The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19920422 AGENDA ============================================== ...... ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Aprll 22, 1992 REGUL~RMEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4:30 6:00 MEETING WILL PROMPTLY START AT 4=30 I. Roll call and approval of March 25, 1992 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments P&Z/HPC worksession, Tuesday April 28, 4:30 Statewide Preservation Teleconference, May 9 National Preservation Week activities, May 10-16 Koch Ice Rink Report Red Brick School Sale Report III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution %3, 1992 - Supporting creation of statewide property tax credits for historic resource V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development - Public Hearing: 17 Queen St., outbuilding, sideyard setback variation PH continued to May 13th. B. Conceptual Development, parking variation, public hearing 134 E. Bleeker VI. COMI4UNICATIONS A. Project Monitoring VI. Adjourn AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE April 22, 1992 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM MEETING WILL PROMPTLY START AT 4:30 4:30 I. Roll call and approval of March 25, 1992 minutes. 40,hh >He e II. Commiss-fener and Staff Comments P&Z/HPC worksession, Tuesday April 28, 4:30 Statewide Preservation Teleconference, May 9 National Preservation Week activities, May 10-16 Koch Ice Rink Report Red Brick School Sale Report III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS P A. Resolution #3, 1992 - Supporting creation of statewide property tax credits for historic resource , J V. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development - Public Hearing: 17 Queen St., outbuilding, sideyard setback variation PH continued to May 13th. ,â€¢; 3-Tic in \ 0, C O Â» 1-,Autt gk~ /1 % pri -a B. Conceptual Development, parking variation, public hearing 134 E. Bleeker /49'Â·- - 444 32/3 -7rA ~ 2 VI. COMMUNICATIONS (3 c-,7 su--2. A. Project Monitoring 6:00 VI. Adjourn P HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Project/Committee Bill Poss 413 E. Hyman County Courthouse Highway Entrance Design Committee Character Committee-AACP 601 W. Hallam (app. liaison) HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Board Member 534 E. Hyman (P.C. Bank) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker St. Mary's Church PPRG 715 W. Smuggler Ann Miller 04-08-92 700 W. Francis Donnelly Erdman 501 E. Cooper (Independence) 210 S. Galena (Elk's) The Meadows (Chair-Sub Comm) 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer Park) Collins Block/Alley 620 W. Hallam Wheeler-Stallard House 700 W. Francis Leslie Holst 215 W. Hallam 212 Lake Ave. 210 Lake Ave. Holden/Marolt Museum (alt.) In-Town School Sites Committee Aspen Historic Trust-Chairman 17 Queen St. 824 E. Cooper Joe Krabacher 801 E. Hyman AHS Ski Museum HP Element-Community Plan Aspen Historic Trust-Vice Chairman 612 W. Main 309 E. Hopkins (Lily Reid) Jake Vickery The Meadows (alternate) In-Town School Sites Committee 824 E. Cooper 716 W. Francis 442 W. Bleeker (Pioneer-alt.) 204 S. Galena (Sportstalker) City Hall 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Roger Moyer Holden-Marolt (alternate) CCLC Liaison 214 W. Bleeker 215 W. Hallam 334 W. Hallam Aspen Historical Society 302 E. Hopkins - Beaumont House 409 E. Hopkins 520 E. Cooper (storefront remodel Karen Day 716 W. Francis (alternate) Rubey Transit Center 334 W. Hallam (alternate) Cottage Infill Program Martha Madsen 620 W. Hallam (alternate) 100 Park Ave. (alternate) 214 W. Bleeker (alternate) 627 W. Main (residential-Jim Kempner) Linda Smisek 316 E. Hopkins (salon - La Cacina) MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 134 E. Bleeker: Conceptual Development (Partial Demolition and Expansion), and Variations (parking, sideyard and FAR); Public Hearing Date: April 22, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conceptual Development approval, consisting of Partial Demolition and Expansion, and Variations consisting of a parking reduction of one space, west sideyard setback and FAR of 500 sq. ft. above the maximum allowable. An Ordinance granting Landmark Designation was read and approved on first reading by Council on April 13. 1992. Second reading is scheduled for May 11. The applicant is seeking both a $2,000 designation grant and waiver of park dedication fees from Council at that time. Final development approval by the HPC may not be granted until the Landmark Designation process is complete. APPLICANT: Susan and Paul Penn, represented by Jake Vickery of Bill Poss and Associates. LOCATION: 134 E. Bleeker, Lot S and the Easterly 15 feet of Lot R, Block 65, Townsite of Aspen, Colorado SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please refer to the attachment from the applicant. Staff finds that the FAR numbers do not match up, and some discrepancy exists between current FAR numbers and those proposed. These numbers will need to be clarified and corrected either at this meeting, or as an attachment to the Final Development application. ADDITIONAL COMMISSION REVIEWS: A conditional use approval is required by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Cottage Infill unit (detached accessory dwelling unit). This requires a public hearing. The HPC is able to grant variations (FAR bonus and setback variations) as specified in Ordinance #60, Series of 1990, which created the Cottage Infill program and incentives. Conceptual Development: Partial Demolition, Expansion and Variations REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations 1 defines the four standards for Development Review. All four of these standards must be met in order for the HPC to grant approval for the proposal. In addition, the Partial Demolition and Relocation Standards (Sections 7-602 B and C) must also be met. The applicable Guidelines are found in Section VI, beginning on page 47 of the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an H, Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot of exceed the allowed floor areas, HPC shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Response: The Community Church, directly across the street from this parcel, is an invaluable social and architectural resource in Aspen's heritage and today. It is widely used year round as a social gathering place. 134 E. Bleeker and its substantial outbuilding is well known and appreciated due to this close proximity to the Church. Although it was relocated to this parcel, the main structure' s simple architectural quality blends ideally within its context. The entire parcel lends charm and strengthens the historic character of this immediate "working class" neighborhood and adjacent landmark. It is the role of the HPC to protect the vernacular character of this parcel from incompatible alteration, while carefully permitting an appropriate renovation to carry it into the next century as a livable home. A number of character compatibility issues are immediately apparent to staff upon the initial conceptual review of this project. Each of these should be studied carefully by the HPC, applying the Development Review Standards to them. a) The new addition is taller and larger in massing and FAR than the historic cottage. Although it is separated with a neutral hyphen (which we find fits the Guidelines), the addition's general size and height makes the historic resource the small element, and in size comparison, less important on the parcel. 2 The HPC has been considering the impact large additions have on modest historic cottages in our community. Staff finds this Standard has not been met for these reasons. b) Numerous variations are being requested, each requiring findings to be made by the HPC. Staff does not support the 500 sq. ft. FAR variation, finding in this case that more FAR is not "more compatible in character with the historic landmark". We do support the reduction of one parking space, and are willing to support a west side yard setback only if the addition is reduced in size to meet the Development Review Standards. Should additional FAR continue to be sought, an actual FAR "bonus" for the deed-restricted cottage infill dwelling unit (converted outbuilding) is possible. 