VOLUME 27 NUMBER 4JANUARY-MARCH 1997

RESIDENTIAL

NYLAND COHOUSING COMMUNITYLAFAYETTE, COLORADO

PROJECT TYPE

A 42-unit cohousing community on a 43-acresite. The project was undertaken by a groupof future residents with assistance from anexperienced developer who served as projectmanager. The community includes both attached and detached single-family houses;a barn workshop facility; a 600-square-foot common greenhouse; and a three-level,6,500-square-foot community building, or common house, containing meeting space, akitchen and dining room, a daycare area,guest rooms, a teen craft room, and recreation space.

SPECIAL FEATURES

Strong sense of communityCluster planShared community facilitiesEnergy-efficient designPrairie restoration

DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

Wonderland Hill Development Company 745 Poplar Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80304 303-443-7876

RESIDENTIAL DESIGNER/ENERGY CONSULTANT

Synergy Design 917 Cottonwood Circle Golden, Colorado 80401 303-278-1880

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A cohousing community is a small-scale neighborhood that seeks to balance residents' desirefor personal privacy with their desire to live among other people who know and care abouteach other. Cohousing developments are designed, planned, and managed with a high degreeof resident participation.

The cohousing concept was pioneered in Europe in the early 1970s and adopted in the UnitedStates in 1988. Today more than two dozen cohousing projects are complete or underconstruction in North America and more than 150 resident groups are in various stages ofdevelopment.

The Nyland Cohousing Community was started in 1990 by a small group of Boulder-arearesidents who subsequently formed the Colorado Cohousing Development Company toundertake the project. The resident-owned company hired the Wonderland Hill DevelopmentCompany, a medium-sized local company with a well-established reputation for high-qualitydesign and sustainable development practices, to serve as project manager.

Completed in 1993, Nyland was the first cohousing community in Colorado, and it is thelargest cohousing community built in the United States to date.

THE SITE

The 43-acre site is located in a predominantly rural agricultural area in the Denvermetropolitan region, eight miles east of Boulder. Downtown Denver, to the south, is within a30-minute commute. The site is surrounded by public open space to the south and west andby a few large estates and low-density residential subdivisions to the north and east.

The resident group was looking for a large site in Boulder when it found the property andpurchased it under option in 1990. During the one-year option period, the group had the landannexed by the city of Lafayette, significantly increasing its value and enabling it to bedeveloped under city regulations for planned unit developments.

DEVELOPMENT

During the development process the resident group met weekly, and committees responsiblefor membership and marketing, meeting coordination, land planning, residential design,financing, and the approval process met as often as necessary to complete their assignments.Wonderland Hill prepared a budget, an economic model, and a feasibility study to present tothe group, which functioned as a board of directors. The group included six professionalfacilitators who ran the meetings.

Resolving design issues was a major hurdle. Early in the process, the group selected anarchitect and generated a large number of designs. Wonderland Hill then focused the group onpreparing working drawings for a fixed number of residential floorplans based on size ofhousehold. An architect in the group voluntarily prepared plans for the site and commonhouse. An energy conservation consultant was brought in to provide additional expertise.

To keep prices as affordable as possible, three basic models were designed and futureresidents were allowed to choose from an extensive list of options to customize their homes.Options included covered porches, decks, windows, skylights, and finished basements andupper levels as well as two packages: one for energy conservation and one for indoor airquality. Two homes were custom built by their owners; covenants required the use of similarsiding, roofing, roof pitch, windows, and trim details.

Legally, the corporation established by the resident group was the developer of the project.Financial risk was shared by Wonderland Hill, its president Jim Leach, and a few individualswithin the group. Wonderland Hill was paid a management fee and received 50 percent of thebottom-line profit/contingency, which was budgeted at 10 percent of sales.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

The community is clustered on approximately 12 acres near the center of the property. About11 acres was dedicated to the city as public open space, exempting the community frompaying a park acquisition fee during the approval process, and the community holds the restof the property as permanent open space and agricultural land. The community decided tobuild one unit per acre, the maximum number permitted by zoning.

