The North Coast times-eagle., May 01, 2004, Page 7, Image 7

N O R T H C O A S T T IM E S E A G L E , MAY/JUNE 2004
PAGE 7
was a master stroke by Mayor Willis Van Dusen. In a discussion
about the park’s future, impassioned citizens clearly delineated
Coxcomb Hill's assets. It was heartening to hear both poetic and
practical discussions on the virtue of Astoria's greatest outdoor
space — a park where locals and visitors share public art and
awe-inspiring views.
Much of the goodwill generated during the plan's form­
ation was lost, however, when the City Council failed to adopt it
as an authoritative directive. Today, the master plan is a guide­
line, nothing more. Neither the city or the Friends are obligated
to follow it verbatim. They are free to interpret or pick and choose
what suits them. In turn they have needlessly angered the public,
feeding both uncertainty in the project and a distrust of those
involved.
When the proposed interpretive center was unveiled,
it was evident the Friends were blinded by the strength of their
convictions. Guidelines were stretched and suspicions were
raised again over the Friends' sincerity to follow public input.The
master plan recommended a 1,500 squarefoot building footprint
constructed above ground on the site of the existing caretaker's
house. As now proposed, the interpretive center is 4,500 feet.
It is also located in the “red zone," an area the public
bluntly stated was to be preserved for its views and prime
parking locations. The cleverly submerged visitor center does not
technically block views, but it does rob the best view from legions
of people who park their cars facing west and view the sunset —
a simple pleasure now lost to “improvements.”
The Friends will have a tough time winning this quagmire
because sometimes the plan is too schematic. The freshly laid
plaza around the Column is an example. The Astoria Column
was originally designed as if it were a garden folly, where a
monumental piece of architectural antiquity is contrasted with
plantings or a natural landscape. Modest paved areas, as origin­
ally constructed, did not detract from the artistic tension between
the Column’s form and artwork, and that of the surrounding
vegetation. The master plan recommended alteration to this
scheme, but the result may not have been anticipated.
Now, a hard-surface stretches broadly from the base of
the Column. The oval around the monument is more narrow to
accommodate diagonal parking. The mound the Column stands
on is lower, closer to street level to accommodate wheelchair
access to the plaza. The result is that the Astoria Column and
surrounding vegetation appear incidental to the parking lot.
But these are details. The master plan wrestled with
a much larger issue — and it did it rather well. It attempted to
understand and regulate the impact of overcrowding a hilltop
park with increased activities on a confined greenspace.Thanks
to an unenforceable plan, the park’s fate is less assured. But
there are some certainties.
First, without strong leadership, we stand to lose more
than we will gain. It is important to remember the concept to
build an interpretive center was not initiated through broad public
concern. The need was internally developed and is maintained
by the city. Therefore, the city needs to take the lead and provide
the public with better security.
Second, submerged or not, the interpretive center’s
presence will forever change the site — no matter how much
money is thrown on Coxcomb Hill or how much political
pressure is exerted to alter it. The Astoria Column was designed
as an esthetic experience. Its images pay homage to explorers,
pioneers and indigenous people. In an attempt to further interpret
history, a visitor's center — by paving and crowding the site —
further removes the visitor from a historic context and ultimately
diminishes the site on both an esthetic and academic level.
This is not good stewardship for future generations.
Coxcomb Hill will be less sublime and less reflective. In an
attempt to explain everything, we will lose much of what can
only be experienced first-hand.
There may not be a happy ending to this mess. The
city has virtually handed the reins to the Friends. It is up to them
to act in good faith and extend goodwill. The Friends could start
by truly listening to the frustrated public, being less sure of their
convictions and being willing to treat Coxcomb Hill less like a
corporate takeover and more like a community endeavor.
PHOTOGRAPH B Y PAT JEN SEN
PILLAR & PARK
BY LESLIE MILLER
John Goodenberger is a historic building consultant
who lives in Astoria. He regularly writes “Great City Rising,"
a column featuring the architecture and history of the North
Coast for the Daily Astorian, from which this fusion of three
columns about the Column has been reprinted.
Leslie Miller is a preservation consultant who lives in
Warrenton. He is currently involved with “The Columnistas,”
a group of Astoria citizens adverse to the Column’s mutation.
I know it is exasperating to have to resist commercialization
of the Column and the park so often,” he says, “but if we don't
exercise our rights we are bound to lose the few we have left.
The prescription might include the replacement of a few elected
officials."