50% (or 375 sq. ft., whichever is less) of the (above grade) FAR for the deed restricted dwelling unit is available as a bonus, permissible under the Cottage Infill program. The HPC may grant this bonus FAR, provided the entire parcel's design is approved. Important: The Cottage Infill "FAR bonus" should not be confused with the FAR variation; these are two separate programs. Staff is in favor of converting the outbuilding to an affordable dwelling unit, and find this structure to be of great importance to this parcel. Its contribution to the alley scape is profound; we applaud the applicant's efforts here. C. The projecting bay window proposed for the east elevation (historic cottage) appears out of character. We find this to be an added architectural feature that detracts from the original vernacular character of the structure, particularly when placed on this highly visible elevation. Staff does not support the addition of this bay window on the historic portion of the cottage when no historic precedence can be found for its 3 inclusion. We recommend this element be eliminated and replaced with (perhaps) compatible double hung windows for light and ventilation. It appears to staff that the proposed materials meet the Guidelines and are compatible with the historic resource. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: It is important to understand the significant contribution this parcel makes to the character of the National Register Community Church neighborhood. This is a corner parcel, with high visibility, one half block north of the confluence of the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. This neighborhood is known for its high concentration of small to modest scale working class cottages of the late 19th century, which is well illustrated in 134 E. Bleeker. It is staff's opinion that a rear addition to this structure must be smaller in proportion to the historic resource in order to meet this Standard, to allow the parcel to remain compatible with this neighborhood and meet this Standard. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or adjacent parcels. Response: The cultural value of this parcel is in its visual contribution to the community, and physical illustration of vernacular cottage and carriage house architecture and, thereby, social standing of its occupants. Through our research using the 1904 Sanborn maps, it appears that the original residence located on this parcel was very nearly the same size and height. We find that an addition larger than the principal residence detracts from the working class association of the cottage to the neighborhood. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a 4 designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The positive aspects of the design are found in the clear break between old and new (hyphen), the large east side yard created by the western positioning of the addition, and the relative few changes to the outbuilding in order to adapt it to the small Cottage Infill dwelling unit. However, we find that this standard has not been met. The size of the addition detracts from the architectural integrity of the historic cottage, in our opinion. We understand the applicant's desire to expand this house to meet their living needs, however, we are unable to support the size of the addition and added bay window (east elevation) based upon the impacts such an addition has to the architectural simplicity and form of this historic resource. This may be a case where a reduction in proposed new square footage is necessary in order for the addition to not detract from the historic cottage, and to receive a favorable recommendation from staff and approval from the HPC. Partial Demolition Standards 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a) Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b) Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel. Response: The areas proposed for partial demolition are to the rear of the structure and are the least visible and historically important. We find that the Partial Demolition Standards are met. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Approval as proposed, finding the Development Review and Partial Demolition standards have been met, and finding that the sideyard setback, FAR and parking variations are 5 more compatible in character with the designated landmark than would be in accord with dimensional requirements. 2) Approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal in order to meet the Development Review standards, as stated in this memo. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Although staff's memo states specific reasons why this proposal does not meet the Development Review Standards and could be denied by the HPC, we are recommending a more harmonious action be taken by the HPC, in order to assist the applicant with the challenges of designing additions larger than principal, historic resources: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the applicant to revise the proposal and reduce the size of the addition, in order to meet the Development Review Standards as stated in this memo. Additional restudy issues (such as the elimination of the new east elevation bay window) should be specified by the HPC, as applicable. Additional comments: memo.hpc.134eb.cd 6 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer 632_ Re: Agenda for Joint HPC/P&z Worksession Tuesday, April 28, 4:30 - 2nd floor, City Hall Date: April 13, 1992 This memo is to notify you that the Planning Office has scheduled a worksession between the P&Z and HPC, per your direction, to discuss a variety of issues that are akin to both Boards. In particular, the issues of underlying FARs, allowable density and dimensional variations available to designated landmarks appear to be worthy of thorough discussion. At this meeting, staff is seeking your ideas for additional themes or specific items for discussion at this worksession. Please let us know. Please reserve two hours for this worksession. Presented by: HISTORIC BOULDER'S Landmarks of the Future Committee Saturday, April 25th . e, 1 0- 10 am to 5 pm - Sunday, April 26th FIVE BOULDER ARCHITECTS DESIGN FOR THEMSELVES 12 pm to 5 pm câ‚¬ TICKETS: TICKET OUTLETS (cash or check only) SPECIAL THANKS TO: Tickets are $10 In advance. or $12 at the door the day of the tour. Reception tickets are $25 and BOULDER include the price of the tour ticket, Applause Art Hardware .' Â· cam.,ser,,ca- . 1141 Pearl Street 1135 Broadway For more information, or to order tickets, stop by the Historic Boulder office at 1733 Canyon or call Cover to Cover Bookstore PlayFair Toys 444-5192. Tickets may be charged through the Table Mesa Shopping Ctr. 169028th Street office until April 24. During the tour. tickets may be The Page charged at the Lloyd-Tabb Residence. 1219 Pearl Street HISTORIC BOULDER, INC. is a 501 (c) (3) n9n-profit DENVER: kapushion graphics . organization dedicated to theÂ· preservation of the Applause Ice House Boulder area's architectural and cultural heritage. 2820 East 3rd Street Design Center Roger WhitdcreÂ· '~- No photographs, no children, no smoking. Cherry Creek North ]801 Wynkoop PHOTOGRAPHy A --1 ON, 2 -=*30 1 />*lu Historic ~ .1--Â·tÂ·nIS./.1"11!*. P\*f1,Al/' %'*150*1<kiFF*ed/Joit#41 / ~~~~ Boulder, 0' Inc. presents OZE= All </ 22!~-1-1.-IL[*RIWRTÂ¥y 0- - ~/~ 1-I-17-1-1 ~1 hy./ - Â·Â·9!it52~89~~4441-1*19- Five Boulder Architects ij 3 ' 9=11~ Design For Themselves -matin~ -==27=en,_ Saturday. April 25 & Sunday April 26 Nonprofit Orgahization t' T W.E NT,I,ET H. ANNLV ER S A R Y' U.S. POSTAGE 1:/,1 11:19.1.11'.l.,1.11 11, PAID Cl-l--71<1Â®ve/,1, -le,1~ Boulder, Colorado -r Permit No. 23 APR. Â·1 4 1992 C Af'.1,2:19'yr. j - , , ~ XiÂ·jF- ~ , ~Â· 1733 Canyon Blvd.Â· Boulder, CO 80302 Â· 303/444-5192 Planning Department and Historic Preserva Commission, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street < Aspen, CO 81611 ..NRON~CRUST d7/MEMBER:TY . ORGANIZATION ,2 i Â· Historic Boulder presents: ~ approaches to the design problem. Two of the homes are major renovations of existing A LL-2 structures, two have evolved over time through a series of srnaller building projects, and one is new construction. Despite the different approaches, each home combines elemehts such as light. texture and color with personal furnishings and collections. The unique Five Boulder Architects Design For Themselves combination of these elements conveys the comfortable feeling of 'borne." ~ew expressions in any language convey the I depth of meaning of the word HOME. 