SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Wayne Gordon, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Orlan Owen, and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Littig moved to approve the minutes from the November 17, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Payne and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 022-99, at 400 W. South Temple by Gateway Associates. represented by Douglas Thimm of MHTN Architects. and Stephen Smith of Gillies. Stransky, Brems, and Smith Architects. requesting to renovate and construct additions to the Union Pacific Depot, which is a Salt Lake City landmark site.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that the attachment of the proposed additions on the depot's west walls would be minimal and would not affect most of the existing historic openings. Ms. Giraud pointed out that as the new owner, Gateway Associates has openings. Ms. Giraud pointed out that as the new owner, Gateway Associates has donated an easement through the central waiting room to the City so that the space would continue to have public use.
Ms. Giraud reported that staff recommended the Historic Landmark Commission approve this project, with further details to be refined by the staff or Architectural Subcommittee, or if needed, return to the full Commission for review and final decision.
Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Paterson had been working on the Gateway development for many months and might have more information that he may want to address.
Mr. Paterson said that the Union Pacific Depot building had been owned by the State of Utah, but now that ownership has been transferred to Gateway Associates with the public easement being held by the City. He added that the subdivision and planned development approval process required a public easement through the depot building enabling public to enter and exit through the building's front and rear doors.
Mr. Douglas Thimm of MHTN Architects, and Mr. Stephen Smith of Gillies, Stransky, Brems, and Smith Architects, representing Gateway Associates, were present. Mr. Thimm said that he was the coordinating architect for the overall Gateway project and Mr. Smith was the design architect for the Union Pacific Depot. Mr. Thimm announced that Mr. Smith has been working with the structural engineers planning the internal workings of the building so he would direct the briefing for the renovation and proposed additions. Both gentlemen used briefing boards to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Thimm reminded those present that he first briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on the restoration of the depot and the overall Gateway project in November of 1998.
Mr. Thimm presented a brief overview of the entire, three-block, Gateway project, in the following manner:
1. The Union Pacific Depot building will be the main focal point and main entrance to the Gateway project, and will be fully restored to maintain its historic integrity;
2. Easements around and through the building will provide public access and usability for a large portion of the building;
3. Through the depot building in the rear, there will be an "immense" plaza with a large water feature, and the possibility where Olympic medal presentations will be held. It may become an Olympic venue;
4. The west boundary of the plaza will be Rio Grande Street. There will be retail shops on both sides of that street;
• 5. Office buildings, residential buildings, and a hotel are also being developed in the project; and
6. There will be sensitivity to the designs of the buildings adjacent to the depot building, such as to the heights and a softening of the architecture so the building will maintain its proper prominence.
In conclusion, Mr. Thimm introduced Mr. Smith to further address the proposed Union Pacific Depot building project.
Mr. Smith stated that the architectural firm is working with the Boyer Company, the developer, on the renovation of the building. He briefed the Commission on the following:
1. The approach to the building is to keep as much of the historic character and fabric as possible. The owners are applying for tax credits. Mr. Smith has been working closely with the Division of State History and much of the documentation has been completed;
2. The renovation would consist of repairing the roof, the flashing, exterior walls, windows or replacing, where necessary, the masonry, the stone work, and other elements and architectural features of the building. The exterior walls will be cleaned;
3. The interior spaces in the large hall will be restored and preserved in its historic state as much as possible;
4. Two single-story additions will be constructed in the rear of the building to provide retail use inside the building. The additions were designed so they would not interfere or intrude on the height or the volume of the depot building;
5. The additions would be structurally independent from the main depot building, primarily for seismic reasons. They could be removed without too much damage to the depot building exterior wall on the west elevation;
6. The backdoor openings will be kept intact, as much as possible;
7. The original drawings, that were in the Commission members' packets, were reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office for the eligibility of tax credits. The SHPO staff suggested that the additions were too ornate and overdone, so revised drawings have been submitted. Old photographs showing that the west wall of the depot building has always been plain. Originally a very simple canopy had been constructed in the back. Copies of a revised proposal of the renovation and construction of the additions were passed out, showing more simplified openings and framework. The revised roof form will be flatter than what was originally proposed;
8. All the grand hall openings will be restored;
9. Retail space inside the depot building will have the ability to be closed off, so the hall would not have an arcade environment. The doors will open and close;
10.The additions will be very light and quite transparent; and
11.The colors on the renderings are not the correct colors which has not yet been finalized.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Wilson led the discussion by asking Mr. Smith to explain the circulation from the front of the building to the back of the building. He said that none of the drawings seemed to show the entrance or exit doors on the back. Mr. Smith pointed out on the drawing how one could go through the front entrance doors, go through the hall, and out the back doors. Mr. Wilson asked if a person could go through the main hall without having to go through the retail portions of the building. Mr. Smith said that is correct.
