Read Cottage Design Charrette text version

Cottage Design Charrette

Ken Niemczyk, Lebanon City Planner Anne Duncan Cooley, Upper Valley Housing Coalition

Results of the process...

Why did we choose to do a Cottage Charrette?

Building upon interest from the Cottage Development Conference of October 2007 - We wanted to apply Cottage Housing to a variety of sites in the Upper Valley for demonstration purposes: · In-fill development in an existing neighborhood or village center · Adaptive reuse of an existing developed site · Redevelopment of an existing site/structure · Development on a vacant parcel outside the village center.

Design/Development teams

· · · · · Site Design Bldg design Site infrastructure Development economics Market - fit to workforce housing costs · Regulatory implications

Process documentation

· Format followed UVHC guidelines for endorsement and principles of neighborhood design:

­ Measurement of Affordability ­ Respect of neighborhood character ­ Range of housing types/ units ­ Range of ages/needs ­ Fair housing - accessibility / visitability

· Focus - design the project to fit and complement their neighborhood context.

What's a cottage and what's a bungalow?

Teams were asked to accommodate a range of unit types on the plans and we defined terms for scales of the units: ·BUNGALOW: between 1200 - 1600 SF with 1000 SF on one floor 3-4 BR, 3-5 people. ·COTTAGE: under 1000 SF 750 on one floor. 2BR+, 2-3 people. ·MINI: accessory unit/small cottage 400-500 SF. 1 BR, 1-2 people. Freebies if used as accessory units with a bungalow.

Neighborhood context: what that meant to us?

· Don't be afraid to connect and be a part of the neighborhood around. · Engage the street as a positive. · Reinforce existing or make new public spaces: trails, parks, playgrounds, gardens, etc. · We don't want to see projects that appear as if they landed from somewhere else. · Street layout to make a neighborhood place connectivity · Street scale and democratic space for cars, people, bikes · Complement neighborhood character and scale.

Cottages and Bungalows: density and dimensions

· Small lots or zero lot line were fine · Most of the designs would require a PUD/ Planned Development with waivers. · Requirements relative to fire codes and sprinklers ­ duly noted. · Bldg size and spacing conventional standards for prefab/panelized for economy - prefab in 11 or 14' widths, and panelized in 4' units.

Steering Committee and Charrette Resource Staff

· · · · · Ken Niemczyk, City of Lebanon Lori Hirschfield, Town of Hartford Bob White, ORW, Landscape Architect Anne Duncan Cooley, UVHC Tim MacNamara, Dartmouth Real Estate

Charrette staff: · Lynne LaBombard, Housing Solutions Real Estate · Ned Redpath, Coldwell Banker Redpath & Co. Visualization UK Architects, Ben Morgan and Jen Haggerty

Wilder School Team Members

Aaron Kadosch, ORW Janet Cavanaugh, JCLA Chris Lowe, Hartford John Billings, Lyme Properties Jared Travis, SVE Associates Tim McCosker, Upper Valley Habitat for Humanity Matt Osborn, Town of Hartford Visualization UK Architects, Ben Morgan and Jen Haggerty

Site Summary

· 1.65 acres in an existing neighborhood · 18,000 sf 3 floor brick school building · Site is flat and on existing water and sewer

The Concepts

Option 1: Keeps the School ·Total of 22 units: 12 apartments in the school building of 500-1000 sf. Mix of studio, 1,2 and 3 bedrooms. ·10 other units ­ 2 duplexes and 4 singles and 2 units over garages ·Mix of 1200 sf bungalows, 1000 sf cottages and 350 sf accessory apartments over garages. Option 2: Does not reuse school building (team preferred plan that reused school bldg) · 20 total units · 16 singles, 2 duplexes, common on rear of all lots

Burton Road Team Members

· · · · · · Chris Kennedy, UK Architects Nancy Collier, Hanover Planning Board John Caulo, Dartmouth Real Estate Office Mara Robinson, Mara Design Mike McCrory, Pathways Consulting Bob Strauss, Hanover Affordable Housing Commission · Jonathan Edwards, Town of Hanover · Visualization: UK Architects, Ben Morgan and Jen Haggerty

Site Summary

· 4 acre site with infill possibilities · Several single family homes on the site · Parcel has rolling topogrpahy

The Concept

· Mix of 43 units of cottage, bunglalow and carriage style multi-family home including "mini" apartments · Amenities include pond, park, walk to downtown · Mix of units to appeal to a broad market