Houses are situated on individual lots with 10-foot frontyards, 5-foot sideyards, and 40-footbackyards. There are 21 residential buildings, including six single-family detached houses,nine duplexes, and six triplexes. Units are staggered for architectural interest and to providefor light and unobstructed views.

The community house, approximately 2,500 square feet, has three levels. The main floorincludes a kitchen, a living/dining area, and a children's daycare area. A loft space is used as ameeting room. The lower floor now has guest rooms, a teen craft room, and recreation space.A 600-square-foot greenhouse is located in the common open space, and a barn workshopfacility is located near the visitor parking area. The architectural style for all buildings is basedon that of older houses and barns found in the surrounding area. A 600-square-footcommunity garden provides small plots for household use. The community's permanent openspace is being restored to native highland prairie.

FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION

Because of the novelty of the project, obtaining financing was difficult. Wonderland Hillworked closely with appraisers to be sure they understood that despite its novelty, thecommunity was a standard real estate project.

Construction financing was provided by a local bank with loan guarantees from WonderlandHill and from a few key individuals in the community. Equity funds consisted of purchasers'downpayments and investor funds. Permanent financing was provided by several lenders. Theproject received Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approval.

Since municipal sewer lines were located too far from the site to be extended economically, adual sewage system was installed. City-approved internal mains were installed to connect tothe sewer system at a future date; in the meantime, homes are served by county-approvedindividual septic systems.

Energy efficiency was a high priority; the goal was to create houses that would use half theenergy of a conventional new home. The energy conservation consultant focused onaffordable strategies, including insulation, mechanical systems, and passive solar designfeatures. The community also received assistance from the state energy office, theEnvironmental Protection Agency, and the local utility company, which used the community toshowcase its Ideal Energy Home program, which certifies attainment of energy-efficientratings and provides incentives for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and lighting.

MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT

As the pioneering cohousing project in Colorado, Nyland benefited from a high degree ofinterest and little advertising was required. The resident group membership and marketingcommittee was responsible for introductory presentations. Of the 15 to 20 group memberswho were active when the land was purchased, approximately half moved in.

Approximately one-third of community households are two-parent/two-child families,one-third are couples, and one-third are singles, some of whom have children or housemates.Residents include about 40 children and 12 individuals over 60; most are adults in theirmiddle years.

All houses are held in fee-simple ownership. The community is run by a not-for-profithomeowners association that collects monthly dues ($104 to $180 per unit), runs the daily

affairs of the association, and oversees the work of the various community committees, whichare responsible for maintaining shared resources and facilities and for publishing a communitynewsletter. Covenants are typical of those for townhouse and condominium communities, withregulations covering fences, pets, and payment of monthly dues. Homeowners are responsiblefor the maintenance of their own frontyards and rearyards. The association contracts forcleaning of the common house and hires consultants as necessary.

Community meetings are held monthly; two annual meetings are devoted to budgeting andsetting priorities for the coming year. Community dinners, which are intended to maintainsocial bonds, are offered four evenings each week.

Besides the minimal cost for community dinners, the only other special charge is for an annual$65 pass for each person over the age of ten to ride on the regional bus system, whichprovides service between Boulder and Lafayette. Payment of the fee helped to establish a busroute on Baseline Road.

Eight homes have been resold within the past four years. The association maintains a list ofpeople who have expressed an interest in purchasing a home in the community and makesthe list available to sellers. There is no requirement for sellers to work with the community onresales.

EXPERIENCE GAINED

Proponents of cohousing believe that by giving future residents a role in makingdecisions about where they will live, developers can produce a much better product thanif they build what they think people want and will buy. Innovative design features can beincorporated because they already have received buyers' endorsement. Also, becausethe project is essentially pre-sold, the developer is protected from financial risk.

