Urban Design Committee

Urban Design Committee Recommendations to Baltimore

In the July/August newsletter, AIABaltimore Urban Design Committee Co-chair Klaus Philipsen AIA described many of the current projects we are working on with several city agencies: Baltimore Development Corporation, Baltimore Department of Planning, Baltimore Department of Housing and Community Development. Last March, when Mayor Martin O’Malley and Planning Department Director Charles Graves announced that the City will improve its permit process and cut the time by 50%, they asked for our recommendations. Below are the committee’s suggestions. We’ll let you know the results. Join the Urban Design Committee! We have lots of interesting, timely, and significant projects to choose from and need more good architects to follow through. Contact Klaus at 410.685.2002 or kphilipsen@archplan.com.

“The City process on larger projects has taken from 3-6 months. This seems excessive. Although not prioritized, the following ideas are offered as a means for speeding up the process:

1. Use of an electronic approvals system: some cities have an online process, with the ability to check progress online, and many have their codes online as well. We believe that Houston uses this process.

2. Accountability: Establish a time limit for the review process and identify a staff member who is responsible for seeing that the review is done within this time period. The results should be measured for conformance to goals. This technique would apply the basic principles of project management to the process. Seattle has introduced a process in which a 'permit rider' (a permit specialist responsible to ensure that the process is followed and all the steps are on time) is assigned at the outset. One can meet with him/her at each submittal and get regular updates of the course of the permitting and where there are bottlenecks or outstanding issues. One can pick up the phone at any moment to inquire about a project.

3. Transparency: Make the process very clear. Do a chart of the process and publish it in print and on the Internet. Track progress via the Internet so that staff, owners and architects can check on it.

4. Consolidation: Combine submittal, review, approval, and payment functions into one building. At present, the process is scattered throughout several buildings and many departments, making communication and the establishment of lines of responsibility very difficult.

5. Analysis: Determine exactly where the bottleneck is; what part of the process is taking the longest time. A critical path workflow analysis could be very helpful.

6. Establish a System: Every permit application within the City seems to be an individual process. Pulling a permit "requires" personal contact rather than an objective response to a permit process system. This introduces unnecessary uncertainty and decreases efficiency.

A form that shows how the project complies with the code could be developed, to be filled out for each permit application. A code sheet could be required on drawings that highlights items such as fire separations. Plans examiners could then quickly go through the application in an objective manner. Acceptable strategies could also be identified in advance by the City.

7. Staffing: Hire more professional review staff in those areas that are delaying the process. Alternatively or in addition to this, pre-approve a group of outside (private) architects and consultants, particularly in critical disciplines. If at any time the backlog begins to exceed the target, utilize this resource. This is presently done in several jurisdictions. The opinions of these consultants must be trusted by the staff, however, or additional confusion will result.

8. Fees: Increase user fees if required to provide timely and efficient review. Increased fees must result in improved performance, however.

9. Coordination and Planning: Coordination and review meetings with all concerned parties could expedite the process, particularly if one party was given overall authority and responsibility for coordination. Preliminary review meetings with designers, the permit reviewers, and the fire officials would establish the priorities of the reviewers and the interpretations that will be applied up front, and would also give the designers a chance to explain the life safety and other strategies that they wish to employ. We don't want the officials to do our job for us, but we can make sure that all parties are on the same page. This should also aid coordination between various departments. Reviewers should also be available for phone interpretations; the code is not a straightforward document that can be applied without variation.

As an example of an implementation of this strategy, the City would require 3 coordination meetings (SD, DD, CD) with professionals and staff to review and agree upon major code issues before submitting sealed documents. A minimum payment would be made by the owner of the project to pay the City for the time. When the building permit is issued a credit, the building permit fee would be applied in the amount of the payments.

10. Other Jurisdictions: Baltimore City should meet with public agencies in other jurisdictions around the State, such as Howard or Anne Arundel Counties. New Castle County, Delaware, has what they call a "one day process," which is somewhat misleading, but still faster than the City. The most successful aspects of these processes should be incorporated.

11. Seal and Certification in lieu of review: Architect and Fire Prevention Engineer seal and certification (requirement of design review professional seal on drawings). If both seal the documents, the City would not review the plans; if only one seals the drawings, the City would review the plans but the format such as a code review form or code review drawing would be required. This would be the only thing the City would have to review and agree with, cutting the time significantly. To make this work, the field inspectors would need to "buy in" to the interpretations of the professionals.

Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Structural Engineers seal and certification - Engineers seal would not require reviews by City but place responsibility with the professional of record.

Certification of the professionals would be by state licensing and a City-approved list of 3 successful completed projects in the city, or some similar screening process.

12. Focus on Results: Reviews need to be more problem-oriented and fixed on the letter of the code. If the performance and outcome would be emphasized rather than following each word literally, there could be more flexibility and it would be easier to work in the City. This might require additional training for the staff. The BOCA code already has a process for alternative compliance, but this section has in the past been stricken from the Code by the City.

13. Code Standardization: The City should abandon its own BOCA code additions which require an additional book and individualized code interpretations. There are no substantial differences that warrant this separate code. Eliminating it would also save personnel and cost for the City. Local amendments also often interfere with the relationships between requirements in the national codes, which have been coordinated in a relatively systematic way.”

Back to UDC committee page
Back to UDC Archives