LANDMARK COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: CA112-045(MD) LOCATION: 2807 Harry Hines Blvd.

STRUCTURE: No structure COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 ZONING: PD-193,PD-582

December 5, 2011 PLANNER: Mark Doty DATE FILED: November 3, 2011 DISTRICT: Pike Park MAPSCO: 45-F CENSUS TRACT: 0019.00

APPLICANT: City of Dallas Park and Recreation Department REPRESENTATIVE: Sugie Poteet Park and Recreation Department OWNER: CITY OF DALLAS REQUEST: 1) Renovation and repair of gazebo. 2) Pike Park plaza renovation and refurbishment. 3) Replacement of existing lighting. 4) Removal of three oak trees. 5) Installation of two decorative security gates. 6) New paving on western extension of plaza. BACKGROUND / HISTORY: 2/4/2008 CA078-199(MD) Landmark Commission approved a portion of the western extension of the plaza. ANALYSIS: Pike Park (originally known as Summit Play Park) was created and dedicated in 1914. The Mission-revival community center was finished in 1915 (Image on D2-10). The 1949 map on D2-10 illustrates that park elements never included more than a wading pool, playground equipment and large fields for sports. By the 1960s, the wading pool was fenced off and portions of the park carved away to accommodate vehicular traffic on Harry Hines (image D2-12). The park plaza was designed in the 1970s to reflect the heritage of the Little Mexico neighborhood and included a gazebo. Pike Park became a City of Dallas landmark in May 2000. This application is interesting because while the preservation criteria recommends the landscaping design reflect the historic landscaping design, the timeline and history of the park indicates that there was never much of a formal landscaping design. The introduction of elements and themes that reflect the surrounding Little Mexico neighborhood is also interesting due to the fact that those elements were not part of the original design of the park, but have
D 2-1

nonetheless become focal points and icons of the park to users and the remaining residents of the neighborhood. Staff is comfortable with the work as proposed with the condition on request #5 that the proposed decorative arches on the gates are removed. This removal will hopefully strike a balance between the recommendation of the preservation criteria, avoid the addition of further conjectural features of the park, and still serve the needs of the Park Department and the park users. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Renovation and repair of gazebo. Approve - Approve drawings dated 11/16/11 with the finding the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Section 3.1, and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). 2) Pike Park plaza renovation and refurbishment. Approve - Approve drawings dated 11/16/11 with the finding that although the proposed work does not comply with Section 3.7 that recommends that landscaping reflect the historic landscape design, it does meet the criteria for landmark commission approval of work that does not strictly comply with the preservation criteria under City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(B), because the proposed work is historically accurate, it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the preservation criteria and it will not adversely affect the historic character of the property or the integrity of the historic overlay district and with the finding the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Sections 3.3 and 3.6, and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). 3) Replacement of existing lighting. Approve - Approve lighting specifications dated 11/16/11 with the finding the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Section 3.5, and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). 4) Removal of three oak trees. Approve - Approve proposed tree removal as requested with the finding the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Sections 3.7 (f), and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). 5) Installation of two decorative security gates. Approve with conditions - Approve drawings dated 11/16/11 with the condition the proposed gate entries on L5.3 are simplified with the proposed arches removed with the finding that the proposed work is consistent with the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Sections 3.8(a), (c) and (d), and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). 6) New paving on western extension of plaza. Approve - Approve drawings dated 11/16/11 with the finding that although the proposed work does not comply with Section 3.7 that recommends that landscaping reflect the historic landscape design, it does meet the criteria for landmark commission approval of work that does not strictly comply with the preservation criteria under City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(B), because the proposed work is historically accurate, it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the preservation criteria and it will not adversely affect the historic character of the property or the integrity of the historic overlay district and with the finding the proposed work is consistent with
D 2-2

the criteria for building site and landscaping in the preservation criteria Sections 3.3 and it meets the standards in City Code Section 51A-4.501(g)(6)(C)(i). TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 1) Renovation and repair of gazebo. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered. 2) Pike Park plaza renovation and refurbishment. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered. 3) Replacement of existing lighting. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered. 4) Removal of three oak trees. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered. 5) Installation of two decorative security gates. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered. 6) New paving on western extension of plaza. Deny without Prejudice - Deny without prejudice because design does not reflect the historic design of the original plaza (early 1900's and not the 1970 version) as is called for in the preservation criteria. However, the merits of the 1970's design and its ties to the community of current park users may be considered.

D 2-3

D 2-4

D 2-5

D 2-6

D 2-7

D 2-8

D 2-9

Pike Park community center, 1915.

Pike Park plan, 1949

D 2-10

Pike Park aerial, 1954

Pike Park aerial 1976

D 2-11

Modified Community center with wading pool enclosed, 1966.

D 2-12

Pike Park, circa 2005.

D 2-13

Pike Park, 2011

D 2-14

Existing gazebo.

Existing gazebo and plaza.

D 2-15

D 2-16

D 2-17

Proposed materials for gazebo renovation.

D 2-18

Proposed materials for gazebo renovation.

D 2-19

Existing plaza.

Existing plaza.

D 2-20

Existing conditions.

D 2-21

Proposed plan.

D 2-22

D 2-23

Material palette for plaza renovation.

D 2-24

Existing lighting.

Proposed lighting.

Proposed lighting already located in park.

D 2-25

O denotes trees to be removed.

D 2-26

Existing park entry.

Proposed park entry gates.

D 2-27

D 2-28

D 2-29

D 2-30

Existing extent of western plaza extension.

Existing western plaza extension looking west toward parking lot.

D 2-31

Existing condition at proposed western plaza extension.

D 2-32

Proposed western plaza extension.

D 2-33

D 2-34