• Ms. Mitchell clarified that the materials for the new additions would be metal and glass. Mr. Smith said that was correct and added that the roofing will be similar to what is on the historic building.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the elevation of the addition matches the floor height of the existing building. Mr. Smith said that the elevation of the existing building at Fourth West would be carried through the new additions. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the dock platform. Mr. Smith said that the dock platform will be expanded. Mr. Smith pointed out that the dock would be lower than the existing windows. Mr. Parvaz talked about the fact that water would go between the main building and the proposed additions and the need for expansion joints. Mr. Smith said that they had the same concern and it would be resolved. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns about the setbacks of the other proposed buildings and that the depot building would not have the prominent significance on the street. The discussion continued regarding the scale of the project.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired about the height of the B-1 and B-2 buildings. Mr. Smith said they would be about forty to fifty feet, and stepped down to thirty feet above the 400 West elevation. The heights of the proposed new buildings were referenced to the depot building. Mr. Simonsen talked about the existing masonry and the freezing and thawing process. Mr. Smith said that they were addressing that problem. Mr. Simonsen also expressed his concerns about the setbacks of the proposed buildings. Mr. Simonsen said that with the City's desire to have more access onto 400 West, he had a concern that the depot building would almost be lost between the new proposed buildings. Mr. Young said that he agreed and they have been stepped down. Mr. Young added that this Commission could not do anything with the footprint because it has already been approved. However, he said that the massing would make a big difference.
• Mr. Paterson said that the Gateway rezoning requires the proposed buildings to come out to the property lines. He said that there is some provision in the ordinance for minor setbacks of a portion or certain percentage of the building. Mr. Paterson said that the Planning Commission also showed concern about how the new proposed buildings would transition into the depot building. Mr. Thimm said that the developers have been very sensitive to the height of the proposed buildings in relation to the depot.
• Mr. Littig inquired if the location of Building B-1 and B-2 had been finalized. Mr. Paterson again said that the entire site plan had already been granted an approval by the Planning Commission through the planned development process, and added that there would still some architectural features that would be reviewed. There was some further discussion regarding some of the designs of Building B-1 and Building B-2. Mr. Littig also discussed the height of the proposed new additions by saying that at certain times of the day during the summer, shadows due to the additions will fall across the historic stained glass windows on the west elevation, which would block the sun from shining through the stained glass. He asked if the applicants had considered lowering the roof of the proposed additions or doing something so those windows so they would continue to be exposed to light. There was some further discussion on this matter. Mr. Smith said that he was interested in working with the Commission to further the design of the additions. Mr. Young added that some of the computer-aided drafting programs could automatically create a shadow pattern on the renderings of the drawings. Mr. Littig said that they were wonderful windows and there are only about four examples of similar types of windows in Utah.
• Ms. Rowland asked if they knew how long the existing roof has been on the depot building. Mr. Smith said that they did not know. Mr. Smith said that the roof form was modified but there was still 50-year-old steel in the third floor attics and wings. He referred to the series of historic photographs. Mr. Smith said that the roof has gone through an evolution throughout the life of the building.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich further discussed the design of the additions. She added that the colored rendering was misleading, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich talked about reducing the roof forms, how the proportions would change, and the volume of the proposed additions. Mr. Smith said that changes would be made as they further study the concerns Mr. Littig expressed regarding the sun on the stained glass windows. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested detaching the additions from the depot building. Mr. Smith said that the two buildings needed to be able to "communicate". He further said that suggestion might be possible when the drainage system is addressed.
• Mr. Young said that he had a question about the glazing and the grid pattern of the proposed windows. He expressed his concern about the shadow profiles. He said that the storefront window system should have more reveal to it. Mr. Smith said that he believed that there was more reveal to the windows than what was shown on the drawings. Mr. Wilson said that he agreed with Mr. Young. He said that the drawings did not seem to be consistent with what would have been done 100 years ago. Mr. Wilson said "that it felt a little slick, and that the facade needed more texture than what was shown on the renderings".
• Mr. Knight asked a question about the "Union Pacific" signage on the front and west elevations. Mr. Smith said the signage would remain intact.
Mr. Smith said that they would be using the Department of Interior's guidelines and standards when decisions are formulated as to the windows, materials, etc., so the project would be eligible for tax credits. Mr. Smith said that there was an architect for the renovation of the project and an architect and for the addition, so they would be aware of the historic integrity.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith said that he hoped the Commission would approve the concept of the additions and then "let us work with the Architectural Subcommittee and staff with fine-tuning some of the details, and proportions". He said that the applicants believed the first submittal was very "gaudy" and that the revised drawings responded to that statement.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
+ Mr. Randall Dixon, a concerned citizen who resides at 726 Wall Street, stated he believed the present roof of the depot was put on in the late 1970's and the roof balustrade was removed. He inquired if the balustrade still existed and could be reinstalled, or reproduced. Mr. Dixon said that the balustrade was a significant feature of the building. Mr. Smith said that through the applicant's search of the building, the balustrade has not been found.
+ Mr. Carlos Setterberg, who resides at 201 East Third Avenue, said that he was an architectural student at the University of Utah. He stated that the Gateway project had been discussed in his classes, and the reuse of the depot building is very important to the community. He expressed his concern about the elevations and height of the proposed new additions. Mr. Setterberg pointed out that he liked the idea that the developers would keep the additions "light" so the new construction would not take away the "historical significance" and "majesty" of the depot building. He said that he would like to see a rendering of the height comparison of the adjacent buildings to the depot building.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the restoration of the Union Pacific Depot building, the construction of the additions on the west elevation, and the footprint of the other buildings.
