CREJ

18 / 32

Page 18 — Multifamily Properties Quarterly — May 2017
D enver’s ever-growing popu-
lation has spurred inno-
vation and creativity in
architecture, especially
when it comes to apart-
ment communities, but when could
innovation mean breaking the law?
New multifamily developments have
been a staple here for several years
and with that has come the escalation
of construction costs, driving develop-
ers and architects to creative designs
that maximize the use of space and
minimize cost. Many times, in an effort
for efficiency, room sizes shrink and
critical accessibility considerations
get overlooked. For developers, mov-
ing toward smaller layouts to increase
unit counts also can mean a significant
increase in liability.
The Federal Fair Housing Act is a fed-
eral law that was amended to cover the
design and construction of multifamily
projects built after 1991. It applies to
multifamily properties, whether they
are apartments or condominiums, and
the design requirements apply to build-
ings with four or more units. It applies
to all dwelling units if the building has
an elevator. In buildings with no eleva-
tor, only ground-floor dwelling units
are required to comply. Noncompliance
with the Federal Fair Housing Act cre-
ates costly issues during construction
and can heavily impact the project
schedule. It also can create headaches
down the road if the property is sold
and a buyer finds accessibility issues,
leading to additional expenses for the
seller.Thoughtful strategy can help
avoid those problems and decrease
liability from potential complaints or
lawsuits.
Compliance with the act translates
into greater usability for everyone, not
just those who are
disabled. Fixture
placement and clear-
floor space are two
requirements that
can significantly
impact the design
and, in many cases,
will limit how small
a room can be. Effi-
ciency units (studios)
and micro units
make heavy use of
limited space, but
rooms such as kitch-
ens and bathrooms
require thoughtful design and careful
construction; otherwise, innovation
may end up causing more problems
than it solved.
Shrinking the size of the kitchen may
seem like a cost-beneficial move, but
consider if the required 30-by-48-inch
clear-floor area is no longer provided
at a sink or appliance – the unit may
be noncompliant with the Federal Fair
Housing Act.When designing kitch-
ens or reducing the overall size of the
space, favor linear kitchens rather than
“L” or “U” shapes.This gives the greatest
flexibility to meet accessibility require-
ments and minimizes dead space in
kitchen corners. Another strategy is to
shift appliances and fixtures away from
kitchen corners, allowing for greater
usability by providing centered clear-
floor areas at each.There are myriad
ways to ensure an efficient, accessible
kitchen, but each approach will require
ample attention to clearances and
adjacencies.
Similarly, floor space in bath-
rooms is crucial for compliance
with the Federal Fair Housing Act
and future usability of the space.
While relocating
fixtures, omitting
cabinetry or con-
densing the area
overall are valid
space-saving mea-
sures, the implica-
tion is that less
space is dedicated
to accessibility.
In bathrooms, for
example, the act
requires a 30-by-
48-inch clear-floor
area outside of the
door swing. If this area is not pro-
vided, the unit may be considered
noncompliant with the act.
Fixture clearances are another
consideration that easily can be
overlooked when the intent is to
tighten up a space. Being cognizant
of accessibility spatial requirements
during the design phase, especially
in kitchens and bathrooms, can
minimize headaches, avoid costly
errors, reduce tearing out noncom-
pliant construction and ensure a
higher level of usability throughout
the project.
Opting to design kitchens and
bathrooms with slightly more space
than is required is a strategy that
can lower a developer’s risk by
allowing for required minimums
and building in construction toler-
ance. This approach affords the
developer more flexibility with
product selection, such as appli-
ances and cabinetry, commonly
handled well after construction
begins. A gas or electric range, for
example, is a seemingly straight-
forward selection, but consider that
the size and layout of the kitchen
determines whether that selection
will maintain or impede required
clear-floor areas. The addition
of spatial tolerance many times
rewards developers with options
where there otherwise may have
been none.
There are many Federal Fair Hous-
ing Act requirements beyond clear-
floor areas such as requirements
that stipulate the minimum size
of doors, how deep a closet can be
or even the height of a threshold.
There are seven requirements in
total, all of which follow the phi-
losophy of greater tolerance and
higher usability for a variety of
people. Further, there are laws and
standards beyond the Federal Fair
Housing Act that may apply to your
project including the building code,
state laws (Colorado Revised Stat-
utes 9-5), accessibility laws based
on financing (Section 504), as well
as the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Taking a proactive approach to
accessibility can help minimize
the risk associated with efficien-
cies, micro units or any multifam-
ily project. Such an effort also may
appeal to future buyers. Maximizing
a property’s appeal and value is a
consideration of any developer, and
proactive compliance with the act
could minimize price negotiations
in the future.
There are great advantages to
building efficient multifamily
spaces, but with that comes great
responsibility. As tighter spaces
become more commonplace and
as necessity leads to innovation, it
is imperative that accessibility sits
alongside creativity.▲
Regulatory
Mari Lucci
Accessibility
specialist, building
ONE consulting
LLC, Lakewood
Kevin Harkins
President, building
ONE consulting
LLC, Lakewood