Melissa A. ToopsA Collection of Design

Works in Architecture

M I X E D U S E

TABLE OF CONTENTS M I X E D U S E

Somerville Ave Residences (595-589), Somerville, MA New Construction-Mixed Use/ Urban Planning 11DU

Somerville Ave Residences (508-510), Somerville, MA New Construction-Mixed Use / Urban Planning 12-23 DU

School Street Residences, Somerville, MA New Construction-Multifamily 5DU

TABLE OF CONTENTSM I X E D U S E

Webster Ave Residences, Cambridge, MA Adaptive Reuse/New Construction-Mixed Use 39DU

Assisted Living, Hopkington, MA New Construction/Renovation-Assisted Living

Firm: Khalsa Design, Inc.Role: Project Manager/Designer Owner/Client: Private DeveloperStatus: In ConstructionYear(s) Completed: 2012-2015Programs Utilized: Revit, CADProject Summary: This project became the first of many combined site plan proposals, with developers teaming up to purchase adjacent properties, developing them concurrently. Due to this unique situation the city approval process was significantly lengthened; however, the end result is a cohesive planned development for a main thoroughfare of the city of Somerville.

Somerville Ave Residences (595-589), Somerville, MA New Construction-Mixed Use/ Urban Planning 11DU

ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR 593 SOMERVILLE AVE PROJECT

ZONE BA REQUIRED ALLOWED PROVIDED COMPLIANCE

A LOT SIZE in Sf N/A 5000 MIN. 8318 YES

B MIN. LOT AREA FOR EACH D.U. in Sf1-9 D.U 875 9.50628571410 D.U 1,000 YES

NUMBER OF D.U. ALLOWED YESTOTAL D.U. 9 YES

C MAXIMUM GROUND COVERAGE % 80% 6654.4 YES

D LANDSCAPED AREA MINIMUM % OF LOT 10% 831.8 YES

E FAR - MAX 2 16,636 YES

F MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN FEET 50 50 YES[20] # STORIES 4 4 YES

[3] ABUTING RB ZONE WITHIN 30 FT, 3 STORIES 40 40 YES[3] ABUTING RB ZONE WITHIN 30 FT, 40 FT HEIGHT 3 3 YES

G MINIMUM FRONT (FT) (5a, 5b,5c,17) 0 0 YES5a-FIRST FLOOR -50% BAY WINDOWS YES

H SIDE (12, 5B, 6,7,10,17) N/A N/A YES [12]-1/3 OF HT OR 15 FT MIN WHEN ABUTING RB ZONE) YES

[6]-1/3 OF LENGTH-BAYS 3 FT MAX OR 1/4 OF SB) YESI REAR YES

10 FT+2' / STORY ABOVE GF (12,5B,13,14,15,17) YES [12]-1/3 OF HT OR 15 FT MIN WHEN ABUTING RB ZONE) YES[14]-50% PROJECTED TO REAR YARD. 1/4 SB, 10' MIN.SB)

J MIN. LOT FRONTAGE N/A YES

PARKING YESCARS PER DU (1,2 BDR UNITS) 1.5 13.5 14 YES

VISITORS 1 PER 6 DU 2 2 BIKES 1 FOR EVERY 3 D.U. 3.00 3 YES

Scheme One looked at a one building scheme, pushed toward Somerville Ave to create a street scape. The ground floor would be dedicated to commercial space. The upper floors would contain five units per floor, except for the top floor which would only contain three due to an increased setback requirement on the fourth floor of a building adjacent to an RB (residential) zone.

Scheme Two looked at the options for dividing up the land between two owners, and providing an access easement at the rear of the property for parking access. Both buildings were once again pushed toward the street, lot As building being three stories, four units, and lot Bs proposing nine units at three stories. Both would still contain a commercial component due to the citys request for more small business spaces along this corridor.

