DOCSLIB.ORG

September 2006 Orchard Park Plans

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
September 2006 Orchard Park Plans ORCHARD PARK Walker, Michigan PRELIMINARY AREA SITE PLAN AND RE-ZONING March 02, 2006 Revised : September 12, 2006 Prepared By: 301 Commerce St., Suite 3635 Fort Worth TX. 76102 Attn: Tom Carter Phone: (817) 810-5304 Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.trademarkproperty.com 6375 Riverside Dr. Dublin Ohio 43017 Attn: Gary Smith Phone: (614) 764-1122 Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.bird-houk.com 2020 Monroe Ave, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 Attn: William Kozak Phone: (616) 363-9801 Email: [email protected] URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES CO. Urban Retail Properties Co. 900 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (312) 915-2000 Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.urbanretail.com INTRODUCTION Table of Contents I. Introduction PAGE • Table of Contents 2 • Project Overview 3 • General Development Statements 3 • Goals for the Project 3 • Statement of Relationship to the Master Plan 3 • Development Districts 4 II. General Development Information A. Application • Application forms 5 • Legal Description 6 • Regional Context 7 • Existing Adjacent Zoning 8 B. Existing Conditions • Aerial Photograph 9 • Site / Natural Features 10 • Elevation Analysis 11 • Environmental Study (summary) 12 C. Thoroughfare Plans • Regional Circulation 13 • Thoroughfare plan 14 • Thoroughfare Sections 15 • Conceptual Thoroughfare Landscape Treatments 16 • Town Center Typical Section and Plan 17 • Bike and Pedestrian Circulation 18 • Traffic Study Summary 19 D. Regulating Plan & Guidelines • Development Regulating Plan 20 • Development Matrix: Permitted Uses, Densities, Setbacks, etc. 21 • Development Matrix: Architectural Commitments 22-26 • Conceptual Master Plan 27 • Open Space / Park Plan 28 E. Utility Information • Proposed Utility Plan 29 • Statements of Utility Availability 30 • Proposed Mass Grading 31 F. Proposed Phasing • Phasing Plan 32 • Phasing Description 32 G. Economic Impacts • Statements of economic impact to community 33-34 2 INTRODUCTION Project Overview Project Description Goals for the Development The Orchard Park development is designed to be a high quality, mixed use development • To create a high quality, mixed-use development that will meet the economic that will provide the community with live, work, shop and play opportunities unlike any development needs of the community and provide a live, work, shopping and leisure other development within the Grand Rapids metropolitan area. The developer intends to experience unlike any other within the Grand Rapids metropolitan area. incorporate a range of residential, office and retail uses all with high quality architectural and development standards. The anticipated tenants and high level of design at Orchard • To create a mixed-use town center providing retail, office and residential opportunities Park will create a regional attraction to this site and set this development apart from existing and having an urban, pedestrian oriented feel. retail developments within the area. For this reason the developer is seeking to re- zone the entire +/- 238 acre parcel from Agriculture (AA) to Mixed-PUD (M-PUD). • To create an efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic system that will facilitate the The M-PUD classification will allow this property to develop as shown herein with a mix of movement of people in to, out of and through the site while relieving pressure on the land uses and quality development standards that are currently not achievable within any existing exterior road network. other zoning classification. It will allow the flexibility to incorporate multiple land uses within one parcel and sometimes within one structure, create setbacks and build-to lines that are • To create a land use plan that will be sensitive to the land uses surrounding the site more conducive to “traditional” styles of development and create architectural and quality while preserving natural areas within the site. standards that allow for diversity while creating an overall “theme” for the development. At the heart of the development is the +/- 60 acre retail Town Center. The Town Center • To provide residential land uses along the existing 4 Mile Rd. that will serve as a will likely be developed with a mix of “fashion retail”, restaurants, offices