'It's A bleet the Architects. A reception for the great to be home." "Home is where the heart ls." IVIarchitects will be held Saturday, April 25 "Welcome home." These and other phrases ~ from 527 pm at the Keller-Wedum home at 347 carry feelings of security and well-being, as well Hollyberry Lane. The reception, catered by A as a sense of place and belonging. - : Spice of Life, will be an opportunity to meet the architects and to discuss both their work and Architects design many houses, but call only contemporary architecture. A limited number one home. Historic Boulder invites you to see of special tickets for the architects reception are the homes which local architects and their available for $25.00 (cost includes both the families have created for themselves. The five reception and a tour ticket). For information, homes featured on this tour represent different call Historic Boulder at 444-5192. Home of Phillip Tabb & Mo Lloyd-Tabb 4 Home of Jeffrey & Patricia Limerick 626 Mapleton Avenue 752 15th Street Although remarkably different today from its original This 2000 square foot home conveys a much greater appearance, this 1940's house has never undergone sense of spaciousness with its high windows and open major renovations. spaces, yet it remains Rather, through a "The inspiration behind these cozy with numerous 1 0 we were particularly Â· series of smaller projects has really been places to curl up with aware of the special qualities projects over ten necessity and a genuine a book. Board and of this place and determined years, the house desire to create charm. batten siding painted to design a house that has been trans- character and ceremony in to match the sur- belonged here." Jeffrey Linerick formed to keep our everyday lives." Phili:p Tobb roundings helps this up with the family's new house blend with Its historic neighborhood, needs, The basement garage was converted to a terraced sunroom, the kitchen was modernized, and the exterior was updated with the addition of a new porch and entry. 1565 Wildwood Lane ~ Home of Phil Pokorny & Nancy Ridgway Major renovations to this "mine-shaft modern" home ~ Home of Paul & Kim Saporito maximized the mountain views from this choice Devil's 2765 7th Street Thumb location. Sit- ting comfortably on 'Even though it required a Â·The unassuming exterior of this 1950's tract house Its site. the exterior different approach, we now belies the home's distinctive interior. Carefully colors were selected have what we wanted,, ,a collected over the to blend with the new home of our own -years. the out-of-the- "History in this house is not natural surroundings, creation that Is now a special ordinary furnishings remote nor embalmed but while the new interior place for us, located on a lot are complemented recent and constantly combines traditional we love." Ph# Pokomy by trompe l'oeil reinterpreted/ Paul & Kim Sopc>ate home features, painting on the walls. contemporary finishes, and 1 930's industrial overtones, Rather than move to accommodate a growing family, a 700 square foot addition was constructed asan integral part of the home. Dellwood Avel \~Hollyberry Ln. R 3 Home of Stephen & Linda Spam 2 [f a 840 6*Ave 10*Fhesa \ Alpine Ave. .er I. 841 Euclid Avenue < 1~ Valley Rd Renovated to make the house more livable and leton Ave. energy-efficient, E \0- .pÂ· Dr. c as f- ..+~ 3 it is now hard to "The renovation concept for 1 0*' t see any trace of our residence. .was created V, th@ original struc- from a constellation of unique o 2-5- Wildwood Ln. ture. -Detail was opportun/Nes, constraints, also a ptiority.as dreams, history of the property, 15 evident in the and niost importantly. the stairway and needs of the family." stephen spam 1. Uoyd-Tabb; 626 Mapleton Ave. 3 Euclid Ave.~ 2. Saporito: 2765 7th Street placement of tile 2% - ~ 3. Spann: 841 Euclid Avenue in the master bathroom. A massive stone fireplace is - ~~ ~ 5. Pokomy; 1565 Wildwood Lane 4. Limerick 75215th Street the primary focus of the spacious living room. while a Baseline Ave. R. Reception: 347 Hollyberry Ln series of wood decks helps define the exterior, Broadway Xâ„¢71 11 Â«Automobiles are oj~en conueniently tagged as tbe vii- Are traffic snads a necessary accompaniment of lains responsible for tbe ills of cities and tbe disappoint- suburban growth? The advocates of neotradi- ments and futilities of city Planning. But tbe destructive ,, 1 j tional planning and pedesttianpockets say "no," elTects ofautomobiles are mucb less a cause tban a symp- - . tom of our incompetence at city building. Of course plan- 4 1 if we just change the way we design communi- 0 1 ners,including biglywaymenuitbfabulous sums of ties to eliminate some car ttips and shorten oth- money alld enolÂ·nmus powers at tbeir disposal, are at a ers. Their ideas seem workable, and will soon loss to make automobiles and cities compatible uitb one another. Tbey do not know lubat to do uitb automobiles 9 be tested in real-life communities. in cities because tbey do not knou bow to plan jor work- 1 able and vitalcities anybe-=witb or'witbout automo- biles."-JaneJacobsl i Ask any resident of a rapidly growing suburban area what she dislikes most about where she lives and the answer is likely to be, "the traffic!" This response is iNeatraditional not the result of mass delusion. The facts bear it out According to the recently released Nationwide Penonal Tramportation Sm* (NPm conducted for the US. Department of Transportation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased nationwide by a Ill staggering 41 percent between 1983 and 1990. In conlrast, the population increased by just 6 percent, an increase that would have accounted for only 14.8 Town Planning percent of total growth in traffic had it not been for other demographic changes such as growth of the labor force.2 As shown in Figure 1, nearly two-thirds of the traffic growth occurring during the seven-year pe- riod can be attributed to increases in the number of i vehicle trips and increased trip distgnces. The grow- Cms, Pak*97ZY, ing reliance on the car for daily travel needs ac- counted for over 25 percent of the growth in travel. 1 21nd Tram# NP73 data show that while the average number of person trips per household increased only slightly, the number of vebide tr* increased almost three LLOYD W. BO OKO UT times as fast (despite a drop in the number of per- sons per household). The data indicate that people are driving alone mor@frequently. 1 The NPTS also shows that longer distances of trips accounted for nearly 38 percent of the growth in VMT. Despite-r perhaps because of-in- I@[MII:Illâ‚¬IJAI;li]NWIRI,liti;ill'*111;Ilil;11,1;tril/.Â¥11:Mlj:Ii:!:Â¢m;:1:11~ creased suburbanization of jobs, services, and enter- tainment during the 1980s, travel distances in- r-Vehides (180 creased measurably during the seven-year period. I Commuting distances increased by a whopping 25 percent, revealing an even poorer relationship be- Demographic Ii",disia tween jobs and housing than experts expected to Change (36.0%) IM.- find. Not surprisingly, traffic is at the forefront of al- most every no-growth movement in tile country. Planners and traffic engineers have stood helpless as road congestion mounts. Citing traffic patterns, 10- Trip Distances (37.9%)" cal politicians and grass-roots citizen groups have led often successful campaigns to slow--or stop- development in jurisdictions all over the nation. Neotraditional planners, however, believe tliat Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation growth can be accommodated without suburban Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, August 1991). gridlock. According to Andres Duany of the Coral 10 Ui-bau Laml â€¢ Februail 1992 Gables, Flor- . r ida-based finn Duany & . i -\XI Plater-Zy- 8. .Â·.. 2.1~~ ,. , -~ -. 1 i.$2 "4 . } C.:Â· a j berk, Archi- cts, the key , rooted in . 4/7, changing the - ...I physical man- high elevation of the site. 4 - 4 .a". a...2.*24 ner in which 41 '21'4381 ' im/#26*JEW"ma - growth occurs. 1 9 - I MnfAM- 011~ ~ 9% Â«It is not the 315. + growth but .l .5 *f* 4# the pattern of growth that is Street aligned .:. Â· r.9-- to ~enninam at unhealthy." alone oak" Wee- TheNPIS 1,atwas e*Nog rk: data suggest on the site T' . '1 - Â¥ that Duany -:4 Â»14, ~ and others of , 4 46& VA--~ ~ ,44 ,,Â· Judi i e. mayhavea --*. 3*04<1 polnt VMT - . t.,1 4 9. would have . I ..r.Â·1 + r 4 4.'0 4Â·-4.'~~' '.'