Scheme Three, which became the final scheme, resulted from the discovery of a house on the lot containing an historic component. It was deemed preferably preserved by the citys historic society. This new component required a reworking of lot B, forcing the new building to extend to four stories to maintain the maximum FAR allowed, despite the neighbors concerns about the height.

Proposed Combined Street Elevation

After a lengthy zoning process consisting of several neighborhood meetings, design review board and zoning board hearings, we finally landed on a version of the combined site plan Scheme Three to move forward with. We requested a special permit for the use of a shared site, a variance for reduced parking, and shared parking for the commercial units. Although planning staff supported this relief request, their outdated zoning ordinance requires more parking than this transit oriented neighborhood actually needs.

Construction Photos

Proposed Combined Site Plan

Construction Photos

Initially, the owners planned to develop the sites concurrently, sharing subcontractors and costs; however, site B required much more pre-construction work consisting of the demolition of an existing CMU block garage, remediation of the site, and the re-location of the historic house to the front of the property. As a result of this asymmetrical work, site A was able to button up the building before an historic winter, which saw record snowfall. This unprecedented snow crippled all additional work, slowed the progress on site A, and completely stopped site B until the spring thaw.

Wall Sections & Details

Construction Photos

UP

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Foundation Level-5' - 0"

Second Floor Level11' - 6"

FLASHING

3/4" PVC PANEL

EXTERIOR FINISH, SEE ELEVATIONCONTINUOUS AIR BARRIER

1/2" CDX PLYWOOD SHEATHINGR-21 BATT INSULATION

6 MIL. CONTIN.VAPOR BARRIER

5/8" GWB.

BASEBOARD

FLOOR FINISH, TBDBY OWNER.

FLOOR ASSEMBLY (TYP.) UL #570 - STC 65- FINISH FLOORING (SEE FINISH SCHEDULE)- 3/4" T&G PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR- 11 7/8" BCI JOIST (SEE STRUCTURAL DWG'S)- R-38 BATT INSULATION- 3/4" CDX PLYWOOD SHEATHING- 4'x8' AZEK PANELS W/ 1"x3" BATTENS OUTERSEAMS

PARKING

3/4" CDX PLYWOOD SHEATHING

2X6 WD STUDS @ 16" O.C.(SEE STRUCTURAL DWG'S)

PT. SILL

GRADE @ PARKING 21.6

(20.1)

10' -

3 3

/4"

9' -

8 1/

4"

1' -

6"

A-300 2

A-300

3

1A-400

A

2

4

B.5A.1

1SKA-1

ENTRY HALL

MAILBOXES

31 2

STORAGEUNIT 3

STORAGEUNIT 2

5' -

10 1

/4"

6' - 9 3/4"6' - 10 1/2"

5' -

10 1

/4"

4' - 0 1/2"

2 2

1

4

2 2

1

2' -

11 1

/4"

5' -

5 1/

2"5'

- 5

1/2"

2' - 0" 1' - 7 3/4"

3' - 8"

17' -

11

3/4"

10 1/2"8' - 0" 8' - 0" 1' - 5"

7' - 0 1/2"

21' - 6 1/2"

4' -

6 1/

2"

11' -

1 1

/4"

8 1/

2"11

' - 1

1/4

"

1' - 11 1/2" 1' - 11"

1' - 11" 1' - 10 1/2"

C

1' -

8 1/

2"

2' -

11 1

/4"

5' -

5 1/

2"5'

- 5

1/2"

HANGING BIKE RACKS @ EVERYPARKING SPACE

ROOFDRAIN

J

J

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byScale

ARCHITECT

KHALSA DESIGN INC.