and may include transition between the higher intensity Town Center and the residential uses to the residential and will draw people from the entire Grand Rapids Metro area and beyond. north as well as preserve the residential character of 4 mile Rd. Buildings will be situated towards internal streets with pedestrian oriented “storefront” appearance. Architectural styles will be diverse while utilizing high quality materials and • To create sustainable architecture using design principals that have been tested pedestrian scale detailing to create a “developed over time” appearance. Streets within over time. Development standards will encourage a diversity of styles using high the Town Center will incorporate tree lined sidewalks, benches, ornamental style lighting quality materials in order to establish a common theme yet provide a “developed and other detailing that will accentuate the pedestrian experience. The Town Center will be over time” appearance. organized around a central green space that will serve for public gatherings and functions. Architecture will be of a traditional nature to emphasize timelessness and sustainability. With this high level of design and planning the Town Center will offer a living, shopping and leisure experience not currently found in the Grand Rapids area. The following development and design standards are intended to establish procedures and standards to help achieve the goals as identified above. For the The project team has worked extensively with the city staff to insure that the development is purposes of this submittal the site has been subdivided into 5 different districts, each in keeping with the intent of the current City Master Plan for development of the region with having slightly different development standards. the focus on bringing high quality land uses, regional interest and economic development to the City. Land uses have been transitioned in such a way as to be most compatible with • District A: Town home residential the surrounding land uses while sensitive natural areas such as wetlands, ravines, streams and natural wooded areas have been preserved as open space. A functional system of • District B: Town Center - Integrated Mixed Use roads and boulevards has been designed to facilitate the movement of traffic into, out of and through the site and to relieve pressure on the existing road networks. • District C: Light Retail and Office This submittal is intended to provide the framework for approval of the M-PUD zoning • District D: Mixed Use – Light Retail/Office/Residential and establish land use, design and quality standards which the City of Walker can use as a benchmark for approval of future site plan submittals on this property. Prior to any • District E: Tourist Oriented Retail construction on this site, and as tenants are identified and plans are more formalized, the developer will be required to submit for a preliminary area site plan and a final area site plan Each district is intended to focus on different allowable land uses, configuration and approval as established in the PUD text. corresponding architectural character. This submittal will establish standards that will result in Orchard Park being a unique and diversified development with a strong interrelation between all uses and districts. 3 INTRODUCTION Development Districts DISTRICT ‘A’ – RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT use town center projects having been involved in projects such as Easton in Columbus, Ohio and The intent of the Residential district is to provide primarily medium to high density the Woodlands in Texas. The layout of this project as shown in the master plan is currently being residential uses more in keeping with the urban nature of the town center and to marketed to prospective tenants by the developer and although minor changes will be needed as provide a transition between the higher intensity uses of the town center and the tenants are identified and signed the concept is expected to remain substantially similar. Once the residential uses north of 4 Mile Rd. To provide for a variety of residential living op- major tenants have been identified more specific plans as well as final architecture will be presented portunities the district will be designed initially with a mixture of owner occupied to the City for review and approval. and rental units. All of the rental units will be designed to accommodate a con- dominium conversion when the market dictates. All of