Minutes - 30 AUGUST 2000

GENERAL MEETING 2/2000

7.30pm
Wednesday 30 AUGUST 2000

At: CERES Training Room
8 Lee Street, Brunswick

PRESENT:
Paul Adams, Noel Blencowe, Rose Delacruz (observing), Harry Ford, Sam Grover, Fran Hoban, Paula Jorgenson, Livia LoGiudice, Hamish McCracken, Mick Morgan, Tony Morton, Ben North, Chris Riseley, Vyv Rodnight, Taron Stanley (observing), Adam Tiller, Jane Ward, Maya Ward

APOLOGIES:
Sharryn Muir, Sasha Tillermuir

Chaired by Hamish McCracken. Minutes by Tony Morton.

1. INTRODUCTIONS
MW gave a summary of the project so far. We are now at the critical stage of financial planning. NB emphasised that finances are of key importance at this stage; we will need $1 million in cash to secure a $4 million site. The owners of the site are "a little group of cousins and brothers who want to sell the land for as much money as they can" and will hold out for a premium price. We are also investigating alternative sites. The meeting agreed that representatives of the working groups should give short progress reports. 2.

REPORTS FROM WORKING GROUPS

2.1 Education WG
SM is running education sessions with Hans Tilstra on a regular basis. These are run for the general public, to introduce people to the concept of cohousing.

2.2 Design WG
MW/PA are facilitating the design process and talking to architects. An important element of cohousing is the participatory nature of the design, whereby all members contribute. It is planned to run two design sessions.
Session 1: "How will your home reflect our vision statement?" Everyone will be encouraged to bring an A3 sheet of paper with their ideas for the dwelling space, including ideas on how the common house will work as our ‘other’ house. AT handed out copies of our vision statement.
Session 2: "What does your community look/feel like, and how does it relate to its neighbours and the wider world?" It was agreed that Session 1 would run on Saturday 16 September from 1pm to about 4pm, and would be combined with the ‘visioning’ session proposed by the Process group. Members who are unable to attend can submit ideas in written form.
ACTION: MW / PA / PJ to write up a proposal for the design and visioning session.

2.3 Communications WG
PA is in charge of distributing email bulletins and is getting together an information pack for new members.

2.4 Finance WG
NB reported that we have circulated Expressions of Interest and membership forms. TM added that we will be contacting people to review our current financial situation.

2.5 Process WG
Working group members HM, VR, PJ and SG work to ensure we make the best possible decisions, that people are happy with these decisions and are comfortable making their own contributions. VR mentioned that cohousing groups have learned from the Tasmanian experience that the process we start with is the process we end with, so it’s worth getting it right at the start. SG emphasised that our processes must reflect our values.

3. ADMIN

3.1 Minutes of meeting 1/2000
The minutes of the inaugural GM were accepted. (Proposed AT, seconded MW.)

3.2 Acceptance of new members
Our constitution provides that new members must be admitted by a motion at a general meeting. In order to avoid ambiguities about the status of any members, the meeting was asked to accept all those currently on the books as members.
MOTION: That the following paid-up applicants be accepted as members of Merri Cohousing and Ecovillage Incorporated: Ceridwen Owen, Richard Davidson, Mick Morgan, Frances Hoban, Anthony Morton, Hamish McCracken, Samantha Grover, Dot Hutton, Adam Tiller, Paul Adams, Ian Adams, Vyv Rodnight, Mara Ripani, Noel Blencowe, Sharryn Muir, Chris Riseley, Cathy Nixon, Harry Ford, Zanni Waldstein, Emma Rush, Frances McMillan, Ben North, Anna Morton, Robyn Evans, Peter Taylor, Warwick Sayer, Paula Jorgenson, Maya Ward and Jane Ward. (Proposed TM, seconded MM, carried.)

4. URBAN ECOLOGY PRESENTATION
Urban Ecology is a nonprofit community group that promotes ecological cities. MW introduced Ceridwen, Peter and PA who have worked on a scheme in conjunction with Merri Cohousing. The original impetus for Urban Ecology’s design concept was as a competition entry for the World Habitat awards. The group had to consider how to bring together a large number of people with multiple environmental agendas, and how to integrate the ‘cohousing’ and ‘ecovillage’ elements of the project. The Urban Ecology design envisages 60 ecovillage units and 30 cohousing units of varying height to match the existing urban form. Their basic design was presented as a model made from matchboxes and cardboard. An important design consideration was integration with CERES. The design incorporates a ‘boulevard’ running through the middle of the site as an extension of Lee Street. The cohousing is located on the southern end of the site as 2 storey apartments of variable density, and the ecovillage consists of 3-4 storey apartments on the north side (matching the multi-storey apartments opposite). Carparking is integrated into the development at ground level with an open-space podium above, surrounded by buildings. There is a single-point access for motor vehicles to minimise the number of ‘crossing points’ interfering with movement of people. The common house would face the ‘green street’ on one side and the podium on the other. All upper-level apartments have balcony space (mandated by Council), and all ground-level apartments have backyard spaces as well as front yards facing the street. Ceridwen and Peter explained that this is primarily a ‘volume’ exercise and there is a lot of flexibility on the exact shape of dwellings. If desired, the cohousing space could be adapted to two-storey terraces rather than apartments. Other possiblities the group considered were a ‘sister bioregion’ in an urban-fringe location that could trade off land uses with this site, and the integration of innovative commercial land uses to comply with the site’s mixed zoning. Urban Ecology is currently working on another development which involves 44 units on a smaller site. The meeting thanked Ceridwen, Peter and Paul for their valuable contribution.

5. DISCUSSION PAPERS
HM explained the ‘discussion papers’ that were being prepared by the working groups. These would become the de facto policy statements for Merri Cohousing. Anyone is encouraged to write a discussion paper on a relevant issue and table it at a Committee meeting. There are currently four discussion papers being circulated for comment.

6. DAVID OPPENHEIM
David Oppenheim is an architect who has volunteered some design work for us. MW drew a rough picture of the site layout David has envisaged, based on 2-3 storey terraces at ‘Fitzroy density’ on ‘green streets’. Feedback is required on whether or not he is to be formally appointed as the architect for the project. So far we have had no formal correspondence with him. MW said David understood the situation and the need to consider our decision carefully. NB pointed out that another urban planner, Chip Kaufman, had produced an entirely different design for us, so we now have three broad concept plans to choose from! It was suggested that we carry out our own design process at our own pace, but keep David continually informed in writing of our progress.
ACTION: MW / RE will write a letter of thanks to David, reassuring him but giving no commitments as we are not yet ready to formally appoint an architect.

7. OTHER BUSINESS
MW pointed out that there is a large file of cohousing information that members can consult. TM announced that there will be a competition to design a logo for the group.

8. CLOSE
The meeting closed at 9:25pm.