17 IVALOO STREET SUITE 400SOMERVILLE, MA 02143

TELEPHONE: 617-591-8682 FAX: 617-591-2086

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONS

REGISTRATION

CONSULTANTS:

8/26

/201

4 12

:19:

44 P

M

As indicated

G:\1

2\12

052_

Beau

det_

Som

ervi

lle A

ve\0

3 D

raw

ings

\01_

ARC

H_C

D\1

2052

_Bea

udet

_CD

_NEW

CO

LOR

S.rv

t

SKA-1Unnamed

1205204-07-14

AuthorChecker

595 SOMERVILLE AVE

595SOMERVILLE

AVE

BEAUDET

595SOMERVILLE AVE,SOMERVILLE, MA

No. Description Date 3/8" = 1'-0"1 Section 3 1/4" = 1'-0"2

SKA-1 First Floor Level

Sketch Issued Per Request for Information

SECTION AT GARAGE

The developers have an established relationship with Khalsa Design, as does the general contractor hired for this project. This aided in a smoother construction schedule and timely responses to any issues that arose. Lot A having been a much simpler project, it received its permit significantly sooner than lot B.

Lot As developer works on creating efficient floor plans, maximizing storage and selling at a more accessible price point in a neighborhood with a housing deficit and a huge desire to live in similar communities.

Construction Photos

Although there is a deficit of housing in the area, in the design development phase the owners expressed concern over saturating the market with too many similar sized units. We analyzed the individual clients wishes for unit size, bedroom count, quality of space and amenities based on what they felt comfortable bringing to the market. With this information in hand, we modified our plans to suit our clients, the city, and the future owners needs.

Combined Second Floor Plans

Firm: Khalsa Design, Inc.Role: Project Manager/DesignerOwner/Client: Private DeveloperStatus: On HoldYear(s) Completed: 2012-2015Programs Utilized: Revit, CADProject Summary: Initially designed as two buildings containing a total of twelve units, the project worked toward creating a new identity on Somerville Avenue in connection with other similar developments in this portion of Somerville.

Somerville Ave Residences (508-510), Somerville, MA New Construction-Mixed Use / Urban Planning 12-23 DU

508-510 Somerville Ave project has been a complicated process. Initially held by two owners, we developed the sites together utilizing the same drive aisle to maximize the footprint of the buildings, minimize paved area, and maximize parking. This scheme was approved by the city of Somerville zoning board, then swiftly appealed by a neighbor. Per the clients request we completed permit drawings concurrently with the zoning board approvals to minimize the time between approval and permit.

Combined Site Elevation

Zoning Analysis Sketch

Typical Unit Floor Plan

Identity Sketches

New Zoning Study Layout

While the project was stalled in arbitration, the city of Somerville began developing a new zoning ordinance that would drastically change the allowed density and other restrictions on the site. Once the new zoning ordinance draft was released we conducted a zoning analysis to determine if the client should wait to proceed until the new zoning was adopted. The analysis did prove more advantageous to our client, so this project is on hold until a time the new zoning is adopted.

New Zoning Analysis Sketch Use Sketch

Firm: Khalsa Design, Inc.Role: Project Manager/DesignerOwner/Client: Private DeveloperStatus: CompleteYear(s) Completed: 2013-2015Programs Utilized: Revit, CADProject Summary: This project required special permit approval on a constrained site. Consisting of five residential units and one commercial unit at grade, the building hopes to revive the life of this vacant corner lot encouraging more foot traffic and better quality of space in this developing part of town.

School Street Residences, Somerville, MA New Construction-Mixed Use 5DU This project had relatively little push back

from the zoning board on its initial design and premise. The only exception being the creation of a mezzanine level to access roof decks that were carved out of the hip roof line. Every square foot of this site is maximized.

Exterior Rendering

Existing Exterior

Landscape Plan

T.O.W @ 100.3 T.O.W @ 98.3

T.O.W @ 98.8

T.O.W @ 98.8

T.O.W @ 98.8

SK-1

6

SK-13

SK-1

2

SK-1 4

SK-1

5

DCBA

1

2

3

45' - 0"

47' -

10

1/2"

17' -

3 1

/4"

30' -

7 1

/4"

19' - 9" 5' - 3 1/2" 19' - 11 1/2"

45' - 0"

47' -

10

1/2"

3' -

0 1/

4"8'

- 1

3/4"