Â· t' ~ 3 t ti M. increased by Â· . j #Â·44Â·' a-1 41 about two- Vmal k&Ast is createdl,y --7' st@iiNâ€¢-1750> The grid pattern was P,- .6:(11_ 4.91 4=N.W.WI'le Aucey -â€¢:CI)1Â·52-*,â€ž. .1, C .2.talap/2253% -60 - 41 t. 1 thirds less be- - ..M -,L~ â€¢f'.0 Ilere,the-stre& spacsitij*ls.M:/.DR:y'- @;906 exk~ng a smal stand of 44 ./ 1-IL tween 1983 ~intes~ ~hor,otaby i - -2 7"Enands. kees and create. 9 371 ' . - and 1990 if 01 848Â¢64 Pmer# Un~ ir + *~0 :ek, .pocket park . e total num- tile Â«extrÂ¢ deen space bedomes r oftrips and a neighbortudd park. the lengths of K E N T L A N D S 49 those trips ~j could have . _1 The master plan for been held at 1983 levelsjAt issue is the relationship ) vide more direct routes over shorter distances be- Kentlands in Gaith- K (between-land uses, between jobs and houses, houses tween uses. ersburg, Maryland, 3 and stores, and so on. Must people continue to ~ To reduce either the number ofvehicle trips or demonstrates how 4: dnve between each and every one of the places they j trip distances, neotraditionalists have puttorward the grid street pat- 3: < ~Ziyt regularly? --*-*-0-_i...- -f. several basic planning and design principles: tem is broken fre- quently by tramc At the heart of the neotraditional movement is j bh return to a grid circulation system, or at least Â· buildings, or signifi- circles, proposed the objective of returning to the kind of communi- ~ the provision of more direct connections between ties in which the automobile does not reign su- ~ any two points within the community. M-'-*'# cant natural features. preme, and in which residents and workers can VA return to communities that are more Cfriendlx" : realistically walk or bicycle to work, school, or shop- ) topedestrjans and bicyclists, andless dominatea by Jo44, tut, , h K.,.ing.7Victor Mirontfi:huk, piesident ot HouRent' th,ppetite ofihe car for space and speed. 44 9/8, based EDI Planning and Architecture, explÂ®p,_ VAn increase in the viability of transit as an alterna- < - 1 he ITEOMdittonal concept is not radical-it ac-7 tive to the private automobile. 1 knowledges that Americans have a love affair with ~ i ~ their cars. But it also.acknowledges that Americans j 1 ikgWs!.kigirgl,1~~~nd I12tforied to use their I The Return of tile Grid \â‚¬rs for every travel need." - One of the most commonly held perceptions of a Another part to the neotraditional vision also of- TND is that it is based on a circulation system laid fers hope for reducing traffic growth. Advocates of ont in a grid pattern. Most of the neotraditional traditional neighborhood developments (INDs) communities now in planning or under develop- 4 , aim to 2Eate land use DAtterniand circulation sys- ment do, in fact, feature a grid theme over large N ems that effectively reduce the distances of trips. portions of their planning areas. Brambleton in , Through the bettwrinteges, of employment, resi- Loudoun County, Virginia, and Kentlands in dential, and commercial activities, they seek to pro- Gaithersburg, Maryland, are examples. Februng 1992 â€¢ Urban Land 11 Â¥]012Â·Â¥11Â¥1/ Hli:Vtill/ANY(10 SUJNVO In contrast, the PUDs of the 1970s and 1980s tern results in a ratio of total automobile use space are strongly dominated by curvilinear street pat- (streets plus parking per developable foot of area) terns, culs-de-sac, and a rigid hierarchy of street that is equivalent for both [design options]."3 claisifications. Duany has likened such circulation Not everyone believes that returning to the grid systems to a bowl of spaghetti of different sizes. is, in itself, a solution. Planner Lane Kendig sug- Â«How could anything so random actually happen?" gests there may be other motives behind the call for he asked at an American Planning Association-spon- / the grid: "Most neotradilional plans are prepared by sored workshop in September 1989 on neotradi- ( architects who are used to working with T-squares. tional planning, referring to a plan for one Florida \ Also, straight streets better accommodate gratid, prgject. -â‚¬-4,/-'. ' .4., r.-I=. +igh-style architecture and that is what most archi- T These curvilinear street patterns emerged 627 fects like to design." Duany agrees that it is difficult / cause of perceived flaws;with the grid circulation *1 <to establish a sense of place on curving streets: "Cur- L schemel Most criticized WaAKe opportunity the }vilinear streets are unmemorable because the eye is / gtid offers for traffic to cut through residential / always moving. An architect cannot design a memo- ( neighborhoods. To eliminate the traffic on residen- Ceble building when the eye will not focus on it." * tial streets, planners created labyrinthine street net- Is it possible to balance the traffic objectives of ~ works with a minimum number of through connec- the neotraditional vision with the apparent market 1 tions.They placed houses around culs-de-sac to support for "quiet" residential streets? Perhaps, u further minimize traffic volumes, and homebuyers with modifications to the basic grid scheme. Plans ..showed their support for these schemes by often for most neotraditional communities underway fre- j paying a premium for the most isolated lots. By re- quently break die grid wit~.Eli@ljppets, traffic cir- / ducing grading and the number of trees removed, cles, andstreettenninus~ that tehd to limit the 4 the curvilinear street patterns were also seen as a ovdrall expanse of the grid and reduce the lengths of C way to minimize development impacts to the natu- streets. The grid pattern in these plans is most evi- 4.ral environment dent in zones long-believed to be most tolerant of Has anything happened to indicate that subur- traffic-commercial and higher-density residential ban residents are now willing to give up their culs- areas. As densities decrease, the grid tends to be bro- de-sac in trade for the grid (or something like it) ken-moieoften?rdmppgd-allogetbgr- concept? Not really. Except they may have con- / Neotraditional planning theory also argues that ~ cluded from their frequent experience of emerging / cars, pedestrians, and houses can coexist on streets ~ from their local residential streets into long lines of ~ that are designed with coexistence in mind. Some cars on the arterial highway system that one reason l fresh thinking on how streets should function is r~ traffic is so bad in the suburbs is that CYCry<ln!LiS Ubcal<*- forced to drive on the same limited number of col- lector and art/ial streets. no matter where they are Rethinking the Function of Streets ~going. (We have come to think streets should be built first This is an argument raised by TND advocates. nd foremost for the convenience and speed of mov- 1 The solution, they believe, may be to oenun more ng cars, overlooking the fact of the matter-that ( connections between destinations and effectively to (the point is to move people, not cars. We have set 3 ~8REIVifie distances between those destinations. in motion an endless need for more and bigger / The grid is the most effective, direct, and simple sys- roads, because residents of suburbs are given no vi- Ctem for connecting all points within a travel area. able alternatives to driving..The neotraditional vi- But as Jay Parker, president of HOH Associates sion holds that there is something-yery wrong with_ in Alexandria, Virginia, noted at a June 1991 ULI 112~way-6f thinking. seminar on trends in developing master-planned 4 MakiNg -streets more inviting to pedestrians and communities, the grid system also means more fbicycles will first require Q**1Mli]33%9Dt ~streets. "]jeotradiâ‚¬EELalans typicilly-feg~re Lwhich cars can safely travel. Neotractuonatists sug- ) about 20 to 25 pgrcent more streets than conven- gest that in most communities residential streets are ) tion,1 PUD designs>Upyger,[s;reets in neotr?di: overdesigned, allowing cars to move much faster < tional communities};tend to be narrower, The than they safely should. For example, many subdivi- ') additional sire--- --- ---1------- - - irttheap- sion codes require right-of-way distances of 70 to ( proximatel*@1.--- ---- - z.1.U~~)~nd the 80 feet for local streets. If the objective of these \ smaller-planning er(FlfÂ·" streets is to carry only local traffic, it is,nat really A-1990 study prepared for the American Society necessary to design them so generously. of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that TND's Neotraditionalists belie-ve diaâ‚¬ by befng so ac- use_of land for streets exceeds that of a conventional commodating to the needs of cars, planners have ne- PUDby about 13'percent)However, the study also glected the needs of people. The needs of pedestri- notes that the "greater intensity of land use and the ans and bicyclists and consideratiops of "street use of local streets for parking under the TND pat- appea-ind safety must also be accommodated. 