Office of the City Manager

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099E-Mail: manager@CityofBerkeley.info Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

INFORMATION CALENDARSeptember 20, 2016

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Commission on Disability

Submitted by: Martha Singer, Chairperson, Commission on Disability

Subject: Incorporating Principles of Universal Design

INTRODUCTIONThe Commission on Disability has had several meetings including most recently the May 18, 2016 meeting regarding Universal Design (UD). Universal Design involves the process of creating buildings, products, and environments that are usable by people of all ages and physical capacities. The objective being further to provide access to and to use of housing, workplaces, transportation as well as neighborhoods and other community destinations advancing the further principle that all individuals, regardless of ability, should be valued equally.

The Center of Universal Design at North Carolina State University developed 7 principles of design:

Equitable useFlexible useIntuitive usePerceptible informationTolerance for errorLow physical effort andSize and space for approach and use.

The UD principles should be relevant considerations to the development of ordinances and codes as well as serve as guideposts for planners.

Enclosed is additional information regarding UD (article called “Quicknotes by the American Planning Advisory Service “and article called “Zoning for Universal Design and Visability” by Jennifer S. Evans-Cowly). The Commission will continue to actively solicit input from experts and community on UD and will provide this material to Council. The Commission hopes that Council will find the information useful and incorporate such principles whenever possible.

Page 1 of 12

Incorporating Principles of Universal Design INFORMATION CALENDARSeptember 20, 2016

Page 2

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTSBerkeley has a special history in planning for accessibility. Universal Design is a larger concept than strictly meeting the minimal legal requirements, and takes the spirit of inclusion further by consideration of all users and visitors of a structure, young and old, aging in place, and visitability. The Commission on Disability wants to keep the Council informed as we explore ways to make Berkeley more inclusive in future plans for civic structures, transportation, and housing.

BACKGROUNDThe Commission on Disability in its May 18, 2016 meeting approved the following motion under Universal Design:

B1.a. Action: It was moved, seconded, carried (Weiss/Walsh) to transmit to Council the following items as follow up information on Universal Design:

1. Quick-notes, a publication by the American Planning Advisory Service. (B1b.1).

2. Draft for Universal Use-Zoning for Universal Design and Visitability, by Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley, PhD. Aicp. (B1b.2)Ayes: Graham, Singer, Walsh, Weiss. Noes: 0 Abstain: Murray Absent: 0 Motion passed (4-0-1-0.) (Leave of Absence: Leeder)

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYPlanning now for structures that inclusively meet the needs of Berkeley residents over their lifespan is more sustainable than later modifications of existing structures.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONUnknown

CONTACT PERSONCarmella Rejwan, Commission on Disability, Department of Public Works,(510) 981-6341

Attachments: 1: Attachment 1: Article called „Quick-note“, a publication by the americal Planning Advisory Service2: Attachment 2: Zoning for Universal Design and Visitability, by Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley, PhD. Aicp

Page 2 of 12

Universal DesignUniversal Design (UD) can be defined as the process of creating buildings, products, and environmentsthat are usable by people of all ages and physical capabilities, making it possible for all to have access toand fully enjoy their homes, neighborhoods, work places, and other community destinations. Universaldesign is based on the recognition that all people, regardless of ability, should be valued equally. UD ishighly relevant to planning officials, planning directors, and planners seeking to improve the quality oflife in their communities by providing residents with better choices of where to work, live, and play.

The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University offers seven principles of universaldesign:• Equitable use• Flexible use• Intuitive use• Perceptible information• Tolerance for error• Low physical effort• Size and space for approach and use

The terms universal design and visitability, or accessible design, are often used interchangeably.Visitability focuses on addressing mobility limitations through building code standards, while univer-sal design is an overarching concept targeting people of all ages and abilities, and may go farbeyond these codes to ensure the built environment is usable by all.

WHY UNIVERSAL DESIGN IS IMPORTANTThree recent trends have pushed universal design to the forefront of contemporary planning: the chang-ing demographics of seniors and people with disabilities, the lifestyle preferences of the aging babyboomer generation, and a shift in Medicaid funding that has encouraged home and community-basedcare over institutions.

The number of older adults in communities across the U.S. continues to grow as the baby boomer gen-eration ages. Unlike prior generations, baby boomers expect to stay in their own homes and communi-ties, and they demand designs and features to support them as they age. The planning communitymust be aware of how this ”silver tsunami”will transform how homes are built and how neighborhoodsare designed, and local leaders must rethink priorities and embrace UD principles in order to meet thechanging needs of their communities.

INTEGRATING UDWITH NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY DESIGNUniversal design is becoming broader and more inclusive of neighborhood, community, and urbandesign. Three major issues arise within a broader look at UD. Car-centricity dominates communities, mak-ing the automobile the primary mode of transportation; neighborhoods lack safe pathways for peopleto walk or maneuver wheelchairs or strollers; and most homes are not accessible to and visitable by allpeople due to stairs, narrow doorways, and other barriers to those with impaired mobility. These issuescan increase isolation among a community’s most vulnerable populations.

