Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission On Disability - Minutes - 01/07/1991MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: ON DISABILITY MINUTES January 7, 1991 - 1:00 p.m. 281 Conference Room Nancy Jackson Gregory Funk Roy Beauchamp Lori Gerhicke Heather Heafer Angela Byrnes Arne Anderson Mike Wilson (Excused) Shirley Reichenbach (Excused) Mark Fetter (Unexcused) Jeanne Morris (Excused) Felix Lee Jennifer Nuckols The minutes of the December loth meeting were unanimously approved with the following changes: Page 5, paragraph 1, to "handicapped access ramp on the east side of the dealership". Page 3, Old Business, lst paragraph, to "Greg red -lined that". Page 5, 2nd paragraph to "he believed the minimum width" Page 5, 4th paragraph, to "the subway at Lemay and Riverside". Page 5, paragraph 5, to "It is located on College Ave". Page 5, paragraph 6, to "the lighting is poor at the cross walk to the parking lot and the ramp". Page 3, 1st paragraph, to "she would like COD to review them". OLD BUSINESS Snow Removal Sub -Committee: Arne went through the slide presentation that he will be doing for interested groups. Roy and Lori questioned the use of several pictures showing the handicapped a®cessibility being blocked by cars in the stalls closest to the ramps. Roy stated that at the Post Office, he had a problem getting to the sidewalk, and maybe some slides should be other than of the subject after a bad storm. Heather said that it got the message across great. Roy asked if there had been any requests for the program. Jenny indicated "no", there hadn't. Roy stated that he feels the slides may be a bit of "over kill" because people may only associate this problem with really bad snow storms. Arne said they could add pictures to the show as winter progresses. He stated that Shirley said that the Presbyterian church was interested in the program. Lori felt that Foxfire Property management was one who needed to be contacted and COD Minutes January 7, 1991 Page 2 told of this program because they are major property managers. Arne asked for any volunteers to help with the presentation. Greg and Lori said they were interested. NOD Award: Arne said that he didn't feel that the snow removal program was a viable candidate because the commission had not done anything on it in 1990. Nancy stated that it would be difficult to choose between the recent Council Appeal and snow removal without knowing what the revised criteria is. Nancy questioned whether or not the Council appeal is really valid because she would not classify it as a project. Arne suggested a sub -committee to look into it and get the revised criteria and application from Shirley. Nancy, Lori, and Arne volunteered. Nancy will contact Shirley to set up a time to meet and discuss this matter. Arne questioned Debra Kaestner's availability on the matter, and that they would need to contact her for help by the end of January. Over -Crowding of Retail Stores: Heather contacted Mike Gavin with Poudre Fire Authority and stated that he said the Fire Code is a maintenance code. Building Code says 24 to 48 inches in the aisles and in the display area it needs to be 24 inches. Heather reported the areas that need a certain distance to be kept clear are the tiled walk areas such as in May D&F and Mervyns, but the display area spacing is not really set and is pretty much up to the store owners. Heather went on to say the Fire Marshall can cite excessive combustible material for the sprinklers. Nancy suggested seeing what could be done to change the Fire Code to a width compatible for wheelchairs plus a couple inches for the aisles. Felix stated that he did some research and only found information addressing the exit path and main aisle ways, not display areas. Angela stated that the Loveland Wal-Mart is widening their aisles to accommodate for wheelchairs. Heather stated that it is not just people in wheelchair or with walkers that have problems getting through aisles, it is difficult for anyone. Arne asked for a consensus on whether they should do