Ms. Mitchell moved that Case No. 022-99 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the staff findings and analysis that the applicant has met the requirements of the Ordinance for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site and a contributing structure and that the Architectural Subcommittee continue to review the proposal and work with the applicant to refine the actual materials, massing, roof line and restoration of the stain glass windows. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon.
After a short discussion, Ms. Mitchell amended the motion. Final motion: Ms. Mitchell moved that Case No. 022-99 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the staff findings and analysis that the applicant has met the requirements of the Ordinance for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site and a contributing structure; that the Architectural Subcommittee continue to review the proposal and work with the applicant to refine the actual materials, massing, roof line, and restoration of the stained glass windows; and that the final revisions will be reviewed and final approval given by the full Commission. The second still stood by Mr.Gordon. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen, voted "Aye". Mr. Wilson abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing by the Salt Lake City Parks Division. represented by Landmark Design Inc., of the Memory Grove Reconstruction Concept Plan, located at the north end of Canyon Road in City Creek Canyon. The park is a Salt Lake City landmark site.
Mr. Knight said that the Department of Public Services, the Parks Division, and Landmark Design Inc. will present a concept plan that was initiated in response to the tornado that came through Memory Grove and downtown Salt Lake City last August. He said that Memory Grove is a City landmark site and parts of the park is in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Historic Districts. Mr. Knight said that since he has been a member of the steering committee, he has had the opportunity of being very close to the project. Mr. Knight said that the history of the Grove was outlined fairly extensively in the site form and also in the brochure by the Memory Grove foundation, a copy of which was included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight said that after the tornado, the City assembled a steering committee which was made up of City staff, representatives of the Memory Grove Foundation and neighbors, community councils, landscape design professionals, horticulture professionals from the City and outside the City, and veterans groups. He said that the steering committee had been working over the past three or four months with the concept plan. Mr. Knight said that the vision statement within the concept plan reads: "Preserving the Past; Creating Opportunities for Future Generations."
Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, Ms. Jan Striefel, and Mr. Mark Vlasic from Landmark Design, Inc.
Mr. Graham said that after the tornado, there came a great abundance of public support and interest in the park. He said that the City lost over 468 trees in the park alone and it became very obvious to us that we needed to do something quickly to capture the interest that the public was expressing for this and to get the park back. Mr. Graham said that the park looks much different now than it did on the morning of August 11, 1999. He said that the City has worked very quickly in the last three months to put this concept study together and hired Landmark Design, Inc. to be the City's consultant.
Mr. Graham said that the City has been very fortunate to have received a few hundred thousand dollars that has been donated for this renovation project, mostly from private individuals and groups. He stated that the Memory Grove Foundation is an organization that has been heavily involved with the funding and design of the project.
Mr. Graham said that he realized that the project would be completed in phases and as funding becomes available. He said that the Parks Division would like to commence either late Spring or early Summer of 2000.
Mr. Vlasic stated that the agenda called the project a "master plan", and it was important that everyone understood that the plan is only a "concept plan" which would act as a framework so that the detailed design can be carried out. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the concept plan.
Mr. Vlasic said that because of the nature of the park the focus has been on individual components of the park or what is called "park rooms" or "sub areas". Figure 1 drawing shows the way the park is broken up. He explained that the sub areas include: 1) Canyon Road residential area; 2) formal park area; 3) formal park hillsides; 4) freedom trail area; 5) freedom trail extension area; 6) natural hillsides, 7) passages and perimeters; and 8) the transition areas. He "walked" the Commission and staff through the concept plan, as he pointed to the sub-areas on the drawings. More details of the concept plan were included in the Memory Grove Concept Plan, which accompanied the staff report, and were filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Vlasic described the project in the following manner:
1. CANYON ROAD RESIDENTIAL AREA: Canyon Road and the surrounding residential neighborhood share an important relationship with the park. The scale of the streets, the range of homes and architecture, the tree-lined streets and nearby location of City Creek Park and Canyon road parkway combine to create an elegant and dynamic entrance to Memory Grove. Park and parkway lighting levels are overly bright and harsh. Minor adjustments will enhance the neighborhood and help it merge with the park. The short-term improvements would be to reduce the levels and modify the color of existing park and parkway light sources to create an aesthetic and safe nighttime ambiance.
2. FORMAL PARK AREA: This is the most complex and easily identifiable portion of the park. The most damage by the tornado occurred in the formal park area. The path of the tornado went through this area. Almost all the trees were taken down or damaged. He said that various stages of disrepair was not all caused by the tornado, which were included in the concept plan. He addressed the six main goals of the formal park area, 1) re-establish a sense of consistency and excellence; 2) rehabilitate damage caused by the tornado, including establishment of new trees; 3) integrate memorials with the path system and planting approach; 4) locate areas for future memorials; 5) connect the hillsides with the park floor, and 6) protect the edges, formalize access points, and minimize hillside erosion.
Mr. Vlasic addressed the short-term and the long-term improvements to the areas of the park:
a) Pond Area: This area should appear well managed, even manicured, in places.
The short-term improvements are: 1) replant trees and shrubs damaged by the tornado, utilizing historic precedents as a design point of departure; 2) repair and replace damaged paths and sidewalks; 3) plant and repair eroded and denuded areas; 4) implement a "smart" irrigation system for lawn areas. Investigate utilization of City Creek water as a secondary water source and the u se of drought tolerant plants; 5) provide additional places for people to sit, rest and contemplate; 6) remove picnic tables and replace with an elegant system of sofas and tables. Integrate site furnishings and lighting within a comprehensive framework; 7) plant Canyon Road with a formal tree row as originally designed; and 8) integrate way-finding and signage into the overall design of the park. Use the signs and way-finding system to describe the various
b) Gold Star Hill Area: The Gold Star Hill was the beginning of the Memory Grove.