the residential uses will be DISTRICT ‘C’ – LIGHT RETAIL AND OFFICE designed to be more urban in nature with buildings of two or more stories oriented The light retail and office district will consist mainly of retail outparcels and office uses that rely on toward the street and sidewalk system, on street parking and, in some cases, rear having frontage on a major Thoroughfare. Buildings will be different in type and in scale from the loaded garages. Buildings will reflect a more traditional nature with materials, de- town center and will be set apart from each other in the landscape. Given the nature of the of- tail and proportion similar to the style of early to mid twentieth century urban archi- fice development to the south of this site buildings will be smaller in scale and limited to 2 stories in tecture. Open spaces/parks will be incorporated throughout the plan for use of the height. Architecture within this district will be of high quality with 4 sided appeal and will be pulled residents and community. The residential portion of the project will likely be de- up closer to the street to allow the buildings to define the character of the environment. This will also veloped by a residential developer working in conjunction with the developer of the serve to minimize the appearance of parking along the thoroughfare. Separate parcels within this town center and will be designed to blend into the urban fabric of the town center.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MAC Commissioner Districts Chairman Rick King District A
    MAC Commissioner Districts Chairman Rick King The Chair serves in an at-large capacity and doesn’t represent a specific geographic area of the state. District A - Commissioner Carl Crimmins District A includes the Hennepin County cities of Champlin, Corcoran, Dayton, Greenfield, Independence, Loretto, Maple Grove, Maple Plain, Medicine Lake, Medina, Plymouth, and Rogers, and the town of Hassan. In Anoka County, District A includes the cities of Columbia Heights, Fridley, Hilltop, and Spring Lake Park, and the Hennepin County cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Osseo, and Robbinsdale. District B – Commissioner Braj Agrawal District B includes the Hennepin County cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Greenwood, Hopkins, Long Lake, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. District B also includes Carver County, the Hennepin County cities of Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius, and that portion of Scott County in the metropolitan area. District C – Commissioner Katie Clark Sieben District C includes the Hennepin County cities of Bloomington, Edina, and Richfield, and the unorganized territory of Fort Snelling, as well as the Hennepin County cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope and St. Louis Park, and that portion of the city of Minneapolis lying within a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the southern boundary of the city of Minneapolis and Lyndale Avenue, northerly along Lyndale Avenue to its intersection with Interstate Hwy
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Districts
    City Council Districts A city council district is a political subdivision encompassing multiple electoral precincts. Districts should be approximately equal in population and contiguous. Districts are a common feature in Massachusetts political organization, featured in at least 6 city charters in Massachusetts and many others nationwide. As part of our deliberations, the Charter Commission elected by a 5 to 4 vote to put district residency requirements on 4 of the 12 city council seats in our proposed charter, such that they would no longer be elected in a “pool”. The pool is a proposed system in which 4 city councilors would be elected by the entire city, with voters able to choose between giving up to 4 or as few as 0 votes to candidates for the 4 seats in the pool. A. Advantages of “Districts” vs. “Pool” Advantages of district residency requirements ● Head to head races - Each of the 4 city councilors run for one seat, elected separately ​ from the other 3. This allows residents to give an up or down vote to a councilor. ● 100% Geographic diversity - All city councilors would live in one specific area of the ​ city, with no part of the city represented by a larger proportion of councilors. ● Majority rule - Each race, when contested, would be won by a city councilor having ​ received a majority of the votes cast in that district. Advantages of a “pool” ● More potential candidates - All 4 “pool” city councilors could come from anywhere in ​ the city, potentially giving voters a larger number of candidates to choose from. ● No head to head races - Each of the 4 city councilors together for 4 seats.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines Introduction
