Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Housing Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sees revised small-house prototypes; team presents renderings, costing and zoning outreach plan
Summary
Project team presented updated small-house designs and cost estimates, reported design changes that remove the smallest units from tiny-home code, and outlined next steps including HVAC selection, pricing validation with builders, and municipal zoning engagement.
A project team update to the Ottawa County Housing Policy Commission described revisions to small-house prototype designs, new renderings and physical models, and next steps for costing and municipal coordination.
Why it matters: The designs aim to create lower-cost, conventional-housing alternatives that can be permitted and built across a range of municipal contexts in Ottawa County. The team said several technical issues remain — HVAC, shared septic/well approaches, site-specific infrastructure — and that more detailed pricing from larger builders is needed before moving to production.
Project lead reported design changes intended to keep the smallest unit out of the International Building Code’s "tiny home" classification by adding roughly 2 feet to the front of the smallest concept. The presenter noted the revised smallest concept now provides about 400 square feet of interior area and said that improved circulation allows furniture and living arrangements that are more like traditionally sized homes.
Katie, the designer whose renderings and dollhouse-style models the team displayed, provided two layout options for the largest in-town concept (1,056 square feet): one layout shows a living room with a floating couch and two chairs anchored around a media center; another shows an L-shaped sofa and a small workspace adjacent to a bedroom. The team printed 24 physical models at 1/16 scale and is preparing a set of coordinated print sets and "dollhouse" views intended for outreach to developers, nonprofits and local officials.
Costing work: The team said it has updated costing spreadsheets for concepts 2 through 4 and emphasized the effective valuation subtotal on the second spreadsheet page as the key number for comparison. Cost estimates currently focus on individual home shells and systems and do not fully include shared site improvements such as communal spaces, parking, and fire lanes. The presenter said builder feedback will be folded into the spreadsheets to produce a best-, typical- and worst-case costing range.
Technical questions remain. The team is pursuing an HVAC partner to confirm equipment placement and service strategies (mini-splits versus external heat pump, tankless water heaters, attic mechanicals). The group discussed feasibility of shared septic and well systems on clustered sites and noted that state and local health-code thresholds will govern what is allowable; the presenter said municipal zoning and infrastructure availability will determine where denser siting is practical.
The commission and staff discussed two concurrent outreach strategies: (1) working with municipalities to update zoning and permit PUD pilots and (2) building demonstration projects with nonprofit partners on candidate parcels. The team said one confidential parcel identified by a nonprofit partner is being used as a case study for site-scale costing and layout testing.
What’s next: The team will collect pricing from larger-scale builders to refine the costing spreadsheets, finalize print sets and specification details, confirm HVAC partner input, and continue municipal engagement on zoning and site control. The group also suggested using the printed models and renderings at public open houses and planning workshops to help residents and officials visualize the prototypes.