The majority of the evergreen trees were planted by mothers representing their sons who had fallen as soldiers. It will be desired to respect the history of this area when making future improvements. The short-term improvements include linking Gold Star Hill with the pond area through a formal tree row along Canyon Road.
c) Memorials and Monuments Area: A primary goal is to restore the dignity of the park and its monuments. The short-term improvements: 1) renovate all memorials to their original condition; 2) link the various monuments with a consistent and integrated path system; 3) remove the Vietnam APC (all personnel carrier), German cannon, and French boxcar memorials. Replace the boxcar with a memorial plaza and reserve the cannon and APC sites for future memorials; and 4) redesign the west edge of Canyon Road between Memorial House and Gold Star Hill to accommodate future memorials.
The long-term improvements would be to integrate interpretive elements along the memorial path system that describe the history of the park and the significance of the monuments.
d) East and West Hillclimbs: The hillclimbs are important access points and memorial features. The short-term improvements: 1) renovate the east and west hillclimbs to their original condition; 2) Utilize "wise water" ideas in the renovation schemes. Rainwater catchment, drought-tolerant plants, and terracing techniques could be appropriate; 3) the west hillclimb should be more open and formal, similar to the original design intent. The renovation should provide a strong link with the State Capitol grounds. It should be well maintained, open and formal in appearance; and 4) the east hillclimb should be relatively informal in appearance, nestled within the tree-covered slopes. The long term improvements: 1) link the renovated hillclimbs with secondary paths that meet ADA requirements. The secondary path on the east hill side should I ink the small park on "A" Street and Sixth Avenue. The west hillside path should formalize the existing deer paths on Gold Star Hill; and 2) develop hillside terraces and demonstration gardens along the secondary path system. This will help reduce hillside erosion and further activate the site.
3. FORMAL PARK HILLSIDES: The natural appearance of the hillsides around the formal park area is deceiving. The form of some slopes was heavily modified when the Utah State Capitol site was leveled prior to its construction. Nearly all of the slopes were planted according to formal beaux-art design motifs. Both the east and west hillclimbs are in poor condition; neither meet ADA (The Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. Celebrity Grove on the west hillside was nearly wiped out by the tornado. The upper edges of the park are poorly controlled; the relatively free-form access on informal pathways pr9omote erosion, which is endemic. Hillsides are in generally poor condition, especially in comparison to the original designs. The "toe" of most hillsides have sloughed forward substantially over the years, impacting the memorials and pond area in particular.
The short-term improvements: 1) stabilize erosion and abate further degradation of the hillsides, regrade excessively steep slopes, utilizing slope-stabilizing terraces, walls and plant materials, as warranted; 2) remove old trees and stumps damaged by the tornado. If not removed, these will regenerate and sucker, eventually obscuring the hillside with shrub-like tree forms; 3) re-establish trees and other vegetation according to a design based on historical precedence, but modified to meet contemporary needs and desires; 4) restore the hillclimbs to a high quality status. The west hillside should be more open and formal than the east hillside, similar to the adjacent hillclimb design idea; 5) utilize "wise water" ideas for planting the hillsides. Rainwater catchment, terracing and drought-tolerant planting tecl1niques could be particularly appropriate.
The long term improvements would be the upper edges of both hillsides should be "hardened" to discourage the formation of informal pathways and associated erosion problems. This can be achieved through the use of barrier plant materials, walls and fences, for example.
4. FREEDOM TRAIL AREA: The Freedom Trail was developed several years ago as an interpretive trail. Tracing the eastern edge of City Creek, the trail is interspersed with six memorial "plazas" constructed with the input of local high school students. Geologic interpretive features were designed for the area, but never implemented. The trail is a soft and undulating feature, the unpaved surface routed around trees lining the stream. The trail is used primarily for strolling, running and walking dogs, and includes a few sitting areas, and informal picnic site and the remnant foundation of an old mill. The tall trees that line creek punctuate the general ambiance of the trail. The creek side vegetation is dominated by "native' riparian tree species and intermittent pioneer and exotic species.
The short-term improvements, with the exception of cleanup and minor renovation, Freedom Trail requires few improvements. The trail surface should be adequately maintained to retain a smooth and even surface.
The long-term improvements: 1) introduce "wise water use" ideas focusing on the utilization of City Creek as a secondary irrigation resource. This could make reference to pioneer-era precedents such as water chutes or the re-establishment of a working water wheel at the abandoned mill; 2) introduce "wise water use" ideas focusing on the use of drought tolerant vegetation and native plant species appropriate for the creek side ecosystem; 3) fully implement the geologic interpretive features as planned. Coordinate with other educational ideas and signage to create a harmonious and unified interpretive system; 4) consider implementation of an "outdoor classroom" focusing on the lower City Creek ecosystem; and 5) provide additional seating and picnic opportunities along the trail. Coordinate sitting and design with future interpretive features.