something individually as the situations come up, or to act on it as a commission. Roy stated that it really makes an impression on store owners if you ask for a complaint form. Heather agreed. No formal action was taken. NEW BUSINESS 1991 Work Plan: Nancy asked whether the COD 1991 work plan had been submitted. Felix stated that it had been. Nancy questioned the vagueness of the work plan as to whether it contained programs the COD was thinking about doing or actually planning on doing. Nancy viewed the work plans being lined up to work on the projects, not just being something COD "would like" to do. She asked Felix how other Boards do their work plans. Felix stated the other boards he works with are driven by specific projects and on going business that happens every month. Nancy stated that COD Minutes January 7, 1991 Page 3 the COD Executive Committee should get together and look at what projects are on -going. Arne said they should meet at the same time as they are discussing the NOD award. ABRF Letter: Two letters of correspondence between Neighbor -To Neighbor and the Housing Authority where included with the agenda. Nancy wanted COD to review them because she felt the COD has a line of authority concerning ABRF program and needs to include its input in the matter. Nancy stated that the issue addressed in the letters has not been resolved. Arne asked if everyone wanted to read the letters before further discussion. Lori requested she be able to read them at home and discuss them at a later date. Arne asked Nancy what her opinion on the subject was and what course of action should be taken. Nancy stated there were good points brought up from both agencies but the overriding issue is that a person with a disability was in a Housing Authority unit and had to move out because of lack of accessibility. On the other hand, there is only so much money to use, and if Neighbor -to Neighbor uses it all for Housing Authority homes, there is none left for private residences. Heather stated the COD is an advisory board to City Council and it has not sent this information to City Council. Nancy will contact Jackie Davis, CDBG Fund Administrator, to update COD on this matter. Lori questioned the problem of the sidewalk obstacle. Nancy said there is a very steep curb, much like that in front of Larabees. According to whom was there a a request to install ramp. Roy stated that the sidewalk was too narrow and rough for the person living there to use their wheelchair. Handicapped Parking: Lori handed out a brochure she put together requesting input and comments. When it is finalized it will go to the Planning Office and Sherry Albertson -Clark. The Planning Department wanted COD to put together something in writing on designing handicapped parking spaces. OTHER BUSINESS Arne asked Felix who the new staff liaison will be. Felix said that he is taking over the position. Drake and Lemay: Felix spoke with Rita Davis about the crosswalk there. Work has not been done yet, but there is a work order on it and it will be done dependent on the weather. Nancy asked for clarification as to whether the work to be done is just repainting the cross walk or re -doing the sidewalk. Felix said his impression was that they were going to do both Snow Removal: Roy asked whose responsibility it is for the snow removal in the cross walk areas, curb cuts, and center island. Felix said that maintenance is the responsible of the Streets COD Minutes January 7, 1991 Page 4 Department under Larry Schneider. Felix suggested the commission submit a formal request to the Street Department. Arne said that he would draft a letter that Felix could review and put into proper form by weeks end. Agenda Deadline: Felix suggested that the agenda should be prepared one week prior to the meeting so that it would be received by COD members and other interested people prior to the meeting. This would enable the members to review the agenda and possibly come up with other items before the meeting. The previous months minutes would also be included making it unnecessary to