11 Ui-ban Land â€¢ Feb,141117 1992 . . 0 . .- I This is especially so when densities get higher. as light rail-whereas most .=al_- With single-family houses built on lots smaller than TNDs do not necessarily have a 5,000 square feet, the impact of cars on the aesthet- transit orientation. : q < ics and function of streets can be severe.4 The treat- Also, TODs and pedestrian lam. mentof garages is of'brimary importance. pockets are not as closely linked To minimize the negative ettec6 of garages and as TNDs to historic small towns, - q. 0 1~K iveways on residential streets, most neotraditional either architecturally or rhetori- plans either require the garages to be pushed to the cally. According to Calthorpe: rear of the lot (with access via a long driveway near "The problem is to introduce the ~p-f ~- Garage the side yard lot line), or to be located on an alley needs of the pedestrian and tran- 8-- E?fL.M.j? behind the houses. Mirontschuk explains: Â«Alleys sit into the auto-dominated re- House pan be an effective design solution when densities gions of our metropolitan areas, 1 407 11 9 +~2 -Sdewak get highRin the Lake Park Comm-uRity in Umon not to return to the fiction of County,-North Carolina, alleys were specified for small-town America....â€ž7 s= AllEy ACCESS TO GARAGE the houses located around the town center core TODs have been promoted where we felt it was essential for the streetscape to most widely in northern Califor- have a continuous fow. Uarage doors and curb cuts l nia as an alternative to urban Stmet would have caused toomey visual and functional sprawl and as a way to minimize -- rm " interruptions. the negative traffic and air qual- C OlliE> Â£ 011'A k Street design can also help to minimize the ity impacts of growth. The rap- , ) 1//= 4 dominance of cars.ltedudng.111Â§-difgnce that per idly growing Sacramento region ,- v House destrians must traverse to cross a street at an inter- especially has embraced the con- 5~6 L)* 0 G.age sectioil Es-iiKportant Crossing distance is not only a cept as a way to accommodate 64~.1-/ function of street width, but also of the radius of the growth and yet avoid the auto- . -4.48.- circle formed by the curb's corner curve=the curb mobile-dependent land use pat- El,144 H cks sj radius. Duany argues: Â«Pedestrians do not want to tern so evident in southern Cali- walk across intersections that are designed to the fornia and much of the San Department ofTransportation's standard radius of Francisco Bay Area. County .ul 25 to 35 feet A more appropriate radius for accom- planners hope to channel growth Street modating pedestrians istikht feet>which was the along future extensions of their IEAR GARAGE MACEMENT Utiddid-ii*d inWAitilgton, D.C.'s Georgetown 18-mile light rail starter line. nd in [Old Town] Alexandria, Vtrginia.â€ž5 In 1990, Sacramento County Source: James W. Wenting/Architects, Phaadelphia, Traffic signals can be set short and simple to ac- initiated an amendment to its Pems*anial commo(late pedestrians and bicyclists, and other general plan to incorporate the draft Transit-Ori- streetscape elements, including setback and parking ented Development Guidelines prepared by Calt- (more on these in future articles), designed to create horpe Associates. If adopted, these guidelines would street appeal and enhance pedestrian safety. be used as a basis upon which to evaluate new devel- opment proposals. Growth would be directed into Designing for Transit Â«Urban TODs," "Neighborhood TOI)s,f and "Sec- While most TNDs proposed or underway in the ondary Areas," each of which would be served by eastern United States focus on making communities varying levels of (and proximity to) transit. The that are more accommodating to pedestrians and bi- guidelines define a TOD as: cyclists-and may potentially reduce trip distances- C--..a mixed-use community within an average -~') some recent California projects have been termed C one-fourth mile walking distance of a transit / transit-oriented developments (rODs). The TOD ~ stop and core commercial area. The design, con- ( o movement has been led by Peter Calthorpe of San ) figuration, and mix of uses emphasize a pedes- ) Francisco--based Calthorpe Associates, promoter of L 7 trian-oriented environment and reinforce the C the "pedestrian pocket" concept, defined as a "sim- 1 use of office, open space, and public uses within ( ple cluster of housing, retail space and offices within I : a quarter-mile walking radius of a transit system. â€ž6 1 comfortable walking distance, making it conven- ~ / ient for residents and employees to travel by ~ TODs are similar to TNDs in their espousal of ~ transit, bicycle or foot, as well as by car. compact development patterns and highly inte- grated land uses to permit nonvehicular travel. Fur- The 800-acre community of Laguna West about ther, both encourage having residential and employ- 12 miles south of Sacramento is emerging as the ment uses close to one another to foster improved first pedestrian pocket, and a prototype for future obs/housing relationships and reduced commute TODs. The project features 2,300 housing units distances. The primary characteristic that distin- across a broad range of types and prices, located in guishes between the two concepts is transit. TODs five neighborhoods; a 65-acre lake; and a town cen- are predicated on convenient access to transit-such ter. The town center is designed to accommodate Februa,7 1 992 â€¢ Urban Land 13 .'Â·'.2........-I...~.-979Â·77/.XEy,94' ill %-1*mizaw==IzEE a#D-Rap4ff***** 1,000 higher- use.9 As only one of these communities has been density units, built, the study's findings are based on an examina- Â£41*5:7~21~*6~A .JI,~~39,Lin-4-1~~~~~~ 90,000 square tion of proposed plans and an analysis of the poten- E--=22Â·,t~ FÂ»pyill' E â€žIr tr-- â€ž--r-. 0 ,MulIgEdib*~. feet of retail, tial for transit services. ~~~CL~g~~~~~mt<v Il -~~':~~â€¢4.nu~ and 150,000 All of the projects studied feature a wide range square feet of of uses and a mixture of housing types. And eight of service office. the projects feature neighborhood-level commercial -1413/mill///NE,31="1 Unfortunately, services within a quarter-mile radius (walking dis- i ~1 ALTu l a- ~2 Laguna West tance) of residential areas-a logical location for a - UCIJ--1.--=1 - Â»t==a is lacking the transit stop. , =i--2.- 0 -3,241,65'i=, 0322.4 - '22;440.,a&*-771=8.413.Gi-54 1 - fL-{ H F=2*lif* light rail aunsit Interestingly, however, only four of the projects B=* f -1~ 11 *f--74 f.l~ element that actually include transit in their planning programs. ~1*~pE ~ 1~'~~r .. z..16@h. /*POW# would make it The study concludes that the "critical principles un- Wt#*'Tal #i"- ligiJ52~ 1 6,~ an exemplary derlying most of these proposals, whether they in- 11- ~=ji-n.,~~~INE TOD. County cluded transit or not, are based on a village or neigh- Â· Â·-.6 $.33=m;yali-fl. i planners hope borhood in contrast to suburban sprawl, and this ' I I. ~lat one day concept is indeed transit friendly. Their higher den- -Â· rail transit will sities, concentrated locations, pedestrian orienta- be extended tion, and mix of uses make them largely transit coin- Dry Creek Ranch is a 1,850-acre community being planned by to the project Â· patible. However," the report continues, "there are Calthorpe Associates in nofthem Sacramento County, California. This and believe some limitations in the lack of direct transit routing, 1 that, in the turns required, and right-of-way that cduld be obsta- mb(ed-use, pedestiaikinellted community is one of#,ree transit- oriented developments (TODs) being planned concurrently under lhe umbrella ola single community plan Dry Creek Ranch will feature a meantime, a cles to easy operations of transit"lo It may be noted, transit station located witNn its commercial core that wil provide bus land use pat- however, that in most of the projects reviewed in service to Amtre ight rail hnsit stations about two miles to the east tem is emerg- the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study, and south of the community. ing that will diere was little need to incorporate "transit-friendly" make transit provisions because there was no major urban area viable. The community therefore will include a tran- nearby with which to connect the projects. While sit stop for buses. transit provisions may have been trendy, there was A recently released study from the University of no compelling reason to incorporate them into Wisconsin-Milwaukee confirms that, in general, the design. TND and pedestrian pocket concepts are suppor- tive of transid The study assesses 10 Â«exemplars"- The Evidence to Date 6 suburban projects that represent a trend toward Empirical data on the traffic impacts of 'IND more concentrated development and mixed land awaits the full coming into being ofone or more de- velopments based on the concept Traffic models Â¢ suggest that TNDs offer the potential to reduce traffic growth. The 1990 ASCE study suggests that a TND design could-produce 57 percent less VMT F.rA09*20 i =lit@e**6 than a comparably si2ed project laid out in a more conventional PUD style. This reduction applies Urban TODs would Only to trips internal to the community and is ex- be located at pri- mary tranSit points urban mo--lce ..,..L-Â·. ~~~~' ~1 -/1 . Fark&Ride plained by the more direct traffic routing ofthe TND scheme. The modeling is based on hypotheti- oriented to commer- < Neighborhood T[737 : ' .