[Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

[Thom Shepard]

Bruce,

Why not build some kind of incentive in for developers to be visitable.
Thus you make it into a design challenge to "get something" and they will 
discover it isn't so hard in many cases.

In the same way the SmartCode sets DU lower to encourage to TDR room could 
be allowed for incentive.
Kind of like a hold back you don't mind giving but only if they are 
visitable.
Or from an Architects perspective, you get a bit more freedom on some issues 
if you are visitable.

Thom

Thom Shepard
thomshep at hotmail.com
Rural Urbanist


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
To: "CNU VisitAccess" <visitaccess at cnunext.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes


Katherine,

You don't know Bob Brown.  He will want a good reason
he can cite for Council.  This is a good, kind, but
pragmatic real person I am meeting at 2:00, not a
theoretical proposition.  Note, by the way, that this
is an overlay to be mapped only in certain locations,
not across the city.  Here's what I want to do:


1. I am obligated to set up requirements that fit new
buildings into the context.  This is our mandate.

2. I want to ensure that #1 does not preclude
visitability.

3. I want to require ground-floor access to dwellings.
 I'm not exactly sure how this will go.  The simplest
way is to say that if a dwelling has a floor on the
ground floor it must have a zero-step entry.  In this
case, simple is good.

4.  I CANNOT do anything that would make building in
these areas more difficult, especially making building
townhouses more difficult, or make them less
marketable.  There are two reasons for this, which I
detail below.

Because of this, I can only do so much.  If I try to
do too much, Bob will correctly say that it is a
matter for a separate law passed by Council.

#4 is for good reason, but it is complicated.
Although it is difficult going, I'm sure it's typical,
so please bear with me.

Obviously I can't make it harder to develop in these
areas in a general sense.  The rationale for doing the
coding in the first place is that I want to eliminate
the long back-and-forth that happens with design
review by including typical design review standards in
the code.

For example, if someone builds a drug store, the
design review committee may require an 8' opaque rear
fence that is in contradiction to the zoning code.  In
order to build it, the developer must first submit
drawings s/he KNOWS will be rejected, and then spend
time and money to get a variance.  Since the variance
usually requires some form of compromise, the
developer then has to go back to design review.  I'm
writing standards by which an 8' fence or wall is
permitted by, say, setting it back from the lot line,
and save the developer from the run-around.

Now, design review specifically looks at the rise of
the ground floor above the ground.  For residential
properties, this is mandatory.  Right now, one key
staff member is of the opinion that this precludes
visitability, and he is okay with that.

Meanwhile, we have the problem of dealing with
townhouses.  They are difficult to provide a zero-step
entrance to not just because it would probably be
through the rear because of design review, but because
a portion of the ground floor tends to be occupied by
parking.  Think about it.  If the rear of the ground
floor is occupied by parking, and the front is raised
from the street, only one of two things can happen.
First, there must be stairs from the garage to the
front room facing the street.  Second, the front room
facing the street can be depressed below grade, but
have a zero step entry from the garage.  Realizing
this, and because of precedents from other NU codes, I
prohibit parking within 20 feet of the front of the
building.  That requires a space between the front
wall and the garage that can be a rec room or a living
room, or whatever.

Separately, I also have to deal with another issue.
The code as I have written it supersedes the area
requirements of the underlying code.  That is, the
standards have, until now, required a certain sized
lot according to a formula.  I require something
entirely different, which requires enough space for
light and air between buildings, but does not set
ground coverage or a minimum lot area per unit.  This
matters because I _also_ require 400 square feet of
usable exterior area per unit, which can be on the
ground, on a balcony (porch), or on the roof.  Why is
this relevant?  It is because if that area can't be
provided at the roof, then for all practical purposes
it must take space from the rear that would otherwise
be used for parking or other building units.
Therefore, I expect that more developers will put
decks over garages, and push the garage back farther
toward the rear of the property, to open up more space
in the ground floor.

So, although I can't require a very deep ground floor,
I think this winds up encouraging it, and would create
a space that can include a bathroom.