remind the members the Friday before the meeting. Greg stated that he felt that agenda items should come from the Staff Liaison. Arne said that the agenda came from discussion of the previous meeting and any items that came up between meetings. Felix stated that the agenda would be constructed on the previous meeting, and that if anyone has anything to add they should contact him. The next meeting of COD will be February 11, 1991. Respectfully submitted Shirley Reichenbach Felix Lee • I a eWM*Jr.dlRI 0AN ISSUES: Number of handicapped parking spaces. Size of handicapped spaces. Location and distribution of handicapped parking spaces. Ramp locations and specifications. Handrails for ramps, specifications and when they are needed. Curb cuts in residential neighborhoods When more than 15 parking spaces are provided one handicapped designated space is required. Then one for every 15 imre spaces up to 6. Unless the building served by the parking lot is one likely to serve a higher than average number of the handicapped community, in that caseimre than the average number of designated spaces would be appropriate. Handicapped designated Spaces should be a;miniin= of 12 feet wide and 19 feet long. Providing a space with roan for a side lift is re mwxled. That is an extra 3 feet painted with cross batch markings along the side of a HC space. See Illustration 1 In general HC spaces should be located adjacent to the shortest acces- sible route to an accessible entrance of a building. However in the case of a sloping site one or more spaces shall be located adjacent to the shortest route to the building for non wheelchair users and if possible provide the balance of spaces on level ground as close as possible to the accessible entrance. Residential subdivisions of single family hones as well as mulifamily should provide curb cuts not only at every street earner but at regular intervals along the sidewalk to allow midstreet crossings and access to any group mail bares. There should be a curb cut very close to any group mailbox. 6 Rain specifications see illustrations 2,3,4,5 and attachment Handrail specifications see illustration 4 and attachment Detail of parking space for disabled. Such spaces should be situated so that the disabled need not wheel or walk behind other parked vehicles. Care must also be taken that curb cuts from a parking area to a walkway are not blocked by -parking spaces. Do NOT PROVIDE RAMPS AT THE Fff'AD OF PARKMG SPACE, THEY ARE BID= BY THE PARIW CAR. Reserved parking -space identification. These should be installed above grade, and clearly marked with the International Symbol of Access and appropriate wording. International symbol should also be painted on the ground, Illustration 1 ACCESS AND USE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS ALL PVBLIC OVILSIN145, STRVCTVRFE OR FACILITIES PRIRC\PAL ACCESSILILC LNTRANCf WALK MAY NAVE A TLALIMV✓1 LEVFL PLATRIORN TRANSVLR31. ]LO►L FOR ZRAINA49 Or 3/4, PEN P00T1 -. ALL WALKS SMALL LL AT LLAET 49( WIDC y IC I - WALK nU3T NAVE ANON SLIP av RPALG i A LEVEL AREA AT LFA3T S'LOP14 IS REAVIKLO LVERT 60' ,F THE WALK ARAOILNT IS Strw LFN 3-A AN3 dF% WALK MVST 1L AT OR 66KN01 TDB _ A COMMON LEVEL WITIJ OTKLR WALKS, — WALK MUST qL YNINTLRgUPT4a LT STL►J VIt1YCWAYS, PARKIN( LOTS SO- ST`flH OR ALRVPT 4KAN493 Ilk LLVLL VALK'SNALL BC AT TN[ SAME APPAOV. LLVLL AS AZJACENT &RALE, (MAX. DIFIFLRENTIAL r) NO ►OILTTON OF WALK MAr RE STLLPLK TMAA 91 % C IN YO% Accessible path of travel to a public building. Such access is easily achieved through proper site development. Illustration 2 91 MINIMUM LfViL CLEARANCE AT TOP L MOTTO" OF RAMP NO, 60' MAXIMUM LENLTN OF RAMP p&TVFRN LEVEL PLAT/oP %S S'MINIMUp LEN4TN OF Lf VCL. REST P LATFORMJ ILTVeeN RAMP3 ! AT TVRNINL POINTS Ramp platform requirements. Platforms at top and bottom are necessary for the safe transition from a sloping to a level plane. Platforms where ramps change direction are also necessary since turning a wheelchair on a sloping surface is extremely difficult for many disabled persons. Illustration 3 M IL • MAXIMUM ALLOVADLC RAMP LRADICNT LS 6.33% (11,. 