+Al ... + cial and job devel- cal, 700-acre developments containing similar land opment Neighbor- Transit Stop --191.19.# 7 ' <*i*/LI ; uses: a TND featuring a simple grid pattern and " hood TODs would 1,/:,41* highly integrated land uses and a PUD-style project â€¢ i be located close to 4 with curving streets and land uses segregated into the primary transit 11 Secondary Area --1.-~ 1,"Aoe -- Â· -'~:, â‚¬0&...rÂ·wi- 2 distinct development pods. system and ori- P ; 'st . 1Â· 24 11. i ...D Â·Â·p / I -Â·.4 ,:'' Â·t~iÂ·\;6..NA Figure 2 summarizes some of the results of the ented to housing, lib~-~K- ' C ..: -.Â·Â»â€ž~... i i study and points out some of the tradeoffs that retail, and services. -~ 1. fl--~Â·:~&.1. :.:u ~ would come from total VMT reduction. The most ! Secondary areas Park & Ride would surround Feeder Bus Line *- - ~ notable difference between the two concepts is the TODs, offering -,T- 4/ TND's greater reliance on local streets for intra- : lower-density hous- Other Uses Â·Â· ---2 6.-f : . 1 ...1. rt community travel. While internal travel could be **fide expected to drop substantially on arterial streets ing, schools, and recreation within ~1~> within a TND, local streets could realize up to 400 - ~ biking distance of percent more daily VMT. Even so, the study indi- a TOD. Source: (DrafO Transit-Ofiented Design Guidelinei Sacramento County. cates, local streets would continue to operate at 14 Ui'ban Land â€¢ Februmy 1992 nearly the same volume/capacity ratio as they would 1~lill under a conventional PUD scenario. The reason is I . that TNDs take better advantage of the unused vol- Conventional Traditional ume capacities of local streets. Subutban Neighborhood It is important to Aote that the ASCE study Development Development Difference s not measure trips that would begin or end out- Vehicle Miles Traveled 10,990 6,260 TND is 57% of CSD Arterial Streets 4,340 850 TND is 25% of CSO the community. Also, it does not attempt to Collector Streets 5,400 810 TND is 15% of CSD estimate whether the TND would be successful at Local Streets 1,250 4,600 TND is 4 times CSD generating fewer trips than a conventional suburban Volume/Capacity Ratio design. According to Walter Kulash, a coauthor of Medal Streets 0.92 0.83 TND is lower the ASCE study and a senior transportation planner Conector Streets 0.94 0.87 TND is lower of Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin, Inc., in Orlando: Local Streets 021 022 Nearly identical "We deliberately did not want to get into the quali- level-of-Se,vice [LOS]1 tative-and political-factors surrounding possible Attefial Streets D B TND had higher LOS trip reduction. Instead, we wanted to assess the pos- Collector Streets D D Same sible traffic benefits of a TND, assuming it gener- Local Streets A A Same ated the same number of.tns83 more conven- 'On a :cale hm A Gree low) 10 F Gorced or breakdown lowl lional.Broie TheimDortant factor of the trip j Sot,ce: Triaiona,Neighboihoo,De,ekpmâ€¢d-449,ie TiÂ»ic Wof*7(Amelican Socie4 0104 Et,ne*lego)~ C-generation willilelenareyonhuman behavigu \ YWill'EEpiechoose to live and work and shop within 1 5 1 In contrast, ResidentiW Streets, second edition (Washing- Â¢ the same community? Even if it is reasonably con- ~l . ton, D.C: American Society of Civil Engineers, National ) venient, will people choose to walk or bicycle in- / Association ofHome Builders, and ULI-the Urban Land / stead of making a trip by car? The answers will hav~ Institute, 1990) recommends curb radii as follows: 15 to L-,12,Bit-=%:m4$,gpgience-- 25 feet for local intersections and 25 to 30 feet for local The evidence to date-albeit largely hypotheti- streets to collector intersections and for collector inter- cal-suggests that neotraditional and transit-ori- sections. ented plans could effectively combat traffic growth 6Doug Kelbaugh, editor, Tbe Pedestrian Pocket Book (New by shortening trip distances and, potentially, by York= Princeton Architectural Press, 1989). reducing the number ofautomobile trips made. 11?eter Calthorpe, "The Post-Suburban Environment," *gher densities, integration of land uses, and effi- Progressive /lrchitecture, March 1991.The pedestrian .nt circulation systems are essential contributing pocket concept is explained fully in Doug Kelbaugh, edi- tors. tor, 73, Pede*rim Pocket Book, see Note 6. In transportation theory, 'IND looks good. But 8Tbe New Suburb: An Examination and Analysis of Recent the viability of TNDs or TODs hinges on a lot proposak prepared for the US. Department ofTranspor- more than their potential contribution to reducing tation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, by the Center for Urban Transportation Studies and the VMT. Designers and developers of neotraditional School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of towns still need to gain the support of local regula- Wisconsin-Milwaukee,July 1991. tors and, ultimately, the market. These issues will be 9These projects are Belmont Forest, in Leesburg (Lou- addressed in the remaining articles of this series. * doun County), Virginia (274 acres); Brambletont in Loudoun County, Virginia (2,918 acres); Cascades, in Loudoun County, Virginia (3,000 acres); Greendale, in Notes Milwaukee, Wisconsin (180 acres, one of the three ilaneJacobs, Tbe Death and Life of Great Ainerican Cities u â€ž green towns built in 1936 as part of the New Deal's new (New York: Random House, 1961). town program); Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Maryland u.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway (342 acres); Laguna West, in Sacra~nento, California Administration, Office of Highway Information Manage- (2,500 acres); Lake Park Village, in Union County, North ment, 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study Carolina (540 acres); Lexington Park, in Polk County, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation, Florida (10,000 acres); Riverside, in West Palm Beach, August 1991). Florida (2,664 acres); and Sutter Bay, in Sutter County, ~Traditional Neighborhood Development-Will tbe Traffic California (2 5,000 acres). WorkA prepared for the American Society of Civil Engi- 10Tbe New Suburb, see Note 8. neers by Walter Kulash and Joe Anglin (Glatting Lopez 11 Traditioiuil Neighborhood Development, see Note 3. A sum- Kercher Anglin, Inc.) and David Marks (Real Estate Re- mary of this study was published in Development Magazine, search Consultants, Inc.), March 1990 (unpublished paper). July/August 1990. tor examples of how housing designers have attempted Lloyd W. Bookout is a consultant and P-eelance Â·writer based reduce the negative effects of cars in higher-density in Wasbington, D.C. Tbis series on neotraditional planning be- imunities, see James W. Wentling and Lloyd Book- gan in January 1992 7Ditb an overuicu) oftbe concept. Tbe next alt, editors, Density by Design (Washington, D.C.: UILI- installment uill look at some oftbe regulatog considerations af- the Urban Land Institute, 1988). feaing traditional neighborhood developments. February 1992 â€¢ Urban Land 15 ALANDNEOTRADEONAL COMMUNITIES ' -PRESERVATIONISTS ORGANIZE NATIONWIDE CELEBRATION- As part of a nationwide celebration for Preservation participate in "My Favorite Old