5. FREEDOM TRAIL EXTENSION AREA: This formal, single-track trail was developed through spontaneous actions of local "volunteers, acting without official approval or design input. The trail is only partially-connected and in poor condition, which is partially due to the narrow and steep edge conditions along the creek. Salt Lake City has been reluctant to formalize the trail due to the associated safety and liability issues. Despite obvious shortcomings, the trial provide a low-key, personal and close-up perspective of the City Creek environment, and an opportunity to link Freedom Trail with the detention pond at the north terminus of the park.
The short-term improvements include upgrading and modifying the existing trail to make it fully-connected, safe and functional. He talked about the long-term improvements which were included in the concept plan.
The long-term improvements: 1) extend the trail northward, linking it with the detention pond at the northern terminus of the park; and 2) extend the interpretive focus of Freedom Trail, focusing on the ecology of City Creek.
6. NATURAL HILLSIDES: These steep hillsides are a combination of natural and
man-made slopes that become progressively narrow and steep from south to north. The slopes are denuded of vegetation and eroding in places. The covered slopes are dominated by mixed perennial grass layers, and lack the range and breadth of "scrub" clumps found further up City Creek Canyon. The steep slopes screen Bonneville Boulevard from the canyon bottoms, enhancing the "reclusive" and private feeling near the stream bottom. Actions are required to link the hillsides with the more "natural" City Creek Canyon environment to the north.
The short-term improvements are to stabilize erosion and abate further slope degradation. Re-grade excessively steep slopes as necessary and re-seed exposed slopes with appropriate grass species to combat erosion. The long -term improvements were included in the concept plan.
The long-term improvements are to diversity the vegetation cover on the slopes, increasing the number and range of scrub clumps. Utilize drought-tolerant "native" species and planting techniques that minimize the need for irrigation. Maximize
• "wise water" ideas such as rainwater catchment on the slopes.
7. PASSAGES AND PERIMETERS: The roads and trails that lead users to and through Memory Grove roads are critical elements of the park. The overall intent is to improve and enhance access within park spaces, and between memory Grove and the nearby neighborhoods, urban development, natural canyon environment, and Capitol Hill.
a) Canyon Road Trail: The short-term improvements are that Canyon Road Trail requires few, if any, changes. The roadway surface should continue to be adequately maintained to keep the smooth and even surface.
b) Bonneville Boulevard: The short-term improvements: 1) improve roadway signage to clarify the one-way nature of the street; 2) improve trail signage to reinforce the use of the inner lane as a trail. Clearly demarcate links with other trails and park facilities along the route; 3) further delineate the trail from the adjacent roadway. Various alternatives considered, such as elevating the trail surface, placing barrier curbs between the road and trail, providing additional striping and scoring, and placing bollards between the trail and the road; and 4) link the trail with the Memory Grove-City Creek Crossing and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Trailhead. Implement crossing zones across the road.
The Long-term improvements is to enhance the landscape treatment along the inner edge of the trail adjacent to Memory Grove. Utilize appropriate plant materials and planting schemes that visually merge the trail with the park environment and minimize the need for irrigation.
c) East Capitol Street: The short-term improvements is pedestrian crossing zones should be formalized between Memory Grove with the State Capitol grounds.
The long-term improvements: 1) implement "traffic calming" techniques to enhance the pedestrian linkages between Memory Grove, the State Capitol grounds, and other nearby pedestrian nodes. The preferred method would narrow the driving surface of the roadway and widen the eastern edge along the roadway. This will provide additional space to implement a more generous entrance zone into the park; and 2) the widened eastern edge provides space to extend Bonneville Boulevard Trail southward to the Fourth Avenue hillclimb. Other physical improvements in this area should include an enlarged entrance viewing plaza into Memory Grove, vertical elements to mark access into the park, and improved location signs.
d) Memory Grove Neighborhood Park: The short-term improvements: 10 a trail should be provided that links the park with the Freedom Trail system on the bottom of Memory Grove. The preferred location for the trail is south of the park;
2) the trail connection should utilize switchbacks and/or terraces to provide a smooth and safe transition to the canyon bottom. The trail should meet ADA design requirement, if possible; 3) the design of the trail should be subdued, downplaying its visual presence; and 4) implement "wise water use" ideas, focusing on the use of drought-tolerant vegetation and rainwater catchment techniques, if possible. Reliance on irrigation systems should be minimal.
The long-term improvements are to enhance the hillside trail connection as an interpretive "outdoor classroom" focusing on the unique hillside environment.
8. TRANSITION AREAS: Memory Grove consists of a variety of distinct spaces and places. One of the main goals is to provide graceful and element transitions from each characteristic space to another. The desire is to create a smooth spatial sequence from urban to natural.
(a) Transition Area A. Canyon road Neighborhood to formal park: The southern entrance from Canyon Road is elegant and formal, utilizing a monumental gate to control access into the park. Except for special events, Memory Grove Gate excludes vehicles from entering the park, yet allows pedestrian visitors and cyclists to enhance the pedestrian/cyclist entrance experience.
Long term improvements: 1) modify the pedestrian and cyclist entrance zones to improve access in and out of the park; 2) develop pedestrian "mini-plazas" on both sides of the road just inside the park; and 3) fully integrate the sidewalks
on both sides of Canyon Road with the park path system.