Planners have become increasingly aware of the problem of car-centric communities and poor designthat disadvantages pedestrians. Current planning trends support the diversification of transportationforms, from bicycles and public transit to golf carts and personal electric vehicles. Many communitiesacross the country are seeing the benefits of features such as multiple transportation choices, transit-ori-ented development, and accessible pedestrian wayfinding, as they provide mobility options for all users,including the very young, the very old, and people with disabilities.

Planning fundamentalsfor public officials andengaged citizens

A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 28

OUICKNOTESThis PAS QuickNotes was prepared by APAresearch staff and Karen Shakira Kali, AICP,technical assistance specialist with CommunitySolutions Group, LLC, NCB Capital Impact.

Page 3 of 12

REFERENCES

1. Published by AmericanPlanning Association

Evans-Cowley, Jennifer, AICP. 2006. “Zoningfor Universal Design and Visitability.”Zoning Practice, April.

Merriam, Dwight, FAICP. 2008. “TheAmericans with Disabilities Act: Six KeyPoints for Planning Officials.”TheCommissioner, Spring, p.3.

“Resource Finder: Universal Design and theADA,”The Commissioner, Spring 2008, p. 10.

2. Other Resources

The Center for Universal Design. UniversalDesign in Housing. 2006. North CarolinaState University. Available atwww.design.ncsu.edu/cud/index.htm.

Vanderheiden, Greg. 1996. “UniversalDesign . . . What it is and What it isn’t.”University of Wisconsin-Madison, Trace R &D Center. Available athttp://trace.wisc.edu/docs/whats_ud/whats_ud.htm.

The issue of inaccessibility in housing, a critical element in universal design, has not received the sameamount of attention as car-centric communities and neighborhood pathways. Bringing universal designto housing has traditionally not been the planner’s role. To provide a truly comprehensive approach toneighborhood, community, and urban design, and to ensure that all people have access to and canremain in their homes as they age or lose mobility, planners must promote UD concepts in housing andthe built environment.

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES OF UNIVERSAL DESIGNDetractors of universal design say implementing UD standards is too expensive, and some develop-ers think consumers find UD features unsightly. However, the cost of adding UD features to new con-struction is minimal, especially if such features are built into the design from the beginning. And thebest practices of universal design make universal elements—wider doorways, reinforced bathroomwalls (should grab bars need to be added at a later date), no-step entrances, open floor plans—seamless and unnoticeable. These barrier-free features open the door, physically and figuratively, toall people; such homes have lasting value as structures that accommodate all stages and circum-stances of life, including childhood, injury, illness, and aging.

Some states have passed universal design legislation requiring housing (sometimes specificallyaffordable housing) to be built to UD standards, but these requirements do not always find their wayinto local zoning codes. Promoting universal design requires education and outreach so that all con-cerned will fully appreciate its advantages and minimal burdens. Local aging plans may help to iden-tify the needs of older adults, thereby strengthening the argument for universal design. Transferringthat information to the development community and consumers can be challenging. Planners andplanning officials can take leadership roles in making all these changes happen.

OPTIONS FOR PROMOTING UDSeveral mechanisms exist for promoting universal design, including tying accessibility standards toaffordable housing programs or federal aid. In 2007, the Arkansas Development Finance Authority(ADFA) adopted universal design standards for its HOME program and the Low Income Housing TaxCredit program; now, seven percent of ADFA-funded multifamily units must meet usability standards.Arkansas has also created a manual that codifies inclusive design, making the process understand-able and streamlined for the development community.

Planners can also work to codify UD standards within their communities. The City of Sacramentoadopted a Universal Design Ordinance in February 2010 to help provide more housing options inthe city that suit the needs of older adults and people with disabilities. Builders of single-family resi-dential developments over 20 units must provide UD features as options to buyers. The ordinancealso calls for model homes to include UD features such as no-step entries, wider doorways, leverhandles, rocker light switches, and general accessibility options for bedrooms, kitchens, and bath-rooms, so people may see how they work prior to buying.

Several cities provide financial incentives to developers to include UD and visitability elements with-in their projects. The City of Pittsburgh provides tax credits for builders who incorporate six types ofuniversal design features into new or renovated housing, and the City of San Diego’s 2010 VoluntaryAccessibility Program provides certain development incentives in exchange for incorporating UDfeatures in new dwelling units.

In addition to promoting UD legislation at the state and local levels, planners and planning officialsmay consider creating funding sources like the Home Accessibility Modification Program of KingCounty, Washington, or the City of Alexandria, Virginia’s Rental Access Modification Program, whichoffer grants to help low-income tenants make accessibility modifications to their units.

The need for homes, buildings, and neighborhoods accessible to all is growing. As our populationcontinues to age and as more and more people with disabilities and older adults seek to remain intheir homes, universal design will be an important planning tool to create communities of lastingvalue and choice for all residents, regardless of age or ability.