    CITY OF NEW ORLEANS Historic District Landmarks Commission Guidelines Introduction Historic Preservation Section Index Historic preservation encompasses a broad range of The following information is included in this section: activities related to the protection, maintenance and • Historic Resources – Page 01-2 care of elements of the built environment that reflect its • Historic Designation – Page 01-2 cultural heritage. Each generation is entrusted with the • Historic Preservation in New Orleans – Page 01-3 historical, cultural, architectural, archeological, social and economic heritage of its community. In relation to • Historic District Landmarks Commission – Page 01-3 the built environment, historic preservation activities • HDLC Jurisdiction – Page 01-4 strive to enrich its integrity and embodied cultural • Historic Property Rating – Page 01-5 heritage to ensure that they are passed onto future • Design Guidelines – Page 01-6 generations. • Commissions – Page 01-6 • Architectural Review Committee – Page 01-7 • Certificate of Appropriateness – Page 01-7 Approvals Required Before Starting • CofA Application Process – Page 01-8 • Certificate of Appropriateness Review Process – Page Work 01-9 HDLC approval is required for some work that does not • Types of Applications and Reviews – Page 01-10 otherwise require a building permit. This includes, • Maintenance, Repairs and Replacements – Page 01-10 among other items, maintenance and repairs as well • Alterations, Renovations and Adaptive Reuse – Page 01-12 as roofing and fencing. It should also be noted that a • New Construction and Additions – Page 01-13 Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) is necessary but • Demolition or Relocation – Page 01-13 not sufficient for the granting of a building permit. Each project is also subject to review for compliance • Retention Applications, Hardship Variances – Page 01-14 with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, building • “Demolition by Neglect” – Page 01-15 and safety codes.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan Vs. Devers Workers Helping Lawrence
    Lawrence, MA | Octubre 1, 2005 www.rumbonews.com | RUMBO - 1 • GRATIS •Pages in English 14-22 • FREE • Año 10 • Edición No. 226 Lawrence, MA Octubre 1, 2005 Rumbo se distribuye en Lawrence, Haverhill, Lowell, Methuen, Andover, North Andover, Manchester, Nashua. Rumbo a un mejor futuro ELECCIONES 2005 ELECTIONS Timberland Sullivan vs. Devers workers helping Lawrence PÁGINA 8 LOS TRABAJADORES DE TIMBERLAND AYUDAN A LAWRENCE El Presidente de United Way of the Merrimack Valley, Tim Schiavoni; el Alcalde de Lawrence, Michael J. Sullivan; y el Presidente y CEO de la Compañía Timberland, Jeffrey Swartz, dando la bienvenida a los trabajadores de Timberland los cuales unieron esfuerzos con Habitat for Humanity para crear un impacto positivo en Lawrence. Página Michael J. Sullivan fue el último candidato en entrar Marcos Devers entrando al ayuntamiento seguido de al ayuntamiento una vez conocido los resultados de un grupo de sus más cercanos simpatizantes. United Way of the Merrimack Valley President Tim Schiavoni; City of Lawrence Mayor, Michael J. la elección. Marcos Devers, followed by a group of his closest Sullivan; and Jeffrey Swartz, President & CEO of Michael J. Sullivan made his entrance after all other supporters, made his entrance to City Hall. Timberland Company welcoming the Timberland candidates, once the results of the election were workers who joined efforts with Habitat for Humanity known. PÁGINA 2 to create a positive impact in Lawrence. Page 21 NO SE PIERDA... Nuevos Estudios del Canal 8 PÁGINA 7 CHANNEL 8 NEW STUDIO PÁGINA 17 COOPERATIVA DE CRÉDITO SE MUDA A LAWRENCE Ginny Alexander, gerente de la estación, junto a los controles del recién inaugurado estudio de Peter Matthews, Presidente y CEO de Merrimack Valley Federal Credit Union, al centro, acompañado de Nick Lupoli and Sal Lupoli, de Sal’s Restaurant and Conference Center, anunciaron que esa entidad mudará sus oficinas Lawrence Community Access TV, Canales 8 y 22, administrativas y sucursal al Riverwalk.
