Development Boards Tackle Multi-family Design Standards

By Mark McGuigan
Staff Writer

Nov 5 -- With the chamber nearly empty, the two City boards that oversee development took initial steps Tuesday evening in hammering out guidelines that will shape the design of multi-family buildings for years to come.

Untangling thorny issues such as privacy, universal access and “fortress-like” facades, the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board began revising development standards for a new ordinance due next May.

The ordinance -- which will revise development standards for all multi-family areas -- will replace an interim ordinance that has been in effect for two-and-a-half years.

“This is the chance to write a very clear ordinance stating what is and isn’t allowed,” said ARB member Joan Charles. “I think (the current ordinance) is too open to interpretation now.”

Under current development and "height projection standards," the approval of development permits could result in buildings that are incompatible with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods, according to City officials.

One of the biggest problems facing planners is the increasing scope of new developments across the City, which often leads to structures that encroach on the space of older buildings in the area.

According to City design consultant Walter Rask -- a principal with the ROMA Design Group -- a modern development in a low-density multi-family area should be “typically a one to two story building.”

“What we’re looking at today however are buildings that almost approach a four-story building,” said Rask.

Making the facades loom even larger is the tendency to raise a building’s front door two to three-feet above the sidewalk, according to officials. It’s a design concept that often leads to imposing “fortress-like” embankments surrounding yards elevated by underground parking, officials said.

Buildings that require stairwells to reach the front door could undermine the principle behind a “universal access” law that comes into effect next year.

The law will require developers of any new residential housing to provide a list of “specified universal accessibility features to make the home entrance, interior routes of travel, kitchen, and bathrooms, fully accessible to persons with disabilities.”

“My responsibility is to look at compatibility issues to serve the public good,” said Planning Commissioner Arlene Hopkins. “If we want to address universal access issues, it’s better to have a flat platform than a raised platform.”

But some Board members contend that reducing the elevation of an urban development opens the door to privacy concerns, particularly for residents living on the ground floor.

But ARB member Iris Oliveras questioned whether you can ensure privacy in an urban environment.

Planning Commissioner Julie Lopez Dad responded that “it’s always a balancing act.”

“What we’re trying to achieve is not blocking off those projects from the rest of the neighborhood and give them some privacy without building eight foot walls,” she said.

In outlining the consultant’s preliminary findings, Rask noted that any new buildings under the ordinance should be compatible with existing structures, friendly to pedestrians and easy to administer.

Making the ordinance easier to administer was particularly salient for members of the Architectural Review Board who warned against crafting standards imposing restrictions that stifle creative expression.

“I think it’s very hard to regulate this stuff,” ARB member William Adams said of the stringent constraints. “Really tight regulations are going to hurt creative people. Writing intelligent guidelines is probably the biggest dilemma of all. People have been trying to do it for a long time.”

Board member Oliveras agreed. “Any creative person can’t create if their hands are tied by restrictive guidelines,” she said.

Guidelines, ARB members argued, shouldn't constrain the type of materials used in future developments. Not only would they encroach an architect’s style, but they would lead to an “homogenized” landscape, said ARB member Howard Laks.

The board and commission also discussed reducing side-yard setbacks on corner lots and eliminating stepbacks that break up building facades by creating a tiered structure.

In providing direction to staff, the joint committee offered that it would like to see “front doors facing the sidewalk with a walkway up to the unit,” walls restricted from rising above 42 inches and looser landscaping guidelines that wouldn't restrict space used for pedestrian access.

“If we had more clarity it would be easier to review what works and what doesn’t work,” said Laks of the current approval process.

The input from Tuesday night’s discussion will be used to draft development standards for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in public hearings slated for early 2004.