PAS QuickNotes is a publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS).Copyright © 2010. Visit PAS online at www.planning.org/pas to find out how PAS can work for you. American PlanningAssociation staff: W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research and AdvisoryServices; Tre Jerdon, QuickNotes Editor; Tim Mennel, Senior Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;Susan Deegan, Senior Graphic Designer.

A Publication of the American Planning Association | PAS QuickNotes No. 28

Page 4 of 12

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

ZONINGPRACTICE April 2006

ISSUE NUMBER FOUR

PRACTICE UNIVERSAL DESIGN

4

Page 5 of 12

Zoning for Universal Design and VisitabilityBy Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley, AICP

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 20 percent of the American population reported

some type of disability.

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2

bu ild i ngs and pro d u c t s t ha t p ro m o te equalo pp o rtun i t y for use by i n d i vi d u a ls, whetheror not t h e y ha ve a disa bil i t y. The Ce n ter fo rU n i ve rsa l Design, loca ted in the College ofDesign at N o rth Ca rol i na S ta te Unive rsi t y,l ist s s e ven princi ples :

1. Equitable use

2. Flexibility in use

3. Simple and intuitive

4. Perceptible information

5. Tolerance for error

6. Low physical effort

7. Size and space for approach and use

Visi ta bil i t y is another term ass o cia te dwith un i ve rsa l d esign. Visi ta bil i t y is a move-m e n t to cha nge co nstruction sta n da rds s ot ha t new housi ng is d esigned to all ow peoplewith mobil i t y i m pa i r m e n t s to live in the un i t sand visi t o t h e rs. The ke y fea tu res o f visi ta bil-i t y i n clude wide doorways, at least a ha l fbath on the main floor, accessi ble pla ce m e n to f e le c t r i ca l co n t rols, and at least one ze ro -step entra n ce to a bu ild i ng. Visi ta bil i t y d o esn o t e nsu re co m ple te access in a home, bu t i te nsu res t ha t pu bl i c spa ces, su ch as t h ee n t ra n ce, ha ll ways, and ba t h room are acces-si ble to someone in a wheelcha i r. T h is m i n i-ma l le ve l o f a ccessi bil i t y a ll ows for a pers o nwith a disa bil i t y to access a home, even ift ha t p e rson does n o t l i ve there, and all ows an o n - d isa bled person to continue resi d i ng ina home in the eve n t t ha t the person deve l-o ps a disa bil i t y.

The Americans with Disabilities Actrequires that buildings be accessible to thosewith disabilities. Planners have incorporatedits requirements into zoning codes, such as aspecific number of parking spaces to bereserved for those with disabilities. This hastypically meant that a ramp was added on theside of a building or an elevator was tuckedinto a corner. However, those zoning require-ments have not been extended to apply to sin-gle-family homes. Universal design promotesthe idea of creating places that are designedfor everyone to access, rather than beingretrofitted for accessibility. Some examplesinclude providing no-step ground entryways(to assist those in wheelchairs) with texturedsurface (to assist the blind), and providingwide interior doors and hallways, bright light-ing, handles with a lever rather than a twistingknob, and light controls operated with large

Of t h ose over the age of 65, 28 perce n t ha vea physi ca l d isa bil i t y. As the ba by b o o m e rsa ge, these figures will i n crease. As bu ild e rss e e k to acco m m o da te them, the idea of co n-st r u c t i ng homes so tha t p e o ple can age inpla ce is g rowi ng in popula r i t y. Pla n n e rs ge n-e ra ll y l i ke the idea of a g i ng in pla ce, bu t o nl ya ha n d ful o f ci t i es a re active l y usi ng theird e ve l o p m e n t co d es to ma n da te un i ve rsa ld esign and visi ta bil i t y.

WHAT IS UNIVERSAL DESIGN ANDVISITABILITY?The te r m s universal design and v i s i t a b i l i t ya re un fa m il iar to ma ny pla n n e rs. Unive rsa ld esign is the design and production of

U n i ve rsi t y Neighborhood Apa rt m e n t s in Be r ke le y, Ca l i fo r n ia, bu il t by H ea rth Homes, isthe na t i o n ’ s f i rst a f fo rda ble housi ng bu il t with Unive rsa l Design princi ples. The 27- un i td e ve l o p m e n t opened in Jul y 2 0 0 5 .

Page 6 of 12

panels rather than a toggle switch. In thebathroom, grab bars are an important addi-tion. These allow a person in a wheelchair totransfer from the chair to the toilet or bathtub.

WHY IS UNIVERSAL DESIGN IMPORTANT?The number of people in the United Stateswho have disabilities is growing. One reasonis that better health care has allowed peoplewith disabilities to live longer lives. In addi-tion, the portion of the population over theage of 65 has been growing, and aging pro-duces a higher likelihood of disabilities. Thenumber of disabled veterans has also grown.

For those with physical disabilities,buildings can serve as a major obstacle tomobility. Providing for accessibility reducesthose obstacles, but does not eliminate them.Even if a disabled person lives in an accessi-ble building, it is still difficult for people withdisabilities to access the homes of the non-disabled. This inaccessibility makes it difficultfor those with disabilities to visit friends andfamily.