    [Show full text]
  • NH National Register Listing November, 2019 Inventory
    NH National Register Listing November, 2019 Inventory # Property Name Address Town NR Listing Date ACW0001 Acworth Congregational Church Town Common Acworth 6/13/1975 ACW0002 Acworth Silsby Library Cold Pond and Lynn Hill Road Acworth 12/8/1983 ALB0049 Russell-Colbath House Kancamagus Highway Albany 4/23/1987 ALL0007 Allenstown Meeting House Deerfield Road Allenstown 12/6/2004 ALL0013 Bear Brook State Park Civilian Conservation Corps Allenstown-Deerfield Road intersection Allenstown 4/23/1992 ALS0004 Jewett-Kemp-Marlens House North Road Alstead 5/30/1997 ALS0048 Shedd-Porter Memorial Library 3 Main Street Alstead 12/27/2010 ALS0050 Hutchinson House 400 Alstead Center Road Alstead 2/2/2015 ALT0001 Alton Bay Railroad Station Route 11 Alton 9/22/1983 ALT0002 First Congregational Church Church Street Alton 3/9/1990 ALT0003 First Freewill Baptist Church Drew Hill Road Alton 8/1/1978 ALT0004 Second Free Baptist Church Main Street, PO Box 338 Alton 3/9/1990 AMH0028 The Wigwam/The Old Methodist Church Middle/Cross Street Amherst 8/18/1982 AMH0031 Hildreth-Jones Tavern 18 Jones Road Amherst 8/18/1982 AMH0043 Amherst Village Historic District Mack Hill, Amherst Street, Davis, Foundry Amherst 8/18/1982 AND0001 Bog Bridge unidentified road over Pleasant Brook Andover 3/16/1989 AND0002 Keniston Bridge Bridge Road Andover 3/16/1989 AND0003 Potter Place Railroad Station Depot Street Andover 3/16/1989 AND0009 Gershom Durgin House Route 11, just west of Plains Road Andover 10/26/2000 AND0015 Tucker Mountain School Tucker Mountain Road Andover 3/18/2005
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Received Inventory Nomination Form Date Entered Amoskeag Mfg
    NFS Form 10-900-a f~ V ! United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NFS use onty National Register of Historic Places received Inventory Nomination Form date entered Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Housing - Continuation sheet Thematic Group Nomination item number District E ______ Page 1 _______ DESCRIPTION District E occupies 1-1/4 acres on the west side of the Merrimack River. Its five buildings (#52-56) are single family residences built in 1882 on the west side of McGregor Street. Until the Coolidge Mill was built in 1909, the houses overlooked the river. Two different house designs varying primarily in roof line were employed, alternating along the street. Each exhibits Stick Style influence evidenced in as symmetrical plans, clapboard and shingle wall surfaces, steep intersecting roofs with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters, and varied dormers and gables. Buildings #53 and 54 retain original clapboard and shingle cladding. Like other Amoskeag-built structures, the roofs were originally slate. One-story kitchen ells project from the rear with the typical Amoskeag curved iron bracket remaining above at least one of the entries. One-and-a-half story detached horse barns stand in the back corner of each lot. Interiors are simple, yet nicely finished with reeded door and window trim, angular wall openings, built-in cupboards and hardwood floors. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE District E possesses integrity of location, design, setting, feeling and workmanship. It is significant historically for its association with one of the nation's earliest major cotton manufacturers, the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, which later became the largest textile manufacturer in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Mayors, Council Members and City Controllers from 1958 to 2012
    LIST OF MAYORS, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY CONTROLLERS FROM 1958 TO 2012 1958 – 1959 Lewis Cutrer - Mayor George P. Montgomery - District A Bill Ragan - District B Lee McLemore - District C Lou Hassell - District D W. H. Jones - District E Louie Welch - At Large Position #1 Garth Bates - At Large Position #2 Johnny Goyen - At Large Position #3 Roy B. Oakes - Controller 1960 – 1961 Lewis Cutrer – Mayor Robert S. (Bob) Webb – District A Bill Ragan – District B Lee McLemore – District C Bill T. Swanson – District D W. H. Jones – District E Louie Welch – At Large Position #1 Frank E. Mann – At Large Position #2 Johnny Goyen – At Large Position #3 Roy B. Oakes – Controller 1962 – 1963 Lewis Cutrer – Mayor Robert S. (Bob) Webb – District A A. L. “Curly” Miller – District B Lee McLemore – District C Bill T. Swanson – District D W. H. Jones – District E (4-3-63 – Frank O. Mancuso appointed to District E due to the death of Mr. Jones) Lou Hassell – At Large Position #1 Frank E. Mann – At Large Position #2 Johnny Goyen – At Large Position #3 Roy B. Oakes – Controller LIST OF MAYORS, COUNCIL & CITY CONTROLLERS – PAGE 2 1964 – 1965 Louie Welch – Mayor Robert S. (Bob) Webb – District A A. L. “Curly” Miller – District B Lee McLemore – District C Homer L. Ford – District D Frank O. Mancuso – District E Bill Elliott – At Large Position #1 Frank E. Mann – At Large Position #2 Johnny Goyen – At Large Position #3 Roy B. Oakes – Controller 1966 – 1967 Louie Welch – Mayor Robert S. (Bob) Webb – District A A. L. “Curly” Miller – District B Lee McLemore – District C Homer L.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Received Inventory—Nomination Form Date Entered Amoskeag Mfg
