1. Upper Valley Housing Coalition Anne Duncan Cooley Robert White, ASLA

2. 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. Identify opportunities and challenges inherent to Cottage Housing. Develop some templates for various types of Cottage Housing. Identify economic, regulatory, market and other considerations for opportunity and challenge if we are to promote Cottage Housing. Create interest and connections between land owners, builders, developers, architects, engineers, landscape architects, planning commissioners and professional planners for future Cottage Housing development projects.

4. Build upon the Katrina cottage model

5. The day: Invited parties arrived at the charrette and were treated to food, descriptions to the sites and the development objectives. Teams included:  Architect  Landscape Architect  Civil Engineer  Town Planner  Community Lay Planner  Developer/builder  Housing advocate  Property owners  interested parties

6. Charrette team working session.

7. Hartford, VT site.

9. Summary: Rehab. of school: 4-8 units Duplex:4 units (2 bldgs.) Sf cottages:4 units Total:12-16 units

10. Hanover, NH site.

13. Summary: Du/triplex:9 units (3 bldgs.) Sf cottages:13 units Carriage house: 12 units Total: 44 units

14. Lebanon, NH site.

17. Summary: Multi Family bldgs.25 units Du/triplex:15 units Sf cottages:25 units Total: 65 units

18. Norwich, VT site.

20. Summary: Du/triplex:14 units (7 bldgs.) Sf cottages:6 units Mixed use: 5000 Sf Total: 20 units

21. SIZE, SCALE AND COST DESIGN, PERMITTING AND “FIT” Project size matters for cost Given the fixed costs of development, it is a challenge to provide even the smallest sized (400-750 sq ft) cottage housing within the affordable range for the medium household income ($50,000 annual income; $140,000 housing price) in projects with less than 40 units. Given the above, Cottage Housing should be part of a mix of housing sizes, styles, types and prices to integrate with larger neighborhood projects. While “the market” hasn’t really built these houses – there is precedent and interest. A variety of changes may be needed in local regulations to support the development of Cottage Housing including: parking, allowable density, % open space. Backyard cottages, aka Accessory Dwelling Units, are a viable option for in-fill housing on existing single-family lots in village centers. Density and “impacts” of smaller houses are proportionately less than full size dwellings Small houses and cottages can fit into a variety of neighborhood settings

22. The charrette participants are very excited about using the concepts of Cottage Housing in future projects. The proposed projects are being redrawn in SketchUp for 3d visualization and as an educational piece for future advocacy. Property owners learned a lot from the process and several are considering next steps Town planners were very interested in the lessons on zoning and regulatory issues Stay tuned for a hands-on report and community workshop later in 2009

23. Planned Developments Density Bonus Cluster Development Limiting the Footprint, Second Floor and Overall Size of Housing Waivers for Setbacks and Building Height Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Variety of Housing Types and Sizes Inclusionary Zoning It’s An Evolutionary Process – Cottage Housing regulations and planning process should recognize the continuing evolution of cottage housing and be written with enough flexibility so that builders and communities can work together to create great projects.