(b) Transition Area B. Formal park to natural park: The transition between the formal park and Freedom Trail Area is abrupt. Measures which "feather" the changes from formal to natural should be implemented.
The short-term improvements: 1) introduce "natural" vegetation and planting design concepts along the northern edge of the formal park; and 2) incorporate "wise water use" ideas that focus on the utilization of City Creek as a secondary irrigation resource. This could make reference to pioneer-era precedents such as water chutes, irrigation channels and water wheels.
The long-term improvements are to introduce formal elements into the natural park area. This could include interpretive features, architectural elements, furnishings and special lighting features, for example.
(c) Transition Area C. Memory Grove to City Creek Canyon: Transitions between Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon are too abrupt. Measures should be implemented to merge the two areas and improve connections with Bonneville Shoreline Trail and City Creek Canyon. The short-term improvements are to designate a safe crossing point between Canyon Road, City Creek Canyon, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail Trailhead.
The long-term improvements are to redesign the merge zone between Canyon Road, City Creek Canyon, and Bonneville Shoreline Trail Trailhead, utilizing an appropriate "native" planting approach and unified system of pedestrian-oriented signage.
(d) The detention pond: The detention pond at the northern terminus serves an important water control function. This "dead end" feature is a potentially positive landscape resource and a desirable place. The pond area could be modified to serve a meaningful recreation purpose.
The short-term improvements: 1) incorporate park elements such as picnic sites, tables and benches above high water zone; and 2) implement "wise water use" ideas along the edge of the pond, focusing on the use of drought-tolerant vegetation and appropriate native plant species.
The long-term improvements: 1) incorporate interpretive features near the pond focusing on themes such as a water, water detention and the power of floods.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by asking if there were any plans to improve the meditation chapel for public use. Mr. Vlasic said that the plans did not address the meditation chapel, explicitly, but was included in the improvements to all the memorials. He added that it was not recommended to deviate from the original use of the meditation chapel. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich also said that the Figure 8 drawing indicates that East Capitol Street from the White Chapel to south of the park would be included in the scope of the plans but was not mentioned either in the short-term or long-term improvements. Mr. Vlasic said that portion of East Capitol Street was not included in the plans. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich mentioned that there were many walkers and joggers using the area and that there was no lighting that would create a safer atmosphere. She also said that the concrete on the stairway was crumbling and the landscaping needed to be maintained on the west hillside going up to East Capitol Street. Mr. Graham said that Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich raised a good point and that the east side of East Capitol Street has been discussed where the drop off is into the park. He said that it would take a combination of several City agencies to accomplish any improvements.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich further inquired if the salt pile located along Bonneville Boulevard could be moved anywhere else. Mr. Graham said there was a possibility of moving the salt pile but the efficiency in which the streets in the Avenues and in Capitol Hill would be reduced by the trucks having to go a longer distance to access the salt. Mr. Graham added that Public Services was considering building a structure in which the salt would be housed. He added that staff was trying to handle both issues for an easier solution
• Ms. Mitchell said that one of the "charms" of the park was an eclectic mix of elements. She encouraged that the planned improvements not become too "heavy handed" or "over planed" so the park would lose its charm through a "framework" imposed on the park. Ms. Mitchell noted that all disrepair throughout the park was not caused by the tornado. She added that she was impressed with the overall plans.
• Mr. Littig inquired about another man-made pathway up to Eleventh Avenue. He said that he would like to see the "dog-off leash" area extended to Eleventh Avenue. Mr. Littig said that he would also like to see the continuation of the trail to make it usable, but still keep the natural environment. He also referred to the protection of the neighbors living close to the park, especially close to the proposed amphitheater or collecting place. Mr. Littig said that he agreed with the idea of removing the military armament from the park. He further said that he was also concerned about the salt pile and even housing it in a structure. Mr. Littig expressed his concerns about protecting the environment from the salt. He talked further about the loss of the trees throughout the park and the proposed replacements and other plantings.
• Ms. Rowland suggested restricting motor vehicles from the park and make it a recreational asset. She talked about the drivers going too fast for the pedestrians that use the park and up City Creek Canyon.
• Ms. Giraud inquired further about the removal of the boxcar, cannon, and tank from the park. She said that they had a symbolic association with the park as war memorials. Mr. Vlasic said that the request came from Veterans groups. He added that the groups believed that elements that were incidents of war should not be memorialized any longer. Mr. Knight said that it was ironic that Veterans groups requested those elements to be removed because it was Veterans groups who initially placed the memorials in the park. Mr. Young suggested that the Commission was partly responsible for the preservation of the artifacts and should be represented in this fashion even though popular taste has changed.
• Mr. Parvaz pointed out that there were no additional parking areas within the area of the park. He inquired about the grading and the proposed vegetation and if the appearance would change in the park. Mr. Vlasic said that the first step was to stabilize the terrain. He added that it may include some regrading to get a better flow. Mr. Vlasic said that the long-term was to plant grasses and clumps of natural vegetation, such as scrub oak, which would feather the transition from the park up to City Creek Canyon. Mr. Parvaz also inquired about the wild animals that frequent the park. Mr. Vlasic said that natural habitat provide areas in which the animals can hide on the hillside areas and the creek bed. He indicated that developing the pathways and trails should not damage the natural habitat, but further studies would be made.
