Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design-review debate over ADA ramp location for downtown law office
Summary
Architect and applicant presented five options for an accessible ramp at 210 3rd Avenue North and argued site constraints make a low-profile front ramp the most feasible; staff said guidelines prefer rear/side placement and a variance would be required if setbacks are encroached.
At the Design Review Committee meeting the project team for 210 3rd Avenue North presented five alternatives for providing ADA access and defended a low-profile, switchback ramp at the front of the building as the least intrusive technically feasible solution.
Aaron Rogers of 906 Studio explained that north- and south-side locations would conflict with a shared access easement and zoning setbacks, and that rear placement lacks sufficient run and landings to meet ADA slope requirements. He described a proposed switchback ramp with shallow slope and landscaping that would limit visibility from the sidewalk. "We prepared some exhibits showing why those options are not feasible due to various site constraints," Rogers said.
Emily, a planning staff member, told the committee the building lies in the downtown National Register Historic District and that the guidelines recommend placing ramps and lifts on rear or side facades that are not readily visible; she added that if the ramp encroaches the zoning setback a variance would be required before staff can approve it. Commissioners urged the applicant to exhaust alternatives — including a platform lift and placing access at a rear entry — and to document rejected options in writing for the record. One commissioner suggested a lift under a covered carport as a less obtrusive, lower-footprint solution.
The applicant said the front porch is about 12 inches above grade and that the proposed switchback ramp is designed to remain low and unobtrusive with plantings shielding the approach. The committee repeatedly recommended that the team prepare additional documentation showing the lift alternative, a full set of dimensions and transitions to the existing porch, and a variance narrative if the ramp will cross the setback line.
No formal vote was recorded; staff asked for more detailed plans and information on any potential variance before the project proceeds to the historic zoning commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
