ; Dade County Office Of Handicapped Opportunities The following observations and can, nts are based on a visit to Bayslde on April 1, 1887, provisions in the South Florida Building Code, and Information obtained fran Mr. Sandy Welnreb of Dade County's Code Enforcement Division and Mr. Jim SurtelI of the same Division. Mr. Welnreb Is a code ca, Iler who works closely with the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals and Is familiar with Interpretations that the Board has made regarding Section 515 of the SFBC. Mr. Surtell is a supervisor and plans examiner who has worked closely with section 515 for the last ten years or more. 1. On the north side of the site, the sidewalk does not provide sufficient width -for a person In a wheelchair and curb cuts have not been provided for crossing the service road or for crossing the street that leads to the Port of Mlaml. The SFBC gives the required width for paths as 44 Inches. Curb cuts are required at all points of pedestrian crossing. 2. Although handicapped persons generally have more difficulty getting from one point to another, the designers of this project apparently decided that It was appropriate to require handicapped persons to travel longer distances than their able-bodied counterparts. For atlle bodied persons, access from the parking garage to the north building Is prov 1 ded at two po I nts on the lower 1 eve I and at two points on the upper level. There are two passenger elevators In the parking garage and there are stair at several points In the north building. For !!handicapped persons, the Intended access from the parking garage Is at the third;level and Is provided by two ramped bridges sloping down from the third level lof the garage to the second level of the north building. The ramped bridges have a slope of 12 to 1 and a sloped length of thirty nine feet without any level area. To meet the requirements of section 515 of the SFBC, the ramp would have to have a five foot long level area at Icast nine feet fran the beginning or end of the slope, preferably In the middle of the ramp. Without meeting this requIrenent, the route utilizing the sloped bridges can not be considered an accessible route. In the north building there Is a service elevator adjacent to the south ramped bridge. and a passenger elevator adjacent to the north ramped bridge. 1 am not sure whether the service elevator can be used by the public but Its vertically opening doors would be Intimidating to most people. if the ramped bridges were at a proper slope, then technically the requirements of the SFBC would be met. However, a handicapped person parking on the first floor of the garage near the south crossover would have to take the elevator to the third floor, cross the ramped bridge, go Into the shopping area on the second floor, go north to the north crossover and take the elevator there to get to the ground level and then go south through the shopping area to get back to the point on the ground level that an able bodied person would have reached simply by climbing two steps and walking across the street. ;rJ° r My recammidat I on to provide full accessibility Is: to provide access at both lower crossovers, to provide a 1 eve I p I at form at the m I dpo i nt of each ramped bridge on the upper level, and, If the service needs can be met with a narrower cleariopening In the south elevator, to convert the service elevator to a passenger type elevator with horizontal doors. If It. Is decided to simply meet minimun code requirements, then providing access at the laver crossovers and leaving the ramped bridges as they are would be preferable to Just changing the bridges. Metro's code enforcement people have stated that the ramps would be allowable as pedestrian ramps even without the rest stop if they were not required as an accessible route for handicapped persons. In my opinion, the ramps would have to be marked to Indicate that they do not meet requirements for handicapped access and signs should be provided to the nearest accessible crossover. In thQ public restroans, we found several discrepancies. In the toilet stalls, ANSI 1971 requires a 36" wide stall with one and a half Inch diameter handralls mounted one and a half Inches frcm each wall. There Is no alternative stall width given and there Is no alternative handrail design given. In ANSI 1986, therelis an alternate stall shown that Is 48 " wide. In that stall, the toilet Is mounted with Its center Ilne 18" fran the wall on which a handrail Is mounted and there Is also a handrail on the back. There are no alternate stall widths. The conclusion that I reach from this Is that the space between handralls must be a uniform 30" clear unless the stall is 48" wide and the toile Is mounted with Its center line eighteen Inches fran one wall. This conclusion Is supported by a nunber of handicapped Individuals 1 have talked to who Indicate that when the handralls are further from the toilet It requires a great Ideal more upper body strength to use then. In one restrokm there was a stall that covered the end of the roan and opened fran the side. According to the ANSI 1980 Standards, such a configuration would require a 36" clear width doorway to enter a 36" wide stall In that manner. 1 would Irecamend that width even though Chapter 553 of Florida statutes wou l d allow 33" clear width minimum. 1 Within' the shops themselves, there were a number of shops that were not provld'Ing one foot of space to the side of the pull side, latch side of the doorway. In one Instance, the counter Inside the shop was about seventeen Inches back fran the doorway. A question arose regarding how far back the one foot of space has to extend. In the new code, It Is clear that the space must extend five feet. In the code under which Bayside was approved, the requirement Is not clear. The recommended solution In all cases Is to either provide one foot of clear space for a distance five feet back or to swing the door out or to provide an autcmatic door opening device. In a teeshlrt shop we found that there was a raised portion that covered nearly fifty percent of the floor area. We were told that the raised area would be used only for storage of the tee shirts and that only employees would enter that area. There is a provision of the code that, with some exceptions, exempts building maintenance and storage areas where only employees would have occaslon to enter and the work within such areas cannot reasonably be performed by the handicapped. According to Metro's code enforcement personnel, that exception In could apply In this case If the raised area Is strictly a storage area and If the jobs requiring employees to enter the storage areas could not reasonably be Performed by a handicapped persons. 1 would expect that the work could reasonably be done by a handicapped person If the facility were accessible. If that Is the case, the owner has the option of either providing a ramp or making the shop all one level. In a LIIIy's makeup shop, about fifty percent of the floor area Is raised two steps. They Intended to have the same services and products on both levels, have one salesperson permanently assigned to the upper level and have a second salesperson and a cashier on the ground level. There A s also a restaurant that has a raised area for same of Its seating. There is an exception In the code that applies to floors above the first floor In buildings except group a division 2 where all goods and services normally sought and used by the public are duplicated at the habitable ground level. That exception, according to Metro Code Enforcement, applies only to floors as defined within the SFBC and would not apply to a two foot change in level. The reasoning for the exception was based on the high cost of elevators. It appears that In both these Instances the only alternative Is to either provide access by ramp or lift device or remove the raised area. I hav8 covered here the major items that we found and discussed. We did not enter the shops In the western most buildings and we may have missed other areas as well. 1 realllze that there Is a great deal of pressure for Bayfront to open on time. I would hope that the necessary changes could be made before the scheduled opening. If that Is not possible, then perhaps a temporary certificate of occupancy could be Issued with the requirement that the necessary work be completed within two or three weeks. The most Important change to accomplish prior ;o opening Is proper access along at least one route from the garage to the north building. 4/6/87 Mllwp� i I n I i