Place" writing and Week (May 10-16,1992), preservationists in towns and drawing contests. The Downtown Waynesville Associa- cities across America are organizing intergenerational tion in North Carolina is sponsoring an essay contest for show and tell programs, scheduling student essay con- junior high school students and a poster contest for tests and planning special programs to draw attention to elementary school children. Essays willie entered in the 1 andmarks. National Trust's nationwide contest. Johnstown, Penn- sylvania high school students will compete for prizes by Gordon, Nebraska, local merchants will drawing local historic buildings with the winning entry a Historic Main Street featuring storefront mu- blown up and displayed on a billboard for the month of seums that show the dramatic transformation of late May. nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century build- ings - a livery stable from the early 1900s, now occu- Denver, Colorado children will work in three pied by Kansas-Nebraska Energy- a historic ice cream dimensions as they recreate a model city built with boxes. parlor/saloon/pool hall/bowling alley, now the tourist This annual Preservation Week event, "Box City," is information center. Gordon will also sponsora Show and sponsored by Historic Denver. Tell for children at the Good Samaritan Nursing Home where seniors will be able to share their experience, Toledo, Ohio residents in the historic warehouse knowledge and pride in the town's past. district will spotlight the Oliver House Hotel, one of the area's unique old buildings. A festive celebration that Minneapolis, Minnesota youngsters from 7 to includes readings about historic Toledo is planned. 12-will take a "Young House Detective" walking tour of local historic neighborhoods to learn about their archi- National Trust historic house museums will bring tectural heritage. Then they will draw or paint the facade history alive through tours, lectures and special events. of a favorite old house. The art work will be displayed Washington, D.C.'s Decatur House, the nineteenth- at the central public library after a special preview event century home of Naval hero Stephen Decatur, will host featuring Mayor Don Fraser, who will present Preserva- family walking tours of the military men of Lafayette tion Week posters and certificates to the children. Square and "look and learn" tours inside the Federalist period house. In New Iberia, Louisiana, Shadows-on- North Carolina and Pennsylvania students will the-Teche will offer a lecture about the Weeks' family clothing collection. Have You Talked to Your Local Teacher or OUR NATION'S HISTORY: School Principal Today? THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES This year's Preservation Week theme, "Preservation Over58,000historicplaces-includingalmost700,000 Brings History to Life," focuses on teaching children buildings within individual historic districts - are listed about the history of our country through hands-on expe- in the 1992 National RegisterofHistoric Places. Preserv- nce in historic preservation. ing these culturally significant places for future genera- tions is what the preservation movement is all about. iould like your local school teachers orprincipals ive a flyer emphasizing the educational opportu- Established underthe Historic Preservation Act of 1966, nities of Preservation Week, please send the name of the individual, name of school and address to: PW FLYER/ and administered by the National Park Service under the Office of Communications, National Trust for His- U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Register is torie Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., the country's official inventory of districts, buildings, sites, structures andobjects that are significantin Ameri- Washington, D.C. 20036, or call (202) 673-4141. can history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture. Also listed in the National Register are all Please continue to send us your organization's Pres- historic areas in the National Park System and all desig- ervationWeek plans and entries for the "My Favorite nated National Historic Landmarks. Old Place" essay contest. Although a National Register listing does not prevent an owner from demolishing, selling, or altering a property, The National Trw for Historic Preservateon, chartered by Con- itdoes provide benefits, such as federal rehabilitation tax gress in 1949, is a nonprofit organization with over 250DOO credits forincome-producingbuildings,culturalresource members. National Trust programs and publications are made planning and national recognition. possible by membership dues, contributions and matching grants fromthe U.S. Dept. of the Interior under provisions ofthe Historic Pre servation Act of 1966. The o pinio n s expressed in this publicatio n Listing properties in the National Register often changes are not necessarily those of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior. continued on reverse side PROMOTE PRESERVATION WEEK WITH A POSTER 1992 Preservation Week posters can be ordered individually or in bulk at a discount. Please fill out the form below and mail it with your check to: Office of Communications, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Please make your check payable to NTHP/Preservation Week. -J-9 @ $9.50 each -0-19@ $5.50 each 20 or more @ $3.75 each ization: ( . .-dress (UPS): , City: State: Zip: Phone: 1 1 CHECK MUST BE ENCLOSED WITH YOUR ORDER. WE CANNOT BILL. (410) /42-2400. i arry [own, ivew i orte. 91 1-4 3 023 1--UV+O. Mexico. Call (505) 471-2261. 14 Historic Poster Contest Exhibit, ~,~ Walking Tour of New Hampshire Mescal Roast begins at Living Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Call State Hospital Buildings and ~ ~ Desert State Park, Cartsbad, New Jonathan Daily at (814) 539-1889. Grounds. Call Heritage Concord, Mexico. Performance by Apache Inc., at (603) 228-1231. Mountain Spirit Gods.Call (505) 1992 South Side Design Awards . 887-5516. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Call ~ Antique Car Show at South SideLocalDevelopmentCom- Chesterwood, Stockbridge, pany, (412) 481-0651. Massachusetts. (413)298-3579. SOUTHERN REGION WESTERN REGION -~~ Children'sTourofOldDowntown Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Call ,-1 Historic Preservation Fair, Phoe- (814) 539-1889. Antique Fair opens, Old Town ~ Living Landmark Photo at ~ nix,Arizona. Call ArizonaHistorical Silvermont, Transylvania County, Society and State Historic Preserva- North Carolina. Call(704)966-4950. tion Office, (602) 542-4009. Petersburg,Virginia. Call Historic Peters- burg Foundation, (804) 733-2400. "Herbs from the Garden" Tours ~~~ Encanto-PalmcioftWalkingTour, RehabilitationWorkshops. CallOIdAllen- ~ begin atThe Carter House,Franklin, Phoenix, Arizona. Admission is one Tennessee. Call (615) 791-1861. can of food. Call Bea Hodge at (602) town Preservation Association, (215) 435- 256-7357. 7449. "My Favorite Old Place" Essay "Country intheCity: Gardening for Small ~~ Contest for junior high school stu- Guided Tour of Florence, Arizona. Call dents, Waynesvitte, North Carolina. McFarland State Park, (202) 868-5216. Spaces" Tour. CallOldFairgrounds Neigh- Call Downtown Waynesville Asso- borhood Association, Allentown, Pennsyl- vania, (215) 770-9383. ciation, (704) 456-3517. ~~ Excellence in Historic Preserva- tion awards presented by State His- Poster Contest for elementary school stu- torie Preservation Officers. 01ym- Tea at Belle Grove Plantation,Middletown, dents, Waynesville, North Carolina. Call pia, Washington. Call Leonard ia. Call (703) 869-2028. (704) 456-3517. Garfield at (206) 586-2901. 17 "Pieces of History" -public ar- â€žMy Favorite Old Place in Bertie County" Governor's Reception, Olympia, Wash- cheology in a Cambira City, Penn- essay and art contest. Hope Plantation, ington. Call Becky Day, Washington Trust sylvania backyard. Call (814) 539- Windsor, North Carolina. Call (919) 794- for Historic Preservation, (206) 624-7880. 1889. 4277. 7 C- Living History at the Bigelow Petersburg, Virginia Music Fest begins. Call (8021) 733-2400. ~~ "Clothing Brings History to Life" 1[) House, Olympia, Washington. Lecture on Weeks's family clothing Hands-on demonstrations for chil- collection by Lucy Lissard. Shad- dren and adults. 