1' -

11 3

/4"

5' -

5 3/

4"

12' - 10 1/4" 3' - 0"

0' - 8 3/4" 4' - 2 1/2"

C.1

T.O.W @ 96.6

T.O.W @ 98.3

T.O.W @ 96.6

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Basement Level-10' - 6"

Unit 1 Entry Level-1' - 8 13/32"

(98.30)

(96.60)

GRADE

DCBA

T.O.W98.30 T.O.W 98.80

T.O.W 100.3

T.O.S 87.8

SHELF 96.98SHELF 95.20

B.O.F 86.46(87.80)

GRADE

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Basement Level-10' - 6"

Unit 1 Entry Level-1' - 8 13/32"

1 2 3

(98.30)

(96.60)

T.O.W96.6

T.O.S 87.8

B.O.F 86.46

SHELF 95.20

T.O.W 98.80T.O.W 98.80

B.O.F 93.22

(87.80)

GRADEGRADE

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Basement Level-10' - 6"

Unit 1 Entry Level-1' - 8 13/32"

123

GRADET.O.W98.30

T.O.W 100.3

SHELF 96.98

T.O.S 87.8

B.O.F 86.46

T.O.W 98.80

B.O.F 93.22

(98.30)

(96.60)

(87.80)

GRADE

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Basement Level-10' - 6"

Unit 1 Entry Level-1' - 8 13/32"

D C B A

(98.30)

(96.60)

GRADE

T.O.W 98.80

T.O.S 87.8

SHELF 96.98

B.O.F 86.46

(87.80)

T.O.W 98.80T.O.W98.30

GRADE

C.1

SHELF 95.20

First Floor Level0' - 0"

Basement Level-10' - 6"

Unit 1 Entry Level-1' - 8 13/32"

D C B A

(98.30)

(96.60)

(87.80)

GRADEGRADE

T/FDN 96.60

B/FDN 93.60

4" PAVING

1' -

0"

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byScale

ARCHITECT

KHALSA DESIGN INC.

17 IVALOO STREET SUITE 400SOMERVILLE, MA 02143

TELEPHONE: 617-591-8682 FAX: 617-591-2086

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONS

REGISTRATION

CONSULTANTS:

5/5/

2014

11:

07:5

5 AM

3/16" = 1'-0"

G:\1

3\13

014_

Doh

erty

_Sch

ool_

St\0

3 D

raw

ings

\01_

AR

CH

\130

14_D

oher

ty_S

choo

l_St

_CD

_Rev

ised

_02-

25-1

4.rv

t

SK-1

FoundationElevations

1301405-02-14

MTKDI

SCHOOL ST. RESIDENCES

SCHOOL ST.RESIDENCES

Edward Doherty

170 School Street ,SOMERVILLE, MA

No. Description Date

3/16" = 1'-0"1FOUNDATION PLAN

3/16" = 1'-0"2

BEECH ST FRONT FOUNDATIONELEVATION

3/16" = 1'-0"3

UNIT 1 ENTRY SIDE FOUNDATIONELEVATION

3/16" = 1'-0"4

RICHDALE ST SIDE FOUNDATIONELEVATION

3/16" = 1'-0"5REAR FOUNDATION ELEVATION

3/16" = 1'-0"6GARAGE-REAR FOUNDATION ELEVATION

SEE STRUCTURALPLANS FORADDITIONAL NOTESAND DETAILS

The site is located on a corner where one side is sloping down, one up, creating a complex foundation plan with shelf details to accommodate varied finish floor elevations. This complexity required several additional sketches and additional coordination in the beginning of construction. A higher than anticipated water table also proved troublesome during construction, requiring extensive de-watering until the sump systems could be put into place.

Construction Photos

Foundation Sketch

Steel Coordination Sketch

Building Section

Construction Photos

Once the foundation was placed, construction moved much more smoothly, with the rough framing up in a matter of weeks. As this project was controlled construction, we were required to make frequent site visits which resulted in the composition of field reports, and any additional sketches or information needed to move the project align at the rapid pace needed to maintain tight deadlines.