    r\ r- -i D >•' O 1 .-"^ 9 x1 n n 1 o NPS Form 10-900-a W1 i s'•••!•• v,: — ;' • « \.J5 ! . --.-—-.» . • X i-'- - rw .- i^ ' ^' Ur ^ <7"81) E)(P. I2/3I/84 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory—Nomination Form date entered Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Housing Continuation sheet Thematic Group Nomination |tem number ^strict C page l______ DESCRIPTION District C includes nine blocks sited longitudinally north-south in two groups on a five acre site roughly bounded by Hollis Street, South Hampshire Lane, Bridge and Canal Streets. Blocks #40-43 represent a major departure from the plain Greek Revival exteriors of the earlier blocks found in Districts A and B. Built in 1881, each 196'xSA 1 brick block stands 3-1/2 stories high and contains four units defined on the exterior by projecting brick piers. The blocks are surmounted by hip roofs pierced by two hip roof dormers and corbeled chimneys at each unit. Though the slate roofs have been replaced with asbestos, the dormer walls are still clad in gray slate. Each unit has a centrally positioned Stick Style entry hood that shelters two paired entrances set within a flat arch. Two-over-two sash appears both singly and paired, capped by hood molds and resting on granite sills. Exterior walls are enriched by the use of contrasting black brick on hood molds and belt courses and by a stepped cornice finished with dentils. Rear two-story brick ells incorporate porches for each tenement.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Historic Districts of New Hampshire with Their Historic District Commissions and Heritage Commissions
    PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY Local Historic Districts of New Hampshire With Their Historic District Commissions and Heritage Commissions Julia Ferrari, Nancy Garrison, Audra Klumb, and James Perkins Advised by: Elizabeth Muzzey 9/19/2012 The students in the Preservation Planning and Management course at Plymouth State University researched the locally designated historic districts, Historic District Commissions and Heritage Commissions of New Hampshire. The students used online research and direct communication with the towns of New Hampshire to find fifty‐six towns in New Hampshire have locally designated historic districts. The districts are of varying ages, sizes, and hold differing levels of protection. The districts are managed and governed by Historic District Commissions, Heritage Commissions, and other groups. Forward In New Hampshire, local historic districts range in size and character from large commercial and residential downtowns to riverfront brick industrial complexes and small clusters of public buildings in pristine 19th century village centers. The first districts, established in the 1960s, predate the current state legislation that enables their use as a preservation tool in New Hampshire. In 1983, state law declared that safeguarding a community’s heritage was a public purpose and that local historic districting offered a number of benefits, such as conserving property values, strengthening the local economy, fostering civic beauty and promoting the education and pleasure of residents (NH RSA 674:45). Local historic districts differ from other types of historical designations, such as listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the New Hampshire State Register of Historic Places. Although historical resources may be listed as districts on both of the registers, the listing is honorific, by either the National Park Service or the State of New Hampshire, and carries no regulatory oversight.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Received Inventory Nomination Form Date Entered Amoskeag Mfg