UNIONTOWN
218 WEST MARINE DRIVE
ASTORIA, OREGON 97103
(503) 3 25-8708
The topic of the pillar and development of the city park
located on Coxcomb Hill is of some significance. It isn’t just a
matter of historic integrity, but a broad consideration of compre­
hensive land use planning. This consists of an overlay map that
divides the confines of Astoria into areas of defined uses.
Traditionally, residential use is of less intensity than
commercial use. Commercial use is of less intensity than indust­
rial use. This pyramid is designed to protect the undeveloped
and residential areas. Commercial developments are not
generally allowed adjacent to, or within parks and residential
areas. Residential zones are protected from the sheer volume
of commercial traffic and congestion. Exceptions may be granted
through a conditional use permit.
My experience with developers is they are not
necessarily dissuaded from investment because of zoning
requirements or historic designation. The most important thing
seems to be predictability. If I invest in the zone, is everyone
held to the same standard? How consistent is the city in regard
to enforcement?
Like the city parks in Alderbrook and by the Peter Pan
Market, the one on Coxcomb Hill is zoned for low intensity use
in an institutional zone In order to allow a visitors center in the
park, the developer would apply for a high intensity conditional
use permit. The planning commission would most likely hold a
public hearing for such an exception to local zoning regulations.
Oddly enough, one of the few allowed uses in a city park
specifies a caretaker’s cottage, according to the local zoning
ordinance. A demolition permit must be applied for prior to its
destruction*
The overall objective of comprehensive planning is
to eliminate the impact of high intensity use on the existing
neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjoining these parks
Certainly any plan that would develop a tourist center near the
Astoria Column violates the comprehensive plan, which is not
to encourage high intensity impact, but to mitigate it
Any other party that wanted to demolish or replace
historical artifacts would be required to file for a demolition
permit and site design review before the Astoria Landmarks
Commission This would start with a design for a proposed
visitors center near the Astoria Column, including parking,
landscaping and lighting In this case, it seems all of these
amenities are being constructed in advance of the city having
chosen a specific site for a proposed visitors center. Isn't this
“reverse planning?”
The pillar and the park belong to the citizens of Astoria,
not to the small fry on the City Council or the big fish from Port­
land There has been no election to foot the expense The city
seems politically and institutionally biased toward a commercial
development next to a residential area at an unspecified location
within John Jacob Astor Park, ignoring much public dissent The
city seems involved in a process and outcome for which there is
no decision.Would the city please designate a place for a visitors
center before the caretaker’s cottage is demolished and any
more work is done?
What is happening isn’t just a matter of historic preser­
vation. The elegant simplicity of the park and awestriking view
are not the least of the values at stake. The park has always
been free of charge, both to locals and pilgrims. I wish the city
would keep it a free place to go and that it quit its reliance on
anti-planning as policy.
I have spoken to a number of local residents about the
extensive development of Coxcomb Hill and areas adjacent to
the Astoria Column Most feel the Column is self-explanatory,
and that there is no need or desire for an interpretive center.
Regardless of how many times overwhelming opposition
is expressed, the “Friends" of the Astoria Column, well-funded
and persistent, are bent on grandiose plans If development
is howled down 10 times, this group would try the 11th Once
alterations are approved, Astoria would be stuck with the results
permanently
It looks like the City Council and the “Friends" suffer from
identity confusion, as if the city and this group are one and the
same Plans and policies can be commingled and pre-approved
without the site design required of any other applicant Although
board members may be appointed by the Mayor (a curious
arrangement that serves to blur boundaries and tempts conflict
of interest between private and public organizations), this does
not mean the two are indistinguishable. The fact is that the
"Friends" are separate from the elected City Council What
document defines this relationship?
*/ have written a letter to the Astoria Landmarks Commission
concerning the caretaker's cottage
According to the City of Astoria Development Code,
Section 6.080, Demolition & Moving, "No person, firm, or
corporation shall move, demolish, or cause to be demolished
any structure listed or identified as a Historic Landmark or as
a Primary or Secondary without first obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness. In obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness,
the applicant shall file an application on a form provided for
that purpose with the Community Development Department "
Section 6 090, Administrative Procedures, Part A,
specifies that “The Historic Landmarks Commission will follow
the procedural requirements set forth in Article 9 with regard to
application, public notice, quasi-judicial public hearing procedure,
appeals, action on application, filing fees, and additional costs.”
I believe that if the Caretaker’s Cottage on Coxcomb Hill
is destroyed without the above steps, the City will be in violation
of its own Development Code, since there has been no applica­
tion for a Certificate of Appropriateness, no findings of fact by
your commission, and no public hearing, specifically in regard to
this structure I hereby respectfully request that the City comply
with its own regulations