The dwelling complex II. The Live-Work Unit: B. Some general code problems and solutions

In the following discussion of characteristic code issues with live-work units, three assumptions are made. The first is that the work component occurs on the ground floor only, directly accessible from a public face of the building. The second is that the dwelling either actively shares the work space, or alternatively is located separately above or behind it. And third, it is assumed the work activity occurs in a building that is primarily a dwelling and is set on its own lot. Other arrangements fall into other type categories, requiring their own practices. Requirements set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A. or “handicapped” requirements) are relatively recent and, while in general a laudable innovation, they must be regarded as evolving towards greater precision in understanding and application. An elevator in what is still predominantly a private dwelling is disproportionately expensive and technically unnecessary, so long as the working component is on the ground floor. A level entrance from the sidewalk, door openings 32 inches wide, and 40-inch-wide corridors should suffice as accessibility requirements. This standard should hold within all three function categories (Limited, Controlled, and Open; see the previous Technical Page). accessibility mandates should be reasonable Another disproportionate requirement is provision of accessible bathrooms regardless of the intensity of use. It is a burden for a small Limited- use workplace, with few clients, to be subject to this standard. When a large bathroom has been provided by code, and is not commonly frequented by wheelchair users, it often becomes de facto a storage room. The ratio of bathroom size to workplace size in such cases is evidently irrational. While an accessible bathroom should not be required in the Limited category, its provision is a reasonable expectation in the Controlled mix category, and the usual gender pair ought to be mandated in the Open category. The elaboration of the facility should be associated with a realistic assessment of its use. One of the greatest impediments to live-work units has been the spatial waste and monetary expense in the requirement of two means of egress. Two separate, enclosed fire stairs are, for certain live-work types, demonstrably excessive. Limited and Controlled use categories should need only one exit stair, no more than a townhouse. For Open use it is reasonable to expect two—which if cleverly designed can add to the functionality of the unit, providing access both from public sidewalk and rear parking. Of fire separation issues, the most maddening is the requirement of two- hour fire separation between commercial and residential use-areas. It is not that the additional gypsum board and fire door are particularly costly, but the fixed separation precludes the flexible spatial allocation natural in the live-work lifestyle. Perhaps, now that it has become common (and less expensive) to install sprinkler systems, it is often considered reasonable by fire marshals (if sprinklers are in place) to omit the separation requirement in all use mixes except restaurant. (Note: the suppression system should be held to residential and not commercial standards.) parking relief is critical But all other onerous requirements are as naught compared to the exigencies of parking. The first relief that must be granted to all three grades of live-work is the overlap for mixed use. Commercial and residential parking requirements must not be added to each other; rather the residential provision should be subtracted from the commercial requirement. Second: because these are small businesses where all users and employees are assumed to be in easy communication, tandem parking (one car parked behind another) should be allowed just as on a family driveway. This parking would, of course, be located behind the unit, off an alley, in the depth of the lot. Third, on-street parking must be counted toward the fulfillment of the commercial provision, and perhaps not just the parking along the frontage of the unit but parking anywhere within a one-minute walk (250 ft). Those who patronize a live work unit have a purpose and will get there even if parking is not immediately convenient. Such commerce is destination-oriented (often with appointments), rather than of the interchangeable and drive-by sort, which depends on convenient parking. In all this, as with all complex parking calculations, a pedestrian context is always to be assumed in the true live-work unit. The next installment of the Technical Page will consider assemblies, along the Transect, of live-work units with each other and as “feathering” elements for transition in traditional neighborhoods. u