Minutes of Site Design Meeting: September 19, 2002

Prepared for Mosaic Commons Cohousing by Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc., Sept. 20, 2002

Introduction:

1. Folks introduced themselves around the room
2. Laura reviewed the agenda for the evening
3. Laura reviewed where we had left off and what directions had been followed in the preparation of schematic designs

• This is the first iteration of designs. Even if a clear direction is chosen, the site plan will be modified as new site information becomes available and common house and unit designs are developed.
• Two sites: Because there are two sites KFA’s work is sketchier than it might have been for only one site. This is in accordance with letter of agreement for this work. The main elements are always included, but some plans do not show all elements such as: hard surface play area, playing fields, bike storage, quiet spots, overflow parking, spa, etc. These would be worked in during design development phase.
• Maynard Site:
• Scheme A: Common House at West end of community layout.
• Scheme B: Common House at North side, central
• Stow site:
• Accuracy: After scanning small site plans onto computer, Laura discovered that they do not fully correspond with each other. Therefore KFA has little confidence in the accuracy of boundary lines, dimensions, and orientation.
• Scheme A: Common House at SW, nodal pattern
• Scheme B: Common House at SW, linear pattern

1. Goals for evening: Present plans, evaluate them, and choose a direction for Maynard site. Laura and Mary do not recommend choosing a direction for Stow until site information is more complete. They recommend simply taking time to talk about pros and cons of each.

Maynard Site

1. Mary presented both schemes
2. Participants asked questions
3. Pros and Cons: Participants decided to hear list of Pros and Cons that Laura and Mary had prepared rather than brainstorm list themselves. List follows:

• Good solar orientation
• 50% of units pass CH on way from parking
• CH in open area, houses in treed area (may allow for some saving of existing trees fairly close to units)
• Good backyards for every unit
• Fairly accessible
• Less Asphalt than B (less cost, less maintenance of paths/roads)
• CH at end = less disruptive to community when there are events in CH
• CH clearly visible upon arrival on site (good for visitors)
• Garden / CH connection

• some units far from CH (approx. 340’)
• 50% of units don’t pass CH on way from parking (could move more / all parking to west end)
• cars might sometimes be inside community (use emergency access / pedestrian way for deliveries)
• CH on one side, not central to everyone
• CH backside is most visible upon arrival (CH design could ameliorate this)

• Good solar orientation
• CH centrally located
• Views of courtyard from in front of nearly every unit
• Small path for pedestrian way – cozy, less road like
• 2 nice nodes
• 2 simple parking lots (easy to plow)
• overflow parking along emergency access road in back
• accessible – from emergency access road to all north side units
• May be easier to save some of the existing trees in large "green" area in front of CH

• CH not clearly visible upon entry
• CH not on the way between parking and units
• More pavement (cost, maintenance)
• Events in CH might be more disrupting (people coming and going from parking by units)
• Driving behind units / less back yards on north side
• Visitor parking and approach of CH is to back side of CH or between units
• Gardens more distant from CH

1. There was a very strong preference for Scheme A (13 for, 4 not objecting) and a small preference for B (3-4 for, 12 not objecting, one objecting). There was a show of hands on how many people would be willing to walk the distance (approx. 340’) from units to CH. Many raised hands. It was pointed out that this plan is similar to EcoVillage at Ithaca only shorter. Catya asked that rather than further critiquing B, that we consider how we might infuse Scheme A with some of the properties she and others like about Scheme B. The following are some ideas:

• Consider all the carports on west end to encourage folks to walk by CH
• Consider more parking at west end – same reason
• Make "road" feel more "path-like"
• Make sure there are some units that are quite accessible (close to parking), for sleeping baby phenomenon as well as wheelchairs.
• Consider infusing more distinct "nodes" along path

1. Other points that Mary and Laura said they will look at:

• Move pedestrian way closer to north units to get more sun for winter de-icing.
• Move carports off setback
• Hybrid scheme (CH at NW, a few units to West of it, short access road to some parking at CH)

1. Consensus Decision – Continue with Scheme A with the understanding that it will be refined and some / all of the suggestions considered in design development.

Stow Site

1. Laura presented both Schemes. Note: designs are for 28 units. KFA did not want to attempt 35 units with so little site information.
2. Participants asked questions
3. Pros and Cons: Laura read the list that she and Mary had prepared. List follows:

• 2/3 of units pass CH on way from parking
• CH / Courtyard / Pond connection
• CH central
• Backyards pretty good for all units
• Courtyard on east of CH (summer evening shade) with opening to south (winter sun)

• courtyard not visible from all units

• more "social" – more nodal
• efficient emergency access loop
• narrower paths into nodes
• CH more visible upon entry

• less solar access for units and common house
• some units at distance from parking
• no "green" developed at this point
• less accessible for deliveries (paths to nodes)

• good solar orientation of units and CH
• green location (south of CH, noise away from units, visible from courtyard)

• North side of Common House along pedestrian way (could be nice shade garden)
• units at different sides look at different ends of CH (not always the front)

1. Participants seemed to like both schemes quite a bit, and without strong preference. It was generally felt that Scheme A could be adjusted for better solar, while Scheme B could be adjusted to be more nodal. There was some fairly strong preference to certain elements:

• green in scheme B
• efficient emergency access in scheme A
• cohesiveness of A (NW corner of B too far out)
• CH wrap around porch connecting to both sides of community.

Feasibility Study on Stow Site:

The group spent the left over time discussing a feasibility study on Stow Site. The decision was recorded by Christie.

The meeting was adjourned. If you have any changes to be made to these minutes, please provide them in writing to Kraus-Fitch Architects.

Respectfully Submitted,

Laura Fitch, principal architect

Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc.

Cc: Chris ScottHanson