Mr. Young opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 Wall Street, encouraged that a walkway be constructed on the east side edge of East Capitol Street south of the chapel. He also expressed his concerns about the historic site on the Freedom Trail area was not part of the discussion. Mr. Dixon said that the old mill foundation and the foundation to the miller's house which was not visible any more. He said that elements needed some further study. He talked about the "trash" trees that seemed to take over the weaker species throughout the park. Mr. Dixon also inquired about the proposed plan for the Perception Garden. Mr. Vlasic agreed that the area needs some improvements.
Mr. Alan Walker, who resides at 238 No. Canyon Road, stated that he was in agreement that the lighting needed to be adjusted in City Creek Park and on Canyon Road. He said that he was a Vietnam veteran and "no one has an endearing feeling who had ever sat in one of those aluminum coffins and bounced around in it". Mr. Walker strongly believed that that tank and the other implements of war needed to be removed from the park. Mr. Walker said that other memorials in the United States that include cannons were usually brass cannons from the Civil War. He further talked about the almost impossibility of making the steep hillsides ADA accessible.
As there were no other comments, Mr. Young thanked all those involved presenting the Memory Grove Concept Plan.
Briefing by Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency regarding the possible redevelopment of the former Safeway/Movie Buffs site at the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West, and the adjacent properties on the west side of Arctic Court. The properties are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Giraud said that the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) has acquired several properties in the Capitol Hill Historic District with plans for the development of a commercial center and possibly new housing on the site at 500 North and 300 West. She said that Mr. Walz, Project Manager with the RDA, has approached the Planning Division staff with the request to apply for a demolition application for several buildings. Ms. Giraud added that new plans have not been presented, and the RDA will not be the developer, as the site will be available for private-sector developers to bid on at a later date. She indicated that there are some contributing historic structures, as well as noncontributing structures on the site. Ms. Giraud said that is the discussion, it became clear that everyone would be better served if Mr. Walz made a presentation to the Historic Landmark Commission. She pointed out that there are no site surveys on some of the properties and perhaps the staff could formulate the historical information, whether or not the properties would have a contributing or non-contributing status. After being asked, Ms. Giraud said that the properties without site surveys are 548 and 554 South 300 West. She said that when staff completes the site surveys, the Historic Landmark Commission can make the final decision whether the properties would maintain its contributing or non-contributing status. Ms. Giraud said that a consultant would have to be hired to update the site surveys on all the subject properties.
Ms. Giraud said that the process is much different for a demolition request on a contributing or a non-contributing building. She said that if the building is contributing, then the applicant would have to go through a long and complicated process. She added that if the building is non-contributing, all that is required is that staff sends a notification to the Commission and surrounding property owners.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Danny Walz who stated that the Redevelopment Agency is a "tool" for the City and not an official City department. He said that the agency is a "sister" agency and the "active arm" of the City. Mr. Walz said that various City departments set the long-term development goals for the City through master plans and zoning ordinances, and the RDA actually uses collected funds to buy property, make loans, and/or and provide tax rebates to accomplish those long-term development goals.
Mr. Walz said he recognized that there are complicated issues involved with developing the subject site. He commented that the RDA wants to develop the commercial center because there are no other services in the community. Mr. Walz explained how the land was assembled and controlled for a potential developer. He stated that the RDA does not necessarily know what would be built on the site as the end use. Mr. Walz indicated that when the property is marketed to developers, typically a site plan and design guidelines is included to help guide the developers to what the City wanted for the site. He pointed out that demolition needs to take place before the property can be offered to potential developers. Mr. Walz said, " this will be a difficult site to get a developer willing to take the risk and, not only build what we want to build, but build it how we want it to be built. Because it is an historic district, there is going to be a lot of concern of the elevations and the design and what it is going to look like, not to mention the uses that are going to be put on the property. We feel that with the demolition of all the properties it will make it a lot easier to get hose other items that we feel are just as important as saving the structures." Mr. Walz said that the RDA would encourage residential on the west side of Arctic Court to be included in the package, which would be a mixed use where commercial would be on the ground floor and residential above.
Mr. Walz said he agreed with Ms. Giraud that some of the properties might be found to be contributing and some could be saved and be reused. Mr. Walz indicated that this is the only site in the west Capitol Hill area that could be used for a commercial center, which is encouraged in the master plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Walz said that RDA has a letter from one of the building owners requesting that the owner's house be demolished.
Mr. Walz said that the RDA first explored the idea for a commercial center with the community and the community council voted for the demolition of all structures.
Mr. Walz said that any new development would have to be reviewed by the RDA board, the Historic Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission, and after all those steps, it would go back to the Board of Directors, which is the City Council, for final approval before the land is even sold to the developer. Mr. Walz requested approval for demolition of the properties, subject to the final approval of the reuse plan. He pointed out that if a development falls through, the City has not jeopardized the property by taking down any structures that might be reused in the future. Mr. Walz said that if there is no market for developers, the RDA could rethink its approach to the property and then consider saving some of the structures.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by asking if the RDA would sell the right-of-way that existed on Arctic Court. Mr. Walz said that Arctic Court would be widened and the developers would be required to approve that roadway and make it become a street. However, Mr. Walz said that the developer would not own the street called Arctic Court. Mr. Littig said that it seemed to him that the City could "collectively" find some other place to for three of the buildings on the block. Mr. Walz said that would most like require more acquisition. Mr. Littig talked further about this possibility because he said that he was not an advocate for demolition.