Homes accessible to people with disabil-ities are just as convenient for the non-disabled. A wide level entrance to a homemakes it easier to move furniture into and outof a building, maneuver a stroller, or getaround if a household member has a sprainedankle, for example. Almost everyone hasexperienced a situation where an object hadto be disassembled in order to move itthrough a doorway.

Many people with disabilities and sen-iors want to age in place, rather than have tomove to an assisted living facility or nursinghome. It is more expensive to retrofit a non-accessible house than to have the housemade accessible to begin with.

2000 law, re q u i res a ll h o m es bu il t on asp e cula t i ve basis to include visi ta bil i t ysta n da rds.

At least 24 cities also have passed vis-itability legislation modifying their buildingcode, including:

■ Atlanta (1992)

■ Freehold Borough, New Jersey (1997)

■ Austin, Texas (1998)

■ Irvine, California (1999)

■ Urbana, Illinois (2000)

■ Fort Worth, Texas (2000)

■ Visalia, California (2001)

■ San Mateo County, California (2001)

■ Albuquerque, New Mexico (2002)

■ San Antonio, Texas (2002)

■ Onondaga County, New York (2002)

■ Southampton, New York (2002)

■ Naperville, Illinois (2002)

■ Pima County, Arizona (2002)

■ Long Beach, California (2002)

■ Iowa City, Iowa (2002)

■ Pittsburgh (2002)

■ Syracuse, New York (2003)

■ Bolingbrook, Illinois (2003)

■ Escanaba, Michigan (2003)

■ Chicago (2003)

■ Houston (2004)

■ St. Petersburg, Florida (2004)

■ Arvada, Colorado (2005)

From May 9 to 20, go online to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interac -tive feature of Zoning Practice. Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley, AICP, will be available toanswer questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org andfollow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questionsabout the article using an e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice willpost the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. Thisfeature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times.After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archiveavailable through the APA Zoning Practice web pages.

About the AuthorJennifer S. Evans-Cowley, AICP, is an assistant pro-fessor of City and Regional Planning at Ohio StateUniversity. This research has been funded by agrant from the National Endowment for the ArtsUniversal Design Leadership Project. If your com-munity has passed a visitability ordinance or isconsidering one, please e-mail Jennifer Evans-Cowley at Cowley.11@osu.edu.

ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE!

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3

If we know that there is a change in thedemographics of our communities, plannersshould be actively seeking ways to help peo-ple age in place.

It is more expensive

to retrofit a

nonaccessible house

than to have the house

made accessible to

begin with.

BUILDING CODES, UNIVERSAL DESIGN, AND VISITABILITYAcross the nation, ci t i ze ns g ro u ps ad vo ca t-i ng for the disa bled ha ve been effe c t i ve inwi n n i ng passa ge of sta te and loca l leg isla-tion tha t i n co r p o ra tes sta n da rds for visi ta bil-i t y. Acco rd i ng to the Unive rsi t y o f Bu f fa l o, 14sta tes ha ve passed su ch leg islation. In1992, Georg ia passed the first visi ta bil i t yleg islation, crea t i ng the Eas y L i vi ng Homece rt i f i cation pro g ram for priva te homes. T h isvol un ta ry ce rt i f i cation pro g ram re q u i res n e wh o m es to ha ve a ze ro -step entry and wi d ei n terior passa ge doors, a full ba t h room wi t hma n e uve r i ng spa ce, and a bedroom on themain floor.

Texas and Ka nsas ha ve passed leg isla-tion re q u i r i ng visi ta bil i t y for homes re ce i vi ngpu bl i c fun d i ng. Florida passed leg isla t i o nre q u i r i ng tha t a ll new homes ha ve a ba t h-room on the gro und le ve l. Vermont, in a

Page 7 of 12

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4

■ Auburn, New York (2005)

■ Scranton, Pennsylvania (2005)

■ Toledo, Ohio (2005)

Most of the ordinances are restricted topublicly funded housing projects. However,the legislation in Pima County andBolingbrook requires all new houses to bebuilt with visitability standards. Bolingbrookworked with developers to promote the ordi-nance. The city found that the average priceincrease per home would be no more than 1.5

The ord i na n ce appl i es to all si ng le - fa m-il y and duplex h o m es bu il t in a group ofs e ven or more un i t s and re q u i res a ste p - f re ee n t ra n ce, wider interior doors on the gro un dfloor le vel, wider ha ll ways, and accessi blef i rst-floor ba t h ro o m s for a minimum of 1 5p e rce n t o f the un i t s bu il t. An add i t i o na l 1 5p e rce n t o f the homes co nst r u c ted must p ro-vide a ste p - f ree entra n ce, a ma ximum sl o p eo f 1:12, and an entra n ce door at least 3 2i n ch es in width. The ci t y has a lso deve l o p e da fee-in-lieu of visi ta bil i t y. The deve l o p e rm ust pay $ 2 ,500 for ea ch un bu il t visi ta ble

building codes, see the October 2002 issue ofZoning News, “Visitability Issues DriveBuilding Code Changes.”)