Construction Photos

Field Report 180 School St Residences

Any product material provided is for reference only and does not relieve the contractor from providing shop drawings for the actual materials being provided and workmanship in accordance with the General Conditions of the Contract and State Building Code standards. Discussions during this meeting have been recorded as understood by this writer. If there are any omissions or corrections, please contact the writer. Unless notified to the contrary within ten days of receipt, these notes become the official record of this meeting. Attachments: Distribution to: all attendees, Building Inspector, Project File, Owner Khalsa Design, Inc. Page 1 of 3

Report Date:12/22/2014 Field Report Number: 04 Project Owner: Ed Doherty Est. % of Completion: 20 Conformance with Schedule: Report by: Melissa Toops Present: Name Company Contact Phone & Fax / Email Jai Singh Khalsa KDI 617-591-8682 x201/ jkhalsa@tkgeast.com Melissa Toops KDI 617-591-8682 x205 / mtoops@tkgeast.com DATE: 12-22-14 TIME: 10:30am WEATHER: cloudy TEMPERATURE RANGE: High 40s

PRESENT AT SITE:

(3) Siding laborers (4) laborers

WORK IN PROGRESS:

1.1 Siding and Trim being installed 1.2 Roofing installed 1.3 Rough Framing complete 1.4 Windows installed 1.5 Ductwork commenced 1.6 Rough Plumbing commenced NOTES / DIRECTIVES:

1.7 Demising Walls need to be continuous up to underside of deck, and behind staircases, at ceilings- GWB must be

continuous locations noted 1.7.1 Behind stringers of stairs (figure 1) 1.7.2 Ceiling of every unit RC-1 Channel and GWB must be continuous, otherwise the wall that interrupts the assembly

must be a 1hr rated wall (figure 2) 1.7.3 Drywall must continue up to underside of decking in a demising wall 1.8 Plumbing pipes cannot be in the demising wall 1.9 Pan flashing required at windows (figure 3) 1.10 Lap flashing required up inside of sliding doors @ balconies (figure 3) ITEMS TO VERIFY: 1.11 Carmines to complete a site visit 1.12 Fire Rating @ Steel required @ exterior wall/in Parking Area 1.13 Need to confirm ductwork used is flexduct not flexduct connector 1.14 Fire dampers are required when ductwork crosses a demising wall or floor/ceiling assembly

Building Elevations

Field Report

Construction Photos

Once rough plumbing and electrical were completed we conducted another site visit before drywall was placed. One concern that arose came from the placement of the electrical boxes in the back to back kitchens at each level. Although our drawings indicated the minimum separation of boxes be one stud, several back to back boxes occurred in the demising wall. Our concern was both creating a fire separation and a minimum STC rating between units. As the electrical subcontractor could not be recalled to move the boxes for several weeks, we researched products that could create a buffer between units. Using the resources in the firm a colleague introduced me to an intunmencent putty pack product he had success with in the past. The putty packs were installed the next day, and we avoided a potential costly and lengthly delay.

Wall Outlet Sketch

Construction PhotosSecond Floor

Firm: Khalsa Design, Inc.Role: Drafter/Project InternOwner/Client: Hopkington Elderly CareStatus: CompleteYear(s) Completed: 2010-2013Programs Utilized: Revit, CADProject Summary: A multiple phased project, I was responsible for phase one which consisted of documenting existing conditions, the conversion of the basement to units, and the detailing of the connector to the phase two building.

Basement Floor

Assisted Living, Hopkington, MA New Construction/Renovation-Assisted Living

First Floor Second Floor Roof

Existing Exterior Revised Exterior

The existing assisted living facility has been operating at capacity for several years, and projections indicate there will be a greater need for a range of assisted care units. This facility, originally built in the 1980s, features only one style of care unit: a two bedroom scheme with a shared living area and bathroom.