So that is all to explain one half of the problem of
townhouses.  The other half is that they are just
about the only kind of building that has been proven
viable for replacing retail that is no longer in use
on main streets.  The main streets of Cleveland were
once lined almost end-to-end with retail, but the
neighborhoods cannot support that much retail.
Therefore, townhouses have been moving onto main
streets.  That's good, but if I write requirements
favoring apartment buildings, Council will balk.

One solution for townhouses would be to have a garage
at grade at least 30 feet back from the front of the
house.  Then, at the front wall, there is a porch or
stoop that is raised, and has a raised interior area
just inside it.  That raised area could sit
overlooking both the room inside _and_ the street, as
a sort of dais.  There can always be a separate door
at grade to the front, and there can be a zero-step
entry through the garage.  The front room, then, would
be flooded with light, and would have an extra-high
ceiling, because it is depressed below the level of
the raised porch.  Such a space could be deep and
still get lots of light because the windows would be
high.  By the way, each townhouse unit can be a
duplex.  If the ground floor unit is a separate one,
this allows the stoop or porch to be a halfway stop up
to the upstairs unit while still allowing the
ground-floor unit lots of light and zero step access.
Two things would kill this solution.  One would be to
require the _entire_ ground floor to be accessible.  I
think a raised area 6-8 feet deep at the front
can/should be excepted, but because otherwise a
landing halfway up to the upper unit would be
precluded.  The other would be to require that all
units in 1-3 unit buildings be accessible.  Obviously
you can't do the kind of up-and-down duplex unit that
is popular and _necessary_ in some parts of Cleveland
(because it helps pay the mortgage) if that happens.