ZONING FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLANDThe last decade produced many changes inlocal building codes. However, zoning codescan also play a role in promoting universaldesign. Howard County, Maryland, requiresuniversal design features to be incorporatedin age-restricted adult housing units throughits zoning ordinance.

The county’s General Plan 2000 indi-cated that, over the next 25 years, thecounty’s population over the age of 55 wouldincrease from 19 percent to 31 percent of thetotal population, or 46,000 people. This willresult in significant changes in the county’shousing needs as more residents age in placeor decide to “downsize” to reduce their homeownership burdens and as larger numbers ofolder adults move into the county to be closerto their families. The plan identified threegoals related to housing for seniors:

■ Provide housing for older adults within sta-ble and attractive communities throughmaintenance, renovation, and modificationof existing homes;

■ Produce new housing that meets the needsof older adults while not detracting fromthe existing neighborhoods; and

■ Provide affordable and diverse housing tomeet the needs of low- and moderate-income seniors.

In an effo rt to meet t h ese goa ls, the co un t yco un cil d i re c ted the De pa rt m e n t o f P la n n i ng andZo n i ng to wo r k with the depa rt m e n t s o f H o usi ngand Co m m un i t y De velopment; Insp e c t i o ns ,L i ce ns es and Permits; Ci t i zen S e rvi ces; and theCo m m ission on Aging to develop a S e n i o rsH o usi ng Master Plan, which was co m ple ted inDe cember 2004. A co un t y wide su rve y fo und tha t70 perce n t o f older resi d e n t s wa n t to re main intheir homes or nea r by.

The county planning department createda committee to decide which universal designfeatures should be required. The countywanted to balance affordability and adaptabil-ity. Howard County recognized that housingcosts were already high and wanted to deter-mine which universal design features have thehighest cost/benefit ratio.

percent. According to researchers Claar andBowen (see Resources box), this reduced thefears of the local homebuilders.

Arvada, Colorado, which adopted a vis-itability ordinance in 2005, recognized a chang-ing demographic in the community. TheComprehensive Plan for the City of Arvadaspecifically mentions universal design. As partof the objectives the plan states, “The city willexplore how to include universal design princi-ples in new development projects.” Assistantcity manager Vicki Reier says, “People like tolive in Arvada, and we want to build so peoplecan age in place and not have to move foraccommodations.”

home and $10,000 if the model home is n o tvisi ta ble. The fun ds will be used to provi d ef i na n cia l assista n ce to people seeki ng assis-ta n ce in ma ki ng exist i ng housi ng sto ck vis-i ta ble. Arvada ’ s goa l is to ha ve 30 perce n t o fa ll new homes in Arvada bu il t to inco r p o ra tevisi ta bil i t y p r i n ci ples .

For the most part, builders haveaccepted these new regulations, but PimaCounty was sued twice by the NationalAssociation of Home Builders and the PimaCounty Home Builders Association, once onthe local and once on the federal level. Thecity’s ordinance was upheld in both cases.(For more information on universal design in

T h is home with a un i ve rsa ll y d esigned entra n ce has f la t g rad i ng to the fro n t door and no ste ps .

Page 8 of 12

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5

UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES FOR SR-I DISTRICT IN HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND

Required Desired Optional

Accessible path between parking and the dwelling unitsfor apartments

Visual smoke detectors Security system and visualidentification of visitors

All common areas must meetADA standards for apartments

Smooth vertical transitionsbetween rooms

Handrails on both sidesof all stairs

No-step entrance tocommunity buildings and alldwellings

Maneuvering space atentrance, between main livingareas, and in front ofappliances

Grab bars in bathrooms

Low-maintenance exteriormaterials

Front door must be 36 incheswide with exterior lighting ofthe entrance

Curbless shower

All interior doorways at least32 inches in width

Covered main entry Multilevel or adjustablekitchen counters

Complete first floor living areawith master bedroom and bath(or elevator if multistoryapartment)

Slip-resistant flooring Hand-held showerhead

Lever handles and anti-scalddevices on all plumbingfixtures

Hallways at least 36 inches inwidth

Pull-out shelves inkitchen base cabinets

Lever handles on interior andexterior doors

Five-foot turning radius or Tturn in kitchen and bath

Task lighting in kitchen,bath, and other workareas

Structural blocking for grabbars in bathroom walls neartoilet and shower

Switches, doorbells, thermo-stats, and breaker boxes nomore than 48 inches abovethe floor

Lighting in closets andpantries

Electrical receptacles at least15 inches above the floor

Adjustable closet rodsand shelving

The co un t y crea ted the R-SI Dist r i c t( Resi d e n t ial: S e n i o r- I nst i tu t i o nal). T h is d is-t r i c t a ll ows a ge - rest r i c ted ad ul t h o usi ng andother us es su ch as h ealth ca re fa cil i t i es ,n u rsi ng homes, re l i g i o us us es, day t rea t-m e n t fa cil i t i es, and gove r n m e n t us es. T h ed ist r i c t re q u i res t ha t a t least 10 perce n t o fthe dwe ll i ng un i t s be for modera te - i n co m ep e rs o ns. In addition, the co un t y crea ted aPS C ( P lanned Senior Co m m unity) Dist r i c tt ha t a ll ows a ge - rest r i c ted housi ng, assiste dl i vi ng fa cil i t i es, and nursi ng homes. The dis-t r i c t a ll ows a densi t y o f e i g h t un i t s per acreon si tes t ha t can acco m m o da te at least 5 0units.