12-4 p.m. Call 23 Brandywine River Museum's An- ows-on-the-Teche,NewIberial=i- Shanna Stevenson at (206) 786-5480. nual Antique Show opens, Chadds siana. Call Jamie Credle, (318) 365-5213. Ford, Pennsylvania. Call(215)459- 1900. House and Garden Tour at the Oliver 14 "The History of Louisiana Through the National Register" Lecture by Jonathan Fricker. Call Beach House, Baltimore County, Mary- Shadows-on-the-Teche, New Ibe- THE NATIONAL land. Call Ellen Jackson at (410) 335-2484. ria, Louisiana, (318) 365-5213. REGISTER (continued) 1~ Preservation Dinner, Brevard, the way communities perceive their North Carolina. Call Amy Averill, historic resources. A person inter- TransylvaniaCounty Historical So- MIDWEST REGION ciety, at (704) 884-5125. ested in nominating a significant 10- cal, state or national landmark for Wisconsin Historic Preservation "Adaptive Reuse" Lecture by Stanley listing in the National Register should andHeritageTourism Conference Lowe, National Trust Advisor. Call contact the State Historic Preserva- begins, Manitowoc, Wisconsin. Call Sarasota, Florida Alliance for Historic tion Office (SHPO) of the state in Larry Reed at (608) 262-1339. Preservation at (813) 951-1547. which the property is located. For "Phantoms of the Oliver,"Historic 16 Spring Tour of Bertie Homes & more information about the National , ~ Oliver House Hotel. Co-sponsored Historic Buildings. Call Windsor, Register, contact the National Park by Toledo,Ohio Warehouse Dis- North CarolinaChamber ofCom- Service, U.S. Department of the In- trict Association and University of merce, (919) 794-4277. terior, P.O. Box 37127,Washington, ~ ToledoDepartmentofTheatre,Film, -An' 1 - n - I - 4- n--n May 1992 MID-ATLANTIC REGION Young House Detectives. Co-spon- MOUNTAIN/PLAINS sored by Hennepin History Museum REGION "Community Housing" Lecture and Minneapolis, Minnesota Heri- tage Preservation Commission. Call Series begins,Annapolis,Maryland. Co-sponsored by Maryland Histori- (612) 228-3370. Children's "Box City," Denver, Colorado. Call Historic Denver, cal Trust and Historic Annapolis. Call Sue King at (301) 514-7625. Walking Tours of Historic Minneapolis, (303) 534-1858. Minnesota. Call Minneapolis HeritagePres- ~ Restoration Awards and Essay ervation Commission, (612) 228-3370. Cattle Drive down main street, Denver, Colorado. Call (303) 534-1858. Contest Awards Ceremony. Call Darlene Laudenslager, Allentown, Photo Contest of Historic Sites. Co-spon- Pennsylvania Planning Bureau, sored by Minnesota Chapter of the AIA and Storefront Museums on Historic (215) 437-7613. Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Com- 1 ~ Main Street, Gordon, Nebraska. mission. Call (612) 228-3370. Call Bea Lou Annett,(308) 282- 0730. 9 Restoration Program at Jefferson's 1992 Preservation Awards for rehabilita- Poplar Forest, Lynchburg, Virginia, . 9-10 a.m. Call (804) 525-1806. tion, restoration and renovation of Show & Tell at Good Samaritan Nursing historic structures. Co-sponsored by Min- Home. Gordon, Nebraska. Call (308) 282- 1 Old Allentown Flea Market and Flower nesotaAIA andMinneapolis HeritagePres- 0730. 1 Sale, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Call (215) ervation Commission. Call(612) 228-3370. 437-7613. ~~ Free Tours at Brucemore, Cedar 12 Aspen's Annual Preservation HonorAwards.CallRoxanneElfin, Rapids, Iowa. Call (319) 362-7375. (303) 920-9050. 1~ Family Walking Tours of Lafayette Square, part of Decatur "Wright Plus"Annual Housewalk, 14 Preservation Brings History to House's Annual Preservation Week 1/ 1 1~ Oak Park, Illinois. Call Frank Lloyd Life!" Conference opens, Okla- : Open House, Washington, D.C. 12- 1 : ' . Admission free. (202) 842-0920. Wright Home and Studio Founda- homa City, Oklahoma. Call Melvena tion, (708) 848-1976. Heisch, Oklahoma Historical Soci- ety, (405) 521-6249. ic Preservation Awards Program, Mount Holley, New Jersey. Call (609) 265- ~~ Landmark Celebration at Ruth Sabin Home, LaPorte, Indiana. 5959. 15 100 Most Valuable "Denverites" "Architreasures" contest. Call Luncheon, celebrating100th anni- : LaPorte Historic Preservation Re- versary of Brown Palace Hotel and Preservation Week Trolley Tour. Call view Board,(219) 362-2256. Denver Post. Call (303) 534-1858. Allentown, Pennsylvania Downtown Im- provement District, (215) 776-7117. 24 "Flower Day" at Toledo, Ohio 16 Colorado Trail Days heritageedu- Farmer's Market. Call (419) 255- cationevent. Call StuartMacdonald, Free Admission to the Charles Carroll 7100. (303) 866-3437. Gardens and Wine Cellar, Annapolis, Maryland. Call (410) 263-2969. "Look and Learn" Family Tours of Decatur House begin, Washington, D.C. NORTHEAST REGION TEXAS/NEW MEXICO Call (202) 842-0920. "Preservation is Good Business" ~~~ "A Social History of Westmont," 8 Conference begins, Boston, Massa- ~~ Tours ofShakespeare GhostTown, Lordsburg, New Mexico. Call (505) Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Call chusetts. Call Historic Massachusetts 827-8320. Johnstown Area Heritage Associa- at (617) 723-3383. lion,(814) 539-1889. Murder Mystery Weekend, St. James Charlestown Navy Yard Tours Hotel, Cimarron, New Mexico. Call Ed ~~ Students Tour Historic Downtown 0~_~~ begin. Call Boston, Massachusetts Sitzburger at (505) 376-2664. AUentown,Pennsylvania. Call(215) National Historical Park,(617) 242- 776-7117. 5692. Tours of Dorothy Mansion, a log cabin and Victorian stone house, 24 mi. east of our of Johnstown, Pennsylvania' s jeffrey Weiss Memorial Concert Series Springer, New Mexico. Call (505) 375- his,oric neighborhoods. Call (814) 539- at Lyndhurst,Tarrytown, New York. Call 2222. 1889. (914) 631-0046. New Deal Art Tours begin, New Mexico. 13 Garden Party at Woodrow Wil- 1 C Grand Benefit Auction and Pre- Tours of murals and other art work created son House, Washington, D.C.Call U view Party. Call Francine Burke, during Great Depression. Call (505) 827- (202) 387-4062. Sarasota Springs, New York Preser- 8320. vatinn Fnunflatinn (f 1 R) 5*7.5010 le-. J ?'t~ and associates ~ L 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 303/920-2950 PENN RESIDENCE F.A.R. CALCULATIONS (SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS) VERIFIED - APRIL 22, 1992 PROPOSED REDUCTION Demolition: Existing Kitchen -132 gsf Existing Upper BR -180 Sub-total EAR. S.F.) -312 Exemption: Conversion to Garage -500 TOTAL F.A.R. S.F. REDUCTION -812 PROPOSED ADDITION 1,789 NET PROPOSED F.A.R. S.F. INCREASE 977 EXISTING F.A.R. S.F. 2,273 Total F.A.R. S.F. PER PROPOSAL 3,250 ALLOWABLE 2,280 REQUESTED HPC INCREASE 430 TOTAL REQUESTE0 F.A.R. S.F. 3,250 .. - - - I - 1 -- -- i---- -- OE .1 1. 1 11 1, 12211 0 1 - k I--I.-7 11 - 1 I ME,43*M - ' - 1 1 - It FRMEN ' 1 1 1 FU.U. â‚¬11.e; 1494 i B . a , 7. i 1 2%& \-- A 1/ 2,fAL i M 1.Ae pl PSIV'g 1 16* a CAKel>â€¢KER New 6- - - 1 ~~AfAMMe,gr 1 1 Gl'*e -f 1 KIE+4 , f exte-1416 PAP:*117 PAMICIND DE,6A4 1 1 9*0 - 1 .7.- 10*9 9/Ace, 1 , 1 - 0 1- ur 1/1 1 1 1 , 1 1 * ' 4 ~ ~ ...1 / A-le , .. 1 -1 42-- 1 'Ill 1 1 I r - 111 r-- .... = : uuer Kiâ‚¬wl p~,73FT1 1 19=9-0- .-' ---1- Weltr Weel -01 Illpow,beÂ· Goâ€¢ip;Â· 4 1 || -O., 4*GAI **0,4 0 ENTRY TCP Il , | |;~Â£ IMF 1 1 tel41 il l T 11, 1 11 1 1 10.0 1 14*611111#1111 & 1 .18 .- L- -1 1 unifite - -1- r.. . 1 1 1 011- .=I 'r 1 - lot 1 1 1 1 6*14- .04 -*- -O.- 1 CI I 1 1 1 ~ KIEHINE 212â€¢t 3 7 | C) Re:2~!t 4166-TGR -b- 9*10 pEDBPOM 4-eLIN.ORALL BEDROOM 3 c 1 ' 1 11*le I New 16*11 | FIRB \ APATION a...Ce 1 21 1 7 -4 L -r- 1 1 WER au Et!IE 1 TAN *TAY - L pacK 56 11 1 r--AeovE 1 12'Of 1 1 1- . 1.--4 1 1 1 _ 1 1 r.-m -111 , i_ nr.-- --Â·Â·~j i I 1 4 - -- 1-124 1 1 1 ~-1 r I 11 - JI I --1 -1- --.- 1 f -1 1 1,16Hf -/ - --' .-- ~514 Â«flf ; 2 1 ' l PIP' 1 C.-2440#6 feNCS WEÂ·1.6 w N'/ 74 1 Â£ b12 me-i e / IMVING eiÂ·rrlh16 10*#7 1461 1157%14, 11.* 0 ~ 1 1. I =-Â» ~ 874*TING 1 UTIUT 18â€¢~ 1 - 644 004 gromA. v...... . NEÂ·N "14Â·rIN & / FAND,<11Â£*4 r--n -~ -6 at.y Nt!*W 1 - 1---I# 1 11 0 --- Â»H _- --___ 4 t-1 t-4 foN"t Ph I e,<1â€¢,riN(, U 11 Â£\ . 1 C~.Â»lvi ~4Â£* + -4 1 opurrâ€¢,0,0,4 IWF 074*60 1 W...9 1 =42 1 1 1 1 10*" 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 47 1 1 1 1 +-1 1 1 ......illii......*---i 1 - -- - --ir--- IL-- --94-- 1 1.-l I T 1 -- 1 1 -- ... - - BASEMENT LEVEL ENTRY LEVEL UPPER LEVEL ROOF PLAN .. [RES[DEN<DE 0 0 NARCH 21'*@2 0' 10* loc 30' 46 # 0 -- kÂ». 1 1' 7 .. /1 31 -- L RN/GARAGE N/GARAGE . 27,119@2 30' 40' fa I "-C:' r - I , 1 - 6 . _ 111 1" 111 11 .... .... 11 111 li il . 0 0 0 0. 0 :A A A , - -- .... I,- r - - 1 - I :/ .1 1 3 - I .. 1 1 1.1 -/ .1 @11 . 1 - Im .. 1- I . 1 lEE! 1 " -.. 11 . .. . . 0 e :Al A 141 PENN RESIDENCE MARCH P* . 0 0