Mascoma Street Team Members

· George Turner, Rivertown Design · Stephanie Jackson, Lebanon Planning Board · Steve Davis, Hartford · Tod Whipple, United Construction · Dan Nash, Advanced Geomatics · John Chaffee, Lebanon Housing Authority · Mark Goodwin, City of Lebanon · Visualization UK Architects, Ben Morgan and Jen Haggerty

Clifford Of Vermont, Norwich, Team Members

· Bruce Boedtker, Bruno Associates · Rod Finley, Pathways Consulting · Hilary Gregory, ORW · Kevin Purcell, Purcell Properties · David Brooks, City of Lebanon · Phil Dechert, Town of Norwich · Visualization: UK Architects, Ben Morgan and · Jen Haggerty

Site Summary

· 11.5 acres+ with small homes · Frontage on Route 5 and near employers · May be appropriate for mixed use

The Concept

· 22 unit Mixed use including 1 commercial and 2 market rate units included with cottages · Amenities include open space, pond, hiking trails, community room · On-site wastewater a challenge

Hanover Street, Lebanon Team Members

· · · · · · · George Hathorn Ken Morley, Lebanon Planning Board Alex Iskandar, Lebanon Zoning Board Todd Menees, Engineering Ventures Helen Hong, Twin Pines Housing Trust Rob Schultz, COVER Tracey Thibeault, City of Lebanon

Site Summary

· .5 acres in the central business district within walking distance of downtown Lebanon · Apartments in existing buildings on site

What did we learn?

· Density matters · Mixed use can help make a project economically feasible · Existing municipal utilities a plus · A mix of housing sizes, styles, types and prices helps makes the numbers work and helps a new neighborhood fit in · Backyard cottages are a viable option for infill housing on existing single family lots

What did we learn about Zoning

· Compatible with Zoning in most cases. · Mixed use needed to take advantage of some commercial opportunities. · Parking a challenge; too many spaces per unit; 2 spaces vs. 1.5 or 1.25 spaces. · Need reduced standards for roads accessing small number of units. · Setback requirements need to be reduced.

COTTAGE ZONING City of Langley, Washington ·Density ­ 1 cottage/2904 SF or 15/acre. ·Height Limit - 25 feet. ·Lot Coverage ­ 40% ·Floor Area ­ 975 SF ·Yards ­ 5 to 10 feet ·Required Open Space ­ 400 SF/unit ·Parking ­ 1.25 spaces/unit ·Design Review

ZONING:Existing Standards City of Lebanon, example: ·Density ­ 1 dwelling /10,000 SF or 4/acre. · Height Limit ­ 45 feet. · Lot Coverage ­ 25%. · Yards ­ 15 to 20 feet. · Floor Area ­ no limit

COTTAGE/BUNGALOW ZONING Development Scenarios

·Developed Lot with Excess Area

·13,000sq.ft. ­ 1 standard unit & 1 cottage. ·14,000sq.ft. ­ 1 standard unit & 1 bungalow.

·Undeveloped Lot of 10,000sq.ft.

·3 cottages, or ·2 bungalows, or ·2 cottages & 1 bungalow.

·Vacant Acreage

·Mixed Housing Development ­ 20% cottages, 20% bungalows, 60% standard dwelling.

COTTAGE/BUNGALOW ZONING Brainstorming Ideas

· Floor Area

· Cottage: 1,000 SF with 750 SF max. footprint. · Bungalow:1,500sq.ft. with 1,000 SF max. footprint.

· Height Limit ­ 30 feet. · Building Coverage ­ 25% · Density · Cottage: 1 cottage/3,000sq.ft. (3 cottages/10,000 SF · Bungalow: 1 bungalow/4,000 SF (2 bungalows/10,000 SF)

Making it all work: A Viable development future

· Regulatory receptivity

· PUD or cluster option · All units are not equal = greater density for smaller units · Dimensional standards need flexibility · Affordability incentives for "Double Density" balances with design standards

· Context:

· · · · · Neighborhood infill or new site setting Cottages are part of a larger development scenario Match to neighborhood scale and character Collaborative design matters for a effective solution. Design can overcome traditional density issues and local resistance.

· Economics

· Larger unit numbers create critical mass for cost efficiency. · Municipal infrastructure critical · "Double Density" best for affordability

Information

Cottage Design Charrette

26 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1299102