A s pa rt o f the R-SI zo n i ng dist r i c tre q u i rements, deve l o p m e n t s m ust i n co r p o-ra te un i ve rsa l d esign fea tu res f rom theg u i d e l i n es o f the De pa rt m e n t o f P la n n i ngand Zo n i ng, which identify re q u i red, re co m-mended, and optiona l fea tu res. “Plan su b-m i t ta ls m ust i n clude descr i p t i o ns o f t h ed esign fea tu res o f the pro p osed dwe ll i ngs tod e m o nst ra te their app ro p r ia te n ess for thea ge - rest r i c ted population,” the guidelinessay.

Howard County chose to require featuresthat are critical and relatively inexpensive aspart of initial construction, but which wouldbe costly to retrofit. Features that are rela-

tively expensive to retrofit in the future areclassified as desirable or optional.

De ve l o p e rs o f senior housi ng fo un dthe un i ve rsa l d esign guidelines h e l p ful i ncrea t i ng new housi ng pro jects. The co un t ypla ns to st re ngthen the un i ve rsa l d esi g ng u i d e l i n es as the ma r ke t d e ma n ds m o refea tu res. The co un t y re co g n i zes t ha t n e wco nstruction will be re la t i ve l y l i m i ted co m-pa red to the 97,000 exist i ng housi ng un i t sand tha t t h e re is st ill a need to re t ro f i t a n dre n ova te older homes .

As a step toward more housing with uni-

versal design features, the county is educat-

ing residents, real estate agents, and remod-

elers about using universal design features to

renovate existing homes. They are also edu-

cating residents and homebuilders about the

value of visitability in all new residential

construction. The county is also working to educate

residents about universal design features andthe likelihood that they will be disabled in thefuture. The county recognized that manyadults over 55 don’t perceive themselves asseniors that need universal design features orthat their needs will change over time.Education will be critical in helping ensurethat adults demand features that will allowthem to age in place.

H owa rd Co un t y was a ble to su ccess-

full y i m ple m e n t the co un t y ’ s G e n e ra l P la n

by crea t i ng a S e n i o rs H o usi ng Master Pla n

and amending the zo n i ng ord i na n ce. T h e

resul t is t ha t new housi ng sp e ci f i ca ll y

d esigned for seniors will i n co r p o ra te un i ve r-

sa l d esign and visi ta bil i t y p r i n ci ples .

S e n i o rs in Howa rd Co un t y will be able to

a ge in pla ce more easil y.

ZONING FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN OTHER LOCATIONSAndres Duany’s SmartCode incorporates vis-itability standards. The SmartCode requires azero-step entrance from an accessible path atthe front, side, or rear of each building; allinterior doors to be at least 32 inches in widthand there must be a bathroom on the mainfloor of each building. Sarasota, Florida, hasadopted the SmartCode.

Before passing a zoning ordinance thatrequires modifications to the building code, acommunity should review state legislationrelated to the building code. If your state hasa uniform dwelling code, this may prevent

Page 9 of 12

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6

Websites

Center for Universal Design: www.design.ncsu.edu/cud

Concrete Change: www.concretechange.org

State-level building codes: www.firstsourceonl.com

Other Resources

City of Arvada, Colorado. 2005. Chapter XI, Visitability Municipal Code.www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=6&pid=10370.

City of Arvada, Colorado. 2005. Arvada Comprehensive Plan. www.arvada.org/community/plan.php.

Casselman, Joel. Winter 2004. “Visitability: A New Direction for Changing Demographics.”Practicing Planner.

Claar, Roger C., and James S. Bowen. January 2005. “Visitability: The Way of the Future inHome Building.” Illinois Municipal Review.

Howard County, Maryland. 2004. Seniors Housing Master Plan.www.co.ho.md.us/DPZ/DPZDocs/SHMPWebVersion012805.pdf.

Howard County, Maryland. 2004. Section 113.2 R-SI Zoning Regulations.www.co.ho.md.us/DPZ/DPZDocs/ZoningReg100205.pdf.

City of Irvine, California. 2005. Universal Design Program.www.ci.irvine.ca.us/depts/cd/buildingsafety/accessibility_universal_design.asp.

Preiser, Wolfgang, and Elaine Ostroff. 2001. Universal Design Handbook. New York:McGraw-Hill.