--- KatherineAustin at comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Bruce,
>
> Good for you for your activism with your local
> government! I applaud you for that. Perhaps if you
> stress that flexibility is key and that there be
> room for a performance based review of designs, that
> would be sufficient. Allow architects to come up
> with creative solutions to meet the need and yet
> provide the look and feel that you are going for. My
> only concern with form based codes is that they can
> be too prescriptive and unintentionally prohibit
> creativity. I don't think it's necessary to quote
> any statistics to make that point.  Frankly, anyone
> with a family can get the idea of visitability. To
> me it's just a matter of realizing it is an issue
> and needs to be part of the thought process in
> design.
>
> No disrespect,
> Katherine
>  -------------- Original message
> ----------------------
> From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
> > Katherine,
> >
> > I'm counting on its not being an either-or
> proposition.  I am meeting with
> > Cleveland's Planning Director tomorrow on a
> form-based code.  I need to
> > figure out how to formulate this if I'm going to
> bring it up.  We have a
> > total 2-hour meeting, and have an enormous number
> of issues to cover.  So
> > far, I require a "Ground Floor Rise" (GFR) of
> dimensions chosen to fit each
> > built context, but (1) all of the residential
> entrances may "include or
> > consist of" a ramp; (2) the GFR only applies to
> the front façade, so the
> > floor level can be lower behind it; and (3) I want
> to encourage Visitability
> > by requiring a zero-step entrance somewhere and --
> I hope -- a ground-floor
> > restroom for houses and storefront houses.
> >
> > Yet, I can't count on much time.  If I get to
> mention it at all, I'll have
> > maybe 5 minutes total.  Statistics would help more
> than arguments based on
> > social justice.  Arguments that there is going to
> be a statistical need
> > would help.  Arguments that suggest that there is
> a market for such units
> > would help more.
> >
> > I am asking for stats for a reason, and dissing me
> doesn't give me one.
> >
> > Too static <-> "Life" <-> Too noisy
> > --Christopher Langton
> >
> > Bruce F. Donnelly
> >
> > 216 470 9348
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: katherineaustin at comcast.net
> [mailto:katherineaustin at comcast.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:10 PM
> > To: bfd at accessplaces.com
> > Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes
> >
> > Yes Elanor, I agree with you completely. This back
> and forth with Bruce is a
> > waste of time. Let's get to the meat of the
> subject and find ways to make it
> > happen where it can and raise awareness among
> planners and architects about
> > the issue.
> >
> > I am not advocating zero step entrances in
> existing 300 year old town house
> > neighborhoods of eastern seaboard cities. I am
> concerned with new
> > developments being planned and developed every
> day. While we don't need to
> > mandate zero step entrances, neither do we need to
> mandate raised front
> > porches that prohibit access.
> >
> > There are huge cultural differences from state to
> state, city to city in
> > this country with different housing types
> appropriate to the local climate
> > and topography. We can learn much from historic
> building methods in these
> > areas that predate air-conditioning and elevators.
> At the same time, we
> > shouldn't ignore current technology AND social
> awareness. I don't believe
> > for instance we should continue to build separate
> bathrooms for people of
> > color in public places just because they were done
> that way 100 years ago,
> > if you get my drift.
> >
> > It is only personal opinion that front porches and
> stoops must be raised to
> > be useful. That's just plain nonsense! The
> historical article I distributed
> > to folks on this list about the history of the
> American Front Porch was very
> > clear on it's origin and demise. It also showed
> examples of dirt floor front
> > porches. The demise had to do with change in
> technology and social behavior
> > NOT anything to do with design or or elimination
> of porches!
> >
> > Instead of hanging on to past images of a perfect
> world, lets grow up and
> > move on and do what right for goodness sake!!!!
> >
> > Gloves off,
> > Kathy Austin
> >
> > >
> > > --- Eleanor Smith <eleanors at mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have never seen anyone walking up steps with
> a
> > > > walker.  There is not
> > > > enough room to place a walker on a riser.  If
> > > > someone who uses a walker
> > > > is walking up a stairway, it would appear that
> some
> > > > helper is carrying
> > > > the walker up or down the stairs for the
> person.
> > > >
> > > > The world is full of inclined planes and must
> remain
> > > > so.  The person who
> > > > cannot walk up or push a manual wheelchair up
> an
> > > > incline of 12%, which
> > > > includes many city sidewalks and the great
> majority
> > > > of curb cuts,  will
> > > > not go out alone into the world for long
> without
> > > > being stopped by earth
> > > > geometry and the human-made inclines that
> follow or
> > > > somewhat modify that
> > > > geometry (but not to the point of leveling
> it--which
> > > > is neither possible
> > > > nor desirable).   If a 1:12 slope is
> physically
> > > > impossible or harmful
> > > > for a person with a mobility impairment, they
> will
> > > > go out in a manual
> > > > wheelchair, with someone who can push them if
> they
> > > > cannot push
> > > > themselves.   Many people at that point will
> buy a
> > > > scooter or power
> > > > chair for those times when they intend to
> engage the
> > > > world outside their
> > > > home.
> > > >
> > > > >From a broader perspective, I personally am
> not
> > > > very interested in
> > > > engaging in debates about whether basic access
> to
> > > > virtually all new
> > > > homes, with a zero step entrance and wide
> interior
> > > > doors as sine qua
> > > > non, is desirable.  I take that as a given for
> this
> > > > Visitability list.
> > > > It's my hope that much of the dialog will
> center on
> > > > finding and
> > > > publicizing NU existing projects that
> demonstrate
> > > > good Visitable design;
> > > > noting quite openly NU projects that missed
> > > > opportunities to do that;
> > > > advocating and educating to specific NUists we
> know
> > > > who are currently
> > > > developing residential projects that they
> design
> > > > with basic access; and
> > > > suggesting/acting to effect ways that CNU can
> > > > advance Visitability/UD
> > > > more explicitly and consistently within the
> > > > organization.   Interested
> > > > to hear what others on this list are looking
> for.
> > > >
> > > > Eleanor
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Visitaccess mailing list
> > Visitaccess at cnunext.org
> >
>
http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org
>
>


_______________________________________________
Visitaccess mailing list
Visitaccess at cnunext.org
http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org