This phased renovation and addition would provide different styles, sizes, and ranges of care including single occupancy rooms with kitchenettes for persons requiring less care. By providing a wider range of unit styles the owners can advertise a range of levels of care and price point to their residents, so a person can transition within the same facility. Phase one consisted of the renovation of the existing basement, originally a childrens day care, and the detailing of a connector piece to join the existing building and the new phase two building.

Revised Interior

Ramp Detail At First Floor

Soffit Detail At Connector Expansion Joint At Second Floor

Expansion Joint At First Floor

The new addition was designed to have a greater floor to floor height, taking advantage of local zoning ordinances, and creating a more spacious feeling in the luxury units contained in the phase two building.

The connector piece joining phase one and two had to transition two feet of elevation change on the interior as well as accommodate a change of building construction from metal and concrete deck to wood frame. To the left there are several detail sections depicting the expansion joints and elevation change, which required significant research on expansion joint options. Building Section At Connector - Phase One

Firm: Khalsa Design, Inc.Role: Project Manager/Designer Owner/Client: Private DeveloperStatus: In ConstructionYear(s) Completed: 2013-2015Programs Utilized: Revit, CADProject Summary: The existing building on this site has been operated by four generations of the same family selling auto parts. After the shop went out of business we assisted the owners in determining the best second life for the land and building, working with the city and community. We sought a special permit for permission to build 39 dwelling units and ground floor retail space.

Webster Ave Residences, Cambridge, MA Adaptive Reuse/New Construction-Mixed Use 39DU

Transit Analysis

The owner came to us with their site that had been used as an auto parts shop for four generations. This father and son team wanted to seek out the potential for the newly vacant building, giving it a second life. Due to zoning restrictions it was determined early on this site would be best used as a multifamily building. We initially looked into several options for new construction, multiple buildings, and re-using the existing building. Because of sentimental value of the building, and the advantages in re-using the existing building zoning wise, we decided to move forward with a proposal to re-use the building.

Since we proposed to re-use the existing building and add a conforming addition, we only required a special permit from the planning board, which is a much more approachable permit in this municipality than if we were to propose a new building that would violate the front yard setbacks as the pre-existing structure does. Aerial View

Zoning Analysis Plans And Diagrams

Proposed Elevation

Existing Elevations

Second Floor

First Floor

Before formally submitting a proposal we conducted a walk through of the property with the historic commissioner to discuss the existing qualities of the site. Since this building is not old enough to be deemed Preferably Preserved or on the historic register we had some leeway in how we treated the existing facade and how the new addition grew from the site.

Typical One Bedroom Unit

Aside from the top two floors, most units will be unique. For ease of construction we attempted to create as many typical units as possible. However this unique triangular shaped lot resulted in some very inventive units, all of which feature open concept living, kitchen, dining rooms with in-unit laundry and outdoor space for each unit.

Proposed Elevation

Existing ElevationsFourth Floor

Third Floor

Typical Two Bedroom Unit

Perspective Rendering

Perspective Rendering Of Street Life

Section Sketch

Since we are utilizing the existing structure and building a large scale addition above, there will be a lot of complicated detailing required. One aspect we examined involved the existing floor/roof levels not matching the new proposed levels. Due to height restrictions in this zone we must keep four stories under 40-0 and the existing building is two stories at over 25-0 in height. As we want to maintain existing window openings, we discussed stepping down the structure from the windows, creating a raised seedum green roof and a lowered roof deck for the units, melding the old and the new in creative ways.

Perspective Rendering Of Street Life

After the first planning board hearing the project was received very well. The project was continued to a second hearing to address neighbors concerns about building access adjacent to this site, as well as to give us time to meet with the citys designer to tweak the materials and overall feeling of the site. At the second hearing, the project was approved unanimously with high praises from board members. A notable convert originally stated he wasnt convinced the project was appropriate, however, he now feels the revised materiality and building language should bring some much needed life to this transitioning neighborhood.