Cottage One Model

Here is a slide show of some images exported from a SketchUp model.

STRUCTURAL INSULATED SHELL (SIS)

SIS Package includes:
General Condition Sketches


Component Schedule & Drawings


Detail Sketches

Incentive Planning, Part Two, A Preliminary Decision

My understanding is that the zoning regulations include what they call "incentive planning". In order to get (free enterprise, ie, "for profit") developers to provide specialized housing, which there is a need for, the regs are supposed to help make it attractive to do so. The reason there are shortages of "affordable, elderly and green" housing is that it is NOT (as?) profitable to build. In the long term though, a community can benefit from a greater diversity of housing stock. Young people that grow up here can afford to stay, teachers and service providers don't have to commute from out in the boondocks and older citizens can participate in "village child rearing" etc. A broader range of incomes among the population helps create vibrancy through diversity, but because Jericho is so attractive, profits drive the development of new housing stock and this creates an elitist community..which is NOT healthy.

So, to combat the tendency to build McMansions, which only serve the rich, the regs are supposed to create avenues for profitable building practices which include affordable, elderly and green housing. The density bonus is supposed to allow a builder more profit, if he builds "non-profitable" housing stock. The only way the builder can justify the investment in more intense infrastructure, septic, roads etc, to support the additional non profitable houses, is if he is also allowed to build additional profitable houses. Thus the density bonus.

The reality is that the Development Review Board is comprised of lay people who don't necessarily understand the complexities of creating a diversity of housing stock in the current economic model. The Jericho DRB has interpreted the density bonus to include the incentive housing. So in a nut shell, what they have said is, we'll let you build 25% more houses if you make the additional ones affordable. There is no economic incentive to do this. If my interpretation of the regs is correct, if they are supposed to embrace "Incentive Planning" the DRB has created a short circuit. This Preliminary Decision doesn't respond to the regs in a way that it would be worth it to burden the developer with more intense infrastructure, regulation and pre-development (permitting) costs. In this scenario, if we are only allowed to build the original eight (market rate) units, why would we decrease their value by crowding them with affordable houses? Why would we take on the expensive challenges of regulatory navigation?

My conversations with the Town Planner are to open a dialogue with the people who wrote the regulations so that we can understand their intentions. It's possible that the regs were written to be interpreted the way the DRB is interpreting them, but I don't believe so. It's possible that what they are saying is "if you want to do an all affordable (not for profit) development, we'll let you build a greater (up to 50% more) density" (if we like your project).....but that strategy doesn't apply to us. I firmly believe they have written "Incentive Planning Regs" for the free enterprise developer, which is what we are, but it's possible I'm wrong. In which case, I will recommend doing a simple sub division in which case we can build affordable, elderly and green housing at will, or not, depending on the need to create a viable economically sound development.

Public Safety Information

From Public Safety Information

The current document is a letter of recommendations from the local fire departnment.
One may click on it to access a larger view. If necessary you may choose to enlarge your view by using the magnifying glass in the upper right hand corner.

Preliminary Development Review Board Presentation

Tonight we'll be presenting a shift in our plan. Namely, we're proposing four affordable one bedroom accessory apartments in lieu of the affordable units in the quadplex.

Sketch Plan, April 8, 2010

This is a Preliminary Plan, exploring and illustrating an interpretation of potential density at the site. Click on the image for a larger view.

Density and Incentive Planning, Part One

It wasn’t that long ago that we talked frequently about the Population Explosion. We referred to overcrowding, mega cities and 2.5 children per couple as being the wave of the future. We lamented the loss of our beloved countryside. I remember a surrealistic poster depicting a world literally covered with humans. There was a city reaching to the sky in the background and “humanoids?” were spawling on a rocky shore and even spilling into the ocean in the foreground. The population explosion was the crisis we were facing as a species. The future image to fear, was that of us crawling over each as we struggle for survival.

Recently the discussion has shifted to sustainability. Are we no longer concerned about the population explosion, or are we beginning to be more focused on how we are responding to it? The attention we put to sustainability is positive energy. Looking for ways to manage our behavior so that we have a future, is a much more powerful conversation than simply naming a crisis.

In recent posts I have described how municipalities implement Zoning Regulations to organize growth in a manner consistent with the Town Plan. Town Plans have been developed by elected officials and hired professionals to improve the quality of life for the residents and businesses within a municipality. Two of the key elements to well managed growth, our response to the population explosion as we know it, are organization and efficiency.

Living in towns and developing communities has long been a natural response to our needs and desires as human beings to be more comfortable in our process of survival. We have all heard and should well know by now, how important being more efficient is, in order to achieve sustainability. We expect our organization people, our select boards and Town Managers to guide this process, or we (should) choose to live outside of that support system.

To accomplish efficiency in the process of Town Management, it is logical for planning to organize how infrastructure and maintenance are developed. Municipal services, such as roadway maintenance, waste water disposal, electricity, gas and potable water distribution are highly desirable because they are significantly more efficient when provided to multiple users than on an individual basis. They are also very intensive. (That can be read, expensive.) To maximize the “bang for the buck” of municipal services and infrastructure, they need to be well planned and constructed. Furthermore and most importantly they need to be concentrated, in order to maximize the number of users per unit of infrastructure. What these comments boil down to is that it is for the common good, that towns intensify their village centers.

What does Town Planning have to do with density? Density is the term we use to describe the intensity of land use. It commonly refers to the quantity of human occupation in a given area. Manhattan’s urban environment has a very high density. Montana is predominantly a low density rural environment. In a Village District such as that in Jericho, density is described or prescribed in terms of housing units per acre. As posted previously, the density (prescription) for that area, or zone, has recently been increased four fold, from a one acre minimum lot size required for a single family home or unit, to a quarter acre minimum lot size. Not too long before that, accessory apartments became permissible. These changes essentially suggest that where conditions permit, the density has increased by a factor of eight. This is an extremely important step toward sustainability, a very positive response to the population explosion.

I can hear you screaming from here at my laptop. The majority of people who live in these quaint little villages have chosen them for their scale and charm, and are generally prone to quaking in their boots when progress threatens to consume the image they invested in, oh not so many years ago. Well guess what, we’ve got a long way to go before we’re crawling over each other in our daily routines as we struggle to survive, but if we don’t actively pursue creative, smart responses to the threat of the “population explosion”, our species won’t last long enough to see it. As reluctant as one may be to think about increased density in our neighborhoods, when one honestly understands what smart growth means in terms of efficiency for sustainability, how can one resist and be a part of the solution at the same time?