    NPS Form 10-900-a United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory Nomination Form date entered Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Housing Continuation sheet Thematic Group Nomination Item number District B __ Page 1 DESCRIPTION District B encompasses an area of seventeen acres, roughly bounded by Canal, Mechanic, Franklin, and Pleasant Streets. Of the forty buildings in the district, thirty were erected by the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, two are contributing buildings erected in the mid-20th century and eight are intrusions, half of which are small mid-20th century concrete structures. All but one of the Amoskeag-built structures are housing blocks, comprising seventeen tenement blocks and twelve overseers' blocks. The remaining structure, the Employment Office (#16) is described at the end of this section with other contributing buildings. Tenement Blocks Included within the district are seventeen tenement blocks; fourteen were erected between 1838 and 1850, two in 1855-56 and one in 1866. Despite the twenty-eight year span, a consistent approach to design, materials, scale and setting was maintained, creating a strong sense of continuity and harmony. The buildings generally date chronologically from north to south, except for #34-38 which were erected in the 1840s. The fourteen tenement blocks constructed between 1838 and 1850 (#8,9,10,11,12,13,17, 18,21,22,25,28,29,38) all followed the standard design for company housing established by the Boston Associates and employed by Amoskeag. Each is Greek Revival in style, interpreted in a conservative and restrained manner common to urban seacoast cities in New England.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory Nomination Form Date Entered Amoskeag Mfg
    NFS Form 10-900-a •-»,,-. EXP. l2/3i/34 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places -received- _ Inventory Nomination Form date entered Amoskeag Mfg. Co. Housing Continuation sheet Thematic Group Nomination item number District D ______ Page 1 ______ DESCRIPTION District D includes two tenement blocks (#49 and 50), one overseers' block (#51) and one intrusion (F) . The /three acre district is bounded by West Brook Street, the east lot line of Block. #51, Langdon and Canal Streets. - The blocks were erected ca. 1864 and represent the last group of Amoskeag housing arranged in the traditional manner. The tenement blocks are sited longitudinally east-west on the slope of the hill; above them is the overseers' block sited north- south. At the crest of the hill, farthest from the millyard, was the agent's house. Block #49 is a three-story brick structure with a mansard roof. The block consists of three four-bay stepped units with deeply recessed arched entries. Sidelights and six-light transoms surround the paneled doors. Like other Amoskeag buildings of the period, windows have segmen tally arched brick headers and granite sills. Sash is six-over-six. Beneath the overhanging roof is a den tiled cornice. The roof slate has been replaced with asphalt. Block #50 was originally identical to #49. However, removal of the mansard roof and recent entry alterations make it no longer a con­ tributing building to the district. Block #51 is a two-story brick overseers' block consisting of two six-bay units surmounted by a hip roof.
    [Show full text]
  • CHANGES in COMMUNITY CAPITALS by TAYLOR RICKETTS
    FROM NATIONAL MONUMENT TO NATIONAL PARK: CHANGES IN COMMUNITY CAPITALS by TAYLOR RICKETTS A REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTERS OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning College of Architecture, Planning and Design KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2015 Approved by: Major Professor Huston Gibson Abstract National monument to national park re-designation can be identified as a controversial issue that poses an array of implications for surrounding communities. These perceived implications have the ability to create or change policies, regulations, economic development, marketing, quality of life and other direct or indirect impacts to communities. In 2010, Grand Junction, Colorado proposed re-designation of the Colorado National Monument to a national park. The community expressed split views on the issue expressing concerns on issues such as the preservation, traffic, regulated uses, restrictions, government imposition, property values, infrastructure, costs, economic prosperity and other impacts that might occur from re-designation. A multiple case study was conducted in order to determine if there were any significant impacts to other communities that had gone through similar re-designation efforts. The Community Capital Framework was used in determining the assets investigated for the years of 2000 and 2010. The findings of this study suggest that there are no substantial apparent impacts within the locations of past re-designation. Grand Junction had somewhat parallel findings to the other sites, even without the presence of re-designation. Suggesting, the re-designation efforts should be focused less on the community impacts and more on the short-term vs long-term park/monument effects.
    [Show full text]