by eila in Accessibility, Arts and Culture, Civil and Human Rights
Posted on December 16, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Last Modified on January 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm
loading…
On November 29, 2010, the state Architectural Access Board voted to accept the Armory architect’s Plan 1.1b, dated October 17, 2010, which will provide for an accessible entrance ramp for this much-used Somerville facility.
Proving that it was feasible to design an accessible entrance from the start, this plan will provide for a new graded ramp which will extend into the foyer of the building. The automatic door opener control at the bottom of the ramp will allow people to smoothly sail into this facility, and enjoy equal opportunities to partake of the many economic, social and cultural programs within.
The Architectural Access Board’s Notice of Action, which was signed and dated December 14, 2010, reads as follows:
ACCEPT the submitted plan (Plan 1.1b, dated October 17, 2010) for the proposed ramp modifications to create a slope of 8.35% and therefore grant a variance to 521 CMR 24.2.1 to allow a slope of 8.35 (8.3 required). The proposed ramp work shall be completed and verified as such with both written and visual verification submitted to the Board on or before May 15, 2011.
Other issues that have been resolved since the Armory Hearing on May 24, 2010 include:
-2 van accessible parking spaces added
-appropriate handrails added to stairs at entrance foyer
-exterior intercom relocated so accessible reach ranges achieved
-assistive listening devices purchased.
Architect’s to-do list of October 16 includes the promise to install four assistive listening devices, and to create and place appropriate signage inside and outside the building.
A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Architectural Access Board, Docket Number C10-119 and V09-197.
loading…
Eila, thanks for sharing this exciting news! By the way, can you explain about the AAB’s variance… is the difference between an 8.3% and 8.35% slope significant for ramp users? Is the variance justified? Was it necessary? Any idea what these modifications will cost?
loading...
HI thanks Barry. this variance, allowing for a .05 difference in the slope from minimal code, will not cause significant problems for users. However, since the planned modifications will vary from the code, a variance is required.
I do not have costing information-great question, though!
loading...
Hi Eila,
This is good news, thank you for letting us know.
loading...
agreed, Courtney. Next year, this place will Welcome Everyone!
loading...