AgdaPkt 2005-04-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

¿J?¿'-/;p identical to the preferred alternative (#3) with respect to the Courthouse reconstruction project and creation of an open space area in front of the Courthouse. 'The difference involves the Plaza design which in this case would be a replication of the Plaza design during its period of significance (1910-1938). Under this alternative, the proposed concept for the Courthouse Plaza is to reconstruct the Plaza as it was during its period of significance. At that time, the original plans from the architects were never implemented due to a lack of funds. Instead, the front plaza area was covered with turf except for a wide central pathway with a central focus (a flag pole circle), this path led directly to the portico steps and the primary Courthouse entrance. Secondary curved diagonal paths from the central focus led to the block corners. Palm trees were used as accents and symmetrically planted (along with other plant species). Two geometric star shaped hardscape features were installed as ornaments on either side of the paths. Findings: This alternative would meet some of the objectives for the Project and would comply with the Standards as they relate to the architectural restoration of the Courthouse building and replicating the existing conditions of the Courthouse and open space area facing Broadway during the Courthouse's period of significance (1910- 1939). However, similar to Alternative #3, this alternative would not comply with the Standards regarding the demolition of the South Annex which would cause a significant unmitigatable environmental impact. Under this alternative, the Courthouse Plaza design would not be developed with the pavilions and trees, which is desirable and preferable to this alternative for the following reasons: 1. This alternative would forgo the flanking of the proposed open space by traditional architectural elements as well as the incorporation of trees, which have been determined by the City to be pesirable and preferable because the Plaza would be too big, open, and out of proportion and therefore not function as a central gathering place without these elements. 2. This alternative would forgo the pavilions which have been determined by the City to be compatible in architectural style and scale to the Courthouse Plaza and to the Courthouse, and which would help visually introduce the Courthouse from the street intersections at Hamilton and Theater Way/Middlefield Road. 3. This alternative would forgo the proposed Plaza elements, including the fountains and the trees which have been determined by the City and to help define the Plaza edges, thus making the Plaza undesirable and unwelcoming to users without these elements. Based on the foregoing the City finds that, on balance, the Project is preferable to Alternative #2 and that Alternative #2 is not a feasible alternative to the Project. Atty/Reso/Reso.1530 042005 9 . ....-..,....... .............._,.._.............__..._-~......_..._,..............._..