SmartCode. 2005. SmartCode Version 7.0. www.dpz.com/pdf/SmartCodeV7.0-6-06-05.pdf.

U.S. Census. 2000. Characteristics of the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population by Age,Disability Status, and Type of Disability. www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-23.pdf.

University of Buffalo. 2004. RERC on Universal Design at Buffalo.www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea/Visitability.

RESOURCES

municipalities from creating and enforcingstricter standards for buildings except in cer-tain situations. Some states prohibit anychanges to building codes at the local level,while others prohibit reducing code require-ments below standards set by the state. Forexample, New York, California, and Wisconsinall have uniformity clauses in their buildingcode requirements that prohibit cities frommaking any changes. In California, disabilityadvocates are working to create state-levelenabling legislation that would allow localgovernments to enact visitability laws.

It is important to determine if a visitabil-ity ordinance is a planning ordinance or abuilding ordinance. One could reasonablyargue that visitability ordinances are planningordinances, not building codes. Planning ordi-nances routinely deal with the interior ofhomes, including height, materials, numberof bedrooms, and house size. If the coderequirements are placed in the zoning ordi-nance, as in the case of Howard County, thenit is clearly a planning ordinance. If it isviewed as a planning ordinance, then thestate-level building codes are irrelevant aslong as the visitability requirements exceedthe state building code requirements.

P la n n e rs ha ve a va r i e t y o f other options toi n co r p o ra te visi ta bil i t y i n to the zo n i ng code. Fo rexa m ple, the zo n i ng code co uld include densi t yor other deve l o p m e n t b o n us esto deve l o p e rswho inco r p o ra te visi ta bil i t y p r i n ci ples. Anotheroption is to re q u i re an impa c t fee for accessi bil-i t y, si m ilar to the method used by H owa rdCo un t y.

CONCLUSIONWhile a number of communities have passedlegislation, planners are still largely unawareof the concepts of visitability. Planners needto increase their knowledge of disabilityissues. If visitability and other forms of accesslegislation are to be effective, planners andother design professionals must be aware ofthe problems that people with disabilitiesface in accessing the built environment.

Co n cre te Cha nge, an inte r na t i o na l ass o ci-ation tha t p ro m o tes visi ta bil i t y for the disa ble d ,is a c t i ve l y m obil i zi ng su pp o rt for basi c a ccessi-bil i t y to dwe ll i ng units. Their websi te provi d es

us e ful i n fo r mation on the princi ples o f un i ve rsa ld esign and sa m ple ord i na n ces f rom across t h eU n i ted S ta tes. Another source for helpful i n fo r-mation about un i ve rsa l d esign is the U n i v e r s a lDesign Handbook (see Res o u rces ) .

T h e re are a va r i e t y o f ways in which pla n-n e rs can become enga ged in pro m o t i ng un i ve r-sa l d esign and visi ta bil i t y p r i n ci ples. Ba l t i m o reCo un t y, Ma ry land, developed a bro ch u re, “Yo u rNew or Re m o d e led Home Be co m es Visi ta bleWhen You Choose T h ese Top 10 Options.” T h eci t y o f I rvine, Ca l i fo r n ia, developed a web pa get ha t p rovi d esi n fo r mation about un i ve rsa l

d esign and links to area bu ild e rs who integ ra teun i ve rsa l d esign into housi ng co nstruction.

Before drafting an amendment to thebuilding or zoning code, planners shouldinclude housing for seniors as part of thehousing element of their community’s com-prehensive plan. This should then translateinto requirements in the zoning ordinance.Howard County illustrates how goals relatedto senior housing can be translated success-fully into zoning requirements. After the planand ordinance are in place, it is important toevaluate the success of the ordinance.

Page 10 of 12

VOL. 23, NO. 4Zo n i ng Pra c t i ce is a monthl y pu bl i cation of t h eA m e r i can Pla n n i ng Ass o ciation. Su bscr i p t i o nsa re ava ila ble for $75 (U.S.) and $90 (fo reign). W.Pa ul Fa r m e r, FA I C P, Exe cu t i ve Dire c tor; Will iam R.K lein, A I C P, Dire c tor of Res ea rch .

Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced atAPA. Jim Schwab, AICP, Editor; Michael Davidson,Guest Editor; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton, Design and Production.

Co pyr i g h t ©2006 by A m e r i can Pla n n i ngA ss o ciation, 122 S. Mich i gan Ave., Su i te 1600,C h i ca go, IL 6 0 6 03. The American Pla n n i ngA ss o ciation also has o f fi ces a t 17 76Massa ch us e t t s Ave., N.W., Was h i ngton, D.C .2 0 036; www. pla n n i ng .o rg.

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced or utilized in any form or byany means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by any informationstorage and retrieval system, without permissionin writing from the American PlanningAssociation.

P r i n ted on re c ycled pa p e r, incl u d i ng 50 -70 %re c ycled fiber and 10% postco nsumer waste .

ZONINGPRACTICE 4.06AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7

Cover photo courtesy of the Thomas CranePublic Library in Quincy, Massachusetts. Thelibrary was retrofitted to provide universalaccess.

