ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

December 10, 2007

 

The Council convened at 9:05 a.m. with 6 members present.

 

Consent Agenda:

 

Case #2 – Devereaux Florida Group Home.  This falls in the automatic exemption and does not require a waiver.  In as much as the applicant has requested this waiver at the request of the building official, the Council unanimously recommended approval based on the automatic exemption of five or less persons and not open to the public.  Even though approved from the Florida specific requirements, this does not relieve them from the requirements of Title II of the ADA.

 

Case #5 – Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Station.  The Council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the provisions of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.

 

Case #9 – Florida Association of Counties.  The Council recommended 5 to 1 for approval based on the provisions of of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost.  Even though approved from the Florida specific requirements, this does not relieve them from the requirements of Title II of the ADA.

 

Case #10 – Northpoint High School.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to financial and extreme hardship.

 

Case #12 – 78 Spanish Street Renovation.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the historic character and extreme hardship.

 

Case #14 – Epic Theaters Stadium 14, Flagler County.  The County unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unnecessary.

 

Case #18 – Pasco County Fire Station Practice Structure.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unnecessary.

 

Case #19 – Kempe Office Plaza.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost.

 

The following cases were approved with conditions.

 

Case #3 – Wendy’s International.  This building in undergoing a alteration to comply with a settlement agreement entered by the federal court system which stipulated the repair work that must be made.  The agreement allowed the toilet stall doors to open into the clear floor space of the plumbing fixtures.  This is a violation of Chapter 11 of the FBC.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of 553.508, Barrier Removal as not readily achievable, the settlement agreement, and FBC, Section 11-4.1.8 paragraph 1.  Even though approved from the Florida specific requirements, this does not relieve them from the requirements of Title II of the ADA.

 

Case #4 – Sea World Orlando Shamu Theater Seat Addtion.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in a 924 seat addition to the existing stadium.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unnecessary with the condition that the accessible seating be moved in one seat from the end cap and place the companion seat on the end cap.

 

Case #7 – Matrix Employee Leasing.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of an existing 14,856 sq. ft. office building undergoing a $57,944 alteration.  The Council recommended 4 to 2 for approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost with the condition plans are submitted to DCA staff to delineate all amenities on the second floor are duplicated on the first floor.

 

Case #15 – Epic Theaters Clermont.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in a new $8,000,000 theater complex.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unnecessary with conditions.  The condition recommended is that plans are modified and sent to DCA staff to verify that 17 seats are removed from theaters 6 and 11 to reduce the number of accessible seat locations from 5 to 4 to provide the necessary 4 companion seating.

 

Case #16 – Epic Theaters St. Johns County.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in a new $8,000,000 theater complex.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unnecessary with conditions.  The condition recommended is that plans are modified and sent to DCA staff to verify that 17 seats are removed from theaters 6 and 11 to reduce the number of accessible seat locations from 5 to 4 to provide the necessary 4 companion seating.

 

Case #17 – Golds Gym Northside.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to an existing 3,378 sq. ft. mezzanine in an existing 18,667 sq. ft. building used as a fitness club.  The Council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost with the condition plans are submitted to DCA staff to delineate all amenities on the second floor are duplicated on the first floor.

 

Case #20 – Marriots Crystal Shores.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to a water slide.  The applicant advised that phase II will provide the necessary structure to provide vertical accessibility to the water slide.  The Council recommended 5 to 1 for approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unreasonable unitl the construction of the future structure.  In case Phase II is not constructed, the Council recommended that this waiver be conditional for three years.  If the future structure is not constructed, the water slide must be provided with vertical accessibility by another means.

 

The following cases were recommended for deferral:

 

Case #5 – Riverview High School.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in retractable bleachers.  The Council unanimously recommended deferral for the applicant to provide additional information to include, but not be limited to, additional accessible seating locations, present seating count, and clarification of the accessibility to the second floor classroom.

 

Case #8 – FL-TLHO Office Building.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of an office building where 19 employess will work.  The Council unanimously recommended deferral for the applicant to provide additional information to include, but not be limited to, bids to provide lifts, clarification of costs break down of alterations vs. maintenance, building official statement of construction value for the lasts three years and floor plans indicating floor usage of both floors.

 

Case #11- Target Store.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to existing 3,372 sq. ft. mezzanine.  The Council unanimously recommended deferral for the applicant to provide additional information to include, but not be limited to, more detail cost breakdown and floor plans verifying hardship and layout of uses.

 

Case #13 – Towncenter 12.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in a new $4,000,000 12 screen movie theater complex. The Council unanimously recommended deferral for the applicant to provide additional information to include, but not be limited to, new drawings detailing individual theater seating in plan view and plans indicating sight lines.

 

The following case was recommended for denial:

 

Case #1 – Harvest Village Unit 62.  The applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the second floor of a new 4,200 sq. ft. office building.  This case was deferred at the last Council and Commission meeting.  The Council unanimously recommended denial based on lack of hardship.

 

 

Chiquita Animal Hospital.   This case was heard at the last Council and Commission meeting.  It was approved based on the provisions related to 5 or less persons and not open to the public.  Since then, DCA staff heard from the local building official stating that it was their understanding that the floor would be for more persons.  The building official’s recommendation form was omitted from the package.  Based on these facts the Council unanimously recommended a motion to reconsider action previously taken and schedule this case to be reheard at the next Council meeting.