12.) • RAMP3 SHALL WAVE CONTINUOUS WANSRAILS ON TWO SIDES • NANDRAIL3 SWALL DE 02 INCMCS W WEILNT • WANDRAILS SMALL EX•rsN1 ONE COOT DEYONa TWE TOP AND ROTTOm OF RAMP IIII III i''IIIIIII III' „I' liii III ''lli'I II IIIIII O III I III II �N Ow•SuP tiz I I II ,1 III. li 'SUR FAGi 1 i i 'l IIII II I III I IIII IIIIIi it ilill'IIIII Iii II Illillll 111 lull 11 jl RAMPS SHALL FDCtA MINIMVM OF 46" VIDE • A RAMP aWALLWAVE A 6V0.CA4E TWAT ID NON•LLIP «ANaaAIL� � •TWVRE• SMALL DE A MINIMUM LLEARANLt Oe I%y" DCTWEEN WANDRAIL AND WALL OR OTWER ODSTRVLTIONS • NANDRAILA S«AL: as 1'/S VIDE AT TWE LRAS►INL SURrAGC Ramp requirements. Improperly constructed ramps are a hazard to everyone. Poured, reinforced concrete is the preferred means of ramp construction. Illustration 4 / Minimum walkway width. Walkways of substantially greater width should be constructed when a heavy pedestrian flow is anticipated. A MILK SMALL HAYS A LOVSL ►LATOORb1 AT T/ia TOP VMlall tS AT L."ST S" NY lot A .DOOR SWIMS OUT ONTO T'Ho, rLATOoRM oR TOWARD TUX WALK, THIS ►LATOORM SMALL EXTaMD AT LiAST 1� Or.YON30 aAC4 01aft O• TNS 0000twAT. Walk platform at outswinging door. This platform is necessary for safety and ease of ma- neuverability as the wheelchair user opens the door. Illustration 5 • M 6 NV 0` TOW ` YIINYN NESIRAILE NY► SINE 1 OM I2 (YItoo I1h ON it) %. SIaENALI ROUND WITH RADIUS APPROX. EQUAL TO HEIGHT OF LIP. —';" CNNTYCT I IN 10197 (tr► H PLAN VIEa EI►ANSIaN I4I111 SECTION S-O Typical curb cut design. Most states have enacted laws requiring curb cuts at intersec- tions when curbs are newly constructed, renovated or repaired. Curb cuts should be scored or broom textured to provide a non- slip surface in inclement weather conditions, and to identify the slope of the curb cut to the visually handicapped person. / ►1110rEN1t LINE Illustration 6 RAMPS STATE STATUTE RAMPS TO HAVE MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 1:12. Section 9-5-106(1). Minimum ramp width not specified ALL RAMPS TO HAVE HANDRAIL ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE. Section 9-5-106(1) RAMP HANDRAILS TO 3E 32 L':CHES :iICil Section 9-5-106(1). 3ANP HANDRAILS TO E:iTEND 1 FOOT ?AST TOP AND BOTTOM OF RAMP. Section 9-5-106(1). Ramps to have a surface that is nonslip. Section 9-5-:06(2). RAMPS SHALL HAVE LEVEL PLATFORM AT TOP. 5 feet by 5 feet if door swings over platform, 5 feet wide by 3 feet deep if door does not swing over platforn. Platforms shall extend at :east 1 foot beyond each side of door. Section 9-5-106(2). RAMPS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 6 FEET OF STRAIGHT CLEARANCE AT BOTTOii. Section 9-5-106(2). KIN RAMPS TO HAVE MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 1:12. Section 3307(e). RAMP WIDTH SHALL BE 36 INCHES WHEN SERVING AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 49 OR LESS AND 44 INCHES WHEN SERVING AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 50 OR MORE. Sections 3307(b) and 3306(b). Ramps required to have handrails for slopes steeper than 1:15. TWO HANDRAILS REQUIRED FOR RAMPS MORE THAN 44 INCHES WIDE. Sections 3307(c) and 3306(j). ^.amp handrails to be 30 to 34 inches high. Section 3306(j). Ramp handrails to extend 6 inches past top and 'bottom of ramp AND RETURN TO NEWEL POST OR SAFETY ?ERMINAL. Section 3306(j). SURFACE OF RAMPS SHALL BE ROUGHENED OR OF SLIP -RESISTANT MATERIALS. Section 3307(g). Ramps with slope steeper than 1:15 shall have landing at top. LANDING SHALL BE WIDTH OF RAMP AND NOT LESS THAN 5 FEET MEASURED IN DIRECTION OF RAMP RUN. DOORS IN ANY POSITION SHALL NOT REDUCE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF LANDING TO LESS THAN 42 :NCIIES AND NOT REDUCE REQUIRED WICTIH BY MORE THAN 3-1/2 INCHES WHEN FULLY OPEN. LANDING SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 24 INCHES BEYOND LATCH EDGE OF DOOR. Section 3307(d). Ramos with slope steeper than 1:15 shall have landing at bottom. Landing shall have a dimension in direction of ramp run of noc less than 6 feet. Section 3307(d). :. M 1.•Llul7l�li