Measure 37, the initiative that requires gov-ernment to pay property owners if a land-useregulation reduces their property value, isalive and well in Oregon. On February 21, theOregon Supreme Court reversed the MarionCounty Circuit Court judge who had ruled lastOctober that Measure 37 was unconstitu-tional. For five months, planners and otheropponents of Measure 37 hoped that thisreckless assault on the state’s rational plan-ning system would ultimately fail.

Land-use regulations, such as zoningand subdivision controls, are the focus ofMeasure 37 claims. Although they are impor-tant tools for implementing the community’splans, voters in 2004 lost sight of the commu-nity’s interest and were swept up in the fervor

NEWS BRIEFSM E A S U R E 37 UPHELD IN OREGON;

B I L L B OA R DS L AW OV E RT U R N E D

By Lora A. Lucero, AICP

Property owners who acquired their property

before the adoption of a land-use regulation

may assert a claim against the government if

they believe the regulation has reduced the

value of their property.

of the private “property rights” campaign topass the Measure. Now property owners whoacquired their property before the adoption ofa land-use regulation may assert a claimagainst the government if they believe the reg-ulation has reduced the value of their prop-erty. The government will be required to pay orwaive the application of the regulation. Thetrial court thought this provision amounted toa requirement that government “pay to gov-ern” or refrain from enforcing the land-useregulation. The state supreme court disagreed.

APA and its Oregon chapter filed an ami-cus brief to share with the court a short sum-mary of the history of land-use planning inOregon and describe how it has changed afterone year of processing claims and grantingwaivers. The Department of Land Conservationand Development found that an overwhelmingnumber of Measure 37 claims have come from

o n -si te si g ns ( w h i ch don’t re q u i re a permitor fee) and off-si te si g ns for which a permitand fee are re q u i red. Outdoor MediaDimensions, Inc. v. Department ofT r a n s p o r t a t i o n, 2006 W L ___ (Ore. 2006).The exa m ple the co u rt n o ted was “a gas sta-tion visi ble from a highway may, wi t h o u t apermit, ca r ry the messa ge ‘Gas for S a le,’ bu ti t may n o t ca r ry the messa ge ‘Ea t a t J o e ’ s :10 Miles A h ead.’” The co u rt st r u ck the per-m i t and fee re q u i re m e n t for outdoor ad ve r-t isi ng si g ns, rather than decla re the entireOMIA invalid. Oregon leg isla to rs m ust n owgo ba ck to the drawi ng boa rd and re fas h i o nthe sta te ’ s billb oa rd reg ula t i o ns or ris k l os-i ng fe d e ra l fun ds t h rough the HighwayBea u t i f i cation Ac t.Lora A. Lucero, AICP, is editor of Planning &Environmental Law, and staff liaison to APA’samicus curiae committee.

the vicinity of the urban growth boundary nearPortland. While only 13 percent of claimantswanted to build a single-family house on theirproperty, 86 percent sought approval to sub-divide in order to build multiple houses.

What does this mean for Oregon? As EdSullivan explains in the April issue of Planning& Environmental Law:

Oregon’s land-use planning program still isa national leader. Measure 37 is the anti-thesis of that program. Nevertheless, thetwo now coexist. Oregon’s experience indealing with Measure 37 will also be anexample for the rest of the nation. With thecrisis presented by Measure 37 will evolvea more resourceful response, one that willlikely be more accommodating to the vari-ous regions and populations of the State. It is unlikely that the Measure will be com-pletely repealed, just as it is unlikely thatthe state’s planning program will berepealed. Out of the clash of thesis andantithesis will come a synthesis that willreconcile these seeming opposites. Thefuture of planning lies in this synthesis.

A number of sta tes a re foll owi ngOrego n ’ s un fo rtuna te exa m ple. A Measu re37 clone, the Pro p e rt y Fa i r n ess I n i t ia t i ve ,will be on the ba ll o t t h is N ovember inWas h i ngton. Pla n n e rs in Georg ia are wo r k-i ng to keep a si m ilar measu re from passi ngthe leg isla tu re in tha t sta te. And mostre ce n t l y, a petition was f iled to pu t aMeasu re 37 clone on the ba ll o t in a boro u g hin Alas ka. Zoning Practice su bscr i b e rss h o uld keep their cu rsor pointed to APA ’ swebsi te where we will t ra ck leg isla t i ve ,legal, and ele c to ra l d e ve l o p m e n t s with su chm easu res.

On Ma rch 23, the Oregon Su p re m eCo u rt d e cla red the sta te ’ s billb oa rd reg ula-t i o ns vi ola te Art i cle I, Section 8, of the sta teco nst i tution beca use the Oregon Moto r istI n fo r mation Ac t [O R S 3 7 7.700 to 377.840 and3 7 7.992 (1999)] dist i ng u is h es b e t ween

Page 11 of 12

WHO HAS ACCESS IN YOUR TOWN?

4

Page 12 of 12