The development of a cohousing community typically entails a high degree of residentinput and control. The developer therefore needs to communicate effectively, provideaccurate budgets and pricing, earn high marks with the group for integrity, controlrumors and the flow of information, impose limits to maintain efficiency, and balancedemands for affordability with the desire for customized features.

A major advantage of the cohousing concept is its adherence to sustainabledevelopment principals through the use of shared resources.

The optimum size of a cohousing community is in the range of 20 to 30 houses; 42 unitsis a bit too big to be easily manageable.

Design of the common house is very important and will vary from community tocommunity. At Nyland, most residents agree that the kitchen is too large and expensive,that the dining and living areas should be separate, and that a rumpus room for smallchildren should have been provided.

Developer-driven cohousing could make the product more accessible to a larger market.With this approach, the developer takes the initiative, begins marketing, and builds aresident group while acquiring the site, preparing the site plan, and obtaining financing.

PROJECT DATA

LAND USE INFORMATION

Site Area: 42.96 acres Total Dwelling Units: 42 Gross Density: 1 unit per acre Total Parking Spaces: 94

LAND USE PLAN

Acres Percent of Site

Buildings 1.35 3.1

Roads/Paved Areas 1.73 4.0

Community Open Space

28.92 67.3

Public Open Space 11.0 25.6

Total 43.0 100.0

RESIDENTIAL UNIT INFORMATION

Unit TypeAverage Unit

Size (Square Feet)

Number of Units

Initial Sales Prices

Dogwood 1,056 7 $80,000-97,000

Birch 952 6 $99,000-112,000

(w/loft) 1,344 11 $104,000-127,000

(w/secondfloor)

1,440 9 $124,000-160,000

Apple 1,568 5 $135,000-160,000

Custom 1,500-3,000 4 $135,000-250,000

DEVELOPMENT COST INFORMATION

Site Acquisition Cost $375,000 Site Improvement Costs

Excavation/grading $50,000

Sewer/water/drainage 300,000

Paving/curbs/sidewalks/pedestrian streets

176,000

Landscaping/irrigation 150,000

Permits and fees 400,000

Miscellaneous 70,000

Total $1,146,000

Construction Costs

Common house $310,000

Shop 15,000

Carports/garages 37,000

Houses 2,294,000

Builder's fees 176,000

Job overhead/supervision 200,000

Total $3,032,0001

Soft Costs

Architecture/engineering $183,000

Project management 135,000

Marketing 10,000

Legal/accounting 50,000

Taxes/insurance 20,000

Title fees 10,000

Construction interest and fees 170,000

Total $578,000

Total Development Cost $5,131,000 Average Development Cost Per Unit $122,000 Average Construction Cost Per Square Foot $50

Notes:

1Two units were owner built; construction costs for those units are not included.

DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Site Purchased: 1990 Planning Started: 1990 Sales Started: March 1991 Construction Started: September 1991 First Closing: June 1992 Sales Completed: April 1993

DIRECTIONS

From Denver International Airport: Take I-70 and I-270 west to the Boulder Turnpike(Highway 36). Follow Highway 36 north for 14 miles to the Superior-Louisville exit. Turn righton McCaslin Boulevard and follow for two miles. Turn left on South Boulder Road and followfor one-half mile. Turn right on North 76th Street and follow for one mile. Turn right onBaseline Road and follow for 1.25 miles; Nyland Way, the entrance to the community, is onthe right.

Driving Time:50 minutes in nonpeak traffic.

The Project Reference File is intended as a resource tool for use by the subscribers in improving the quality of

future projects. Data contained herein were made available by the Development team and constitute a reporton, not an endorsement of, the project by ULI - The Urban Land Institute.

Copyright 1997, 1997, by ULI - the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Ste. 500w, Washington, D. C. 20007-5201

DOCUMENT IMAGES