• Ms. Rowland said the buildings on 500 North would be the most appropriate for reuse. She said that she was not entirely opposed to demolition, but the process, as Mr. Walz explained, the developer would not be given an opportunity to incorporate some of the contributing structures into the commercial center. Ms. Rowland said that she believed the developer would approach the development with a much finer profile and more appropriate scale for the neighborhood, than land that has been cleared of any buildings, which might suggest that the developer could build a "great big box" inappropriate for the site. Mr. Walz said that RDA would be able to control the design of the buildings. He said that there was a possibility that a developer would want to reuse some of the buildings. Mr. Walz said that by tightening the requirements too much, the response would be limited. He added that if the City makes the situation too difficult for developers, no one would be interested in submitting a proposal. The discussion continued regarding the criteria for marketing the subject properties.
• Mr. Gordon asked why Arctic Court would be widened. Mr. Walz said that there were two homes that front Arctic Court on the east side and also for an access into the elderly residential housing unit. He said that a residential neighborhood could be developed in Arctic Court. Mr. Gordon said that there could be a plan developed that would include the contributing buildings. Mr. Walz said that by keeping the contributing structures, the design of the complex would be affected and the structures on Arctic Court affects the depth of the land on which could be built because of the grade change. He also said that there is an artisan well on the site. There was some discussion with how the property could be marketed without removing the contributing structures.
• Ms. Mitchell inquired about the projection on the traffic flow. Mr. Walz said that the traffic studies show that the projected traffic flow on 300 West will stay about the same or slightly increase, and not decrease. She added that by removing some of the structures, she was concerned that 500 North would be the predominant entryway instead of 300 West.
• Mr. Wilson expressed his concerns that the development might be more of a "piece meal" or "Hodge podge" by keeping the contributing structures. Ms. Rowland said that is the "charm" of the neighborhood by having a mix of old structures with the new. Ms. Rowland also said that she would not want to see the same design scheme of a new development in Capitol Hill like one can see in the suburbs.
Mr. Walz said that RDA is not an advocate for demolition either. He said that by losing the subject structures, it would be a "trade-off' providing services to the community that is not currently available. Mr. Walz said that keeping the contributing building, would affect the design of the center.
Mr. Young opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Scott Christensen, who resides at 594 No. Center Street, stated that he had serious concerns with the desire to demolish the structures before any specific reuse plans were in place. He said that the neighbors were pleased that there is an effort to do something with the corner. Mr. Christensen said that at the Capitol Hill Community Council meeting where there was a vote taken, the agenda was changed and he did not have the opportunity to express his desires to keep the contributing structures. He pointed out the importance of the building at the entrance to Arctic Court, at 244 West 500 North, the combination of the house and store. He said that were very few combination buildings of house and store left in Salt Lake City. Mr. Christensen said that make it architecturally interesting for adaptive reuse. He gave some examples of building being demolished without a reuse site plan in place, such as the coliseum at the State Fair Park. Mr. Christensen talked about compromises being made with some of the structures, but did not agree with the "wholesale clearing of the land" for a developer who has yet been identified and believed it would be a mistake for the neighborhood and the City to demolish all the structures.
• Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 Wall Street, stated that he was on the committee who drafted the master plan. He said that he believed the proposed commercial center was encouraged by City staff as an important planning feature for the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon said that he did not think there was much support from the neighborhood to have "something" there. He expressed his concerns about getting something "good" on the site. However, he said that the "safety net" would be present because of the Capitol Hill Historic District to preserve contributing structures and not just economic incentives for new development. He also expressed his concerns at the possible widening of Arctic Court, because he said that he understood access into the commercial node would be from 300 West and that 500 North would be preserved as residential and not become an extension of 300 West.
Ms. Giraud clarified policies in the Capitol Hill Master Plan by quoting the following: "Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within a new commercial development"; and "Prohibiting access to the commercial use within 150 feet of Arctic Court." Mr. Dixon encouraged the City to re-market the contributing properties for residential use as some other structures had been in the neighborhood. In closing, Mr. Dixon said that the corner is an "eyesore" and would like to see something developed there, however he would not want the new development to be more of an "eyesore". Mr. Dixon encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to make "strong" and "wise" decisions regarding the properties in question.
• Ms. Katherine Gardner, chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that it is necessary at times to modify the agenda for the meetings. She pointed out that the community council voted to demolish the historic structures. She said that the neighborhood would prefer to have smaller commercial, shopping, restaurant, and banking businesses, rather than a large retail store. Ms. Gardner noted that Mr. Walz has been working diligently with the community. She closed by saying that the neighborhood community was very anxious to see an improvement on the site. Ms. Gardner expressed her appreciation for the interest shown in the community.
In conclusion, Mr. Walz reminded those in the audience, staff, and Commission members that no structures would be demolished before the reuse plan goes through the process and approved. Mr. Young pointed out that it states in the zoning ordinances that the Historic Landmark Commission cannot approve any demolition without a submitted reuse plan.
As there were no other comments, Mr. Young thanked Mr. Walz for his presentation regarding the possible commercial node on the corner or 300 West and 500 North.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Gordon so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:10P.M.