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 David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Peter Ashdown and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. 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.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded to the approval of the minutes and the public hearing portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Heid moved to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2003 meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the November 24, 2003 meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Louis Zunguze to report to the Commission. Mr. Zunguze stated that he had always held the view that the boards and commissions were extensions of the implementation process of the City's policies and regulations. He added that boards and commissions were in a position to evaluate those policies and regulations as guiding factors in the decision making process. Mr. Zunguze said that he was a big proponent of annual reports, which provide an opportunity to gauge the volume of work that each board and commission handled in that particular year. He said that the annual report would also contain any issues that were appealed, any issues that were problematic, and trends that may require the creation of new policies.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he had asked Staff to begin the preparation of the annual report for the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that the content would be discussed with the Commission sometime in January 2004. Mr. Zunguze noted that the annual report is a valuable communication tool for boards, commissions, and the City Council. He said that the final report will be signed by the Chair and presented to the City Council. Mr. Zunguze added that this report was separate from the current Legislative Action.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Zunguze.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the date was set in January to review the draft of the annual report. Mr. Zunguze said that the agenda had not been set for the January meetings but this would be an item for consideration.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about the status of the Legislative Action with the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said it was very close for submittal. He said that Staff was reviewing the final draft making sure that everyone was comfortable with it. Mr. Zunguze stated that the intention was to submit it before the end of the year.
Since there were no additional questions or comments for the Planning Director, Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Zunguze for his comments and said that the Commission would look forward to the annual report. Mr. Simonsen proceeded to the public hearing portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 026-03. at Pioneer Park. located on the block bounded by 300 South. 400 South.
300 West. and 400 West Streets. by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services. Represented by Design Workshop. requesting approval of a conceptual “Final Use Plan" for Pioneer Park. The plan would be used as guidelines for future design of specific projects within the park. Pioneer Park is an individual landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Mr. Knight 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. Mr. Knight indicated that what the Historic Landmark Commission was being asked to review was a little different in that there were no concrete plans for exactly what was being proposed for the park.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: The City's Department of Public Services is requesting the Commission's approval of a Final Use Plan for the park prepared by Design Workshop, in concert with the City's Engineering Division. The plan envisions a conceptual design that addresses a list of objectives identified by a diverse stakeholder group. The plan would be used as the framework for design and construction of individual projects that would also be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Pioneer Park is an individual landmark site on the Salt Lake City and National Registers, and is zoned OS - Open Space District.
Mormon Pioneers established a fort at this location a week after their arrival in 1847. Within a month, there were 29 log houses within the fort's ten acres. Eventually the fort covered thirty acres enclosed by an adobe wall and included 450 log cabins. No physical evidence of the fort survives, although there are many written accounts of the layout of the fort in diaries and pioneer histories. Most accounts place a bell post at the center of the compound, near the fort's flagpole. The bell at the top of the post once was in the L.D.S. temple in Nauvoo, Illinois, and was carried across the plains by wagon. After the original pioneers moved out of the fort and into permanent homes in the city, the fort remained as a campground for new arrivals.
After 1890, the fort site was used as a playground and the site was formally designated as a city park on July 24, 1898. The park was part of a larger twenty-year plan to beautify areas throughout the city with new parks, boulevards, playgrounds and other formally designed recreation areas. This followed a national trend of civic beautification later dubbed the "City Beautiful" movement. The legacy of this plan remains, not only with parks such as Pioneer Park, but with the planted park strips along streets such as 600 East.
The neighborhoods surrounding the park became home to a wide range of ethnic groups brought by the railroad and mining industries, including Japanese, Syrian, Italian and Greek communities. Nearby buildings, including the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Japanese Church of Christ and Salt Lake Buddhist Temple, are surviving reminders of this period. Businesses and industries attracted by the proximity of the railroad began to settle in the area, and gradually pushed most residents out.
As the neighborhood transitioned into a predominately industrial area, Pioneer Park became less used and acquired a seedy reputation. Several proposals for other uses for the park were debated between 1948 and 1955. City officials considered redeveloping the park and neighboring property into a golf course or selling the park for private development. Historical groups such as the Sons and Daughters of Utah Pioneers opposed such proposals based on the fort's historic significance as a pioneer site. In 1955, the Sons of Utah Pioneers proposed a plan for the park, which included reconstruction of the fort's walls and cabins. Civic booster, Nicholas Morgan and architect Edward 0. Anderson proposed a similar plan, in 1971. The park was listed on the National Register in 1972 and became a city landmark site when an ordinance was passed in 1976.
The Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its significance as "an important part of early Mormon activity in the Great Basin. It was the home of the Mormon Pioneers until they began to move into their town lots in 1848 and 1849." (National Register Nomination, "Old Pioneer Fort Site," prepared by the Utah State Historical Society, 1972). The nomination also notes that the fort was the setting of a December 9, 1848 meeting to organize the provincial State of Deseret, the site of the first school held in the Salt Lake Valley, and the site of the first elections. Although this aspect of the park's significance is strong, the integrity of the park with regard to this aspect is not readily apparent. No visible evidence of the original fort remains on site. It is not known if there are archaeological resources remaining from this period. The consultants for the Final Use Plan include an archaeological survey of the park as part of their recommendations. This work could make valuable contributions to the understanding and interpretation of the site's pioneer past.
Pioneer Park is additionally significant as one of the city's early parks and for its association with the "City Beautiful" movement. Photographic evidence indicates that much of the landscape from this period remains, including many of the trees, the overall topography, and the formal arrangement of the walkways. Historic structures in the park, such as the old wading pool and the original bandstand have been removed, as have the original walkways and playground equipment. It is Staff's opinion that the primary, character-defining features of the park associated with this aspect of its significance are the trees, the flat topography, and the formal arrangement of the walkways.
Pioneer Park has remained a problematic area for the city, and various plans for the park have been proposed in the last decade, including a proposal for a new baseball stadium on the site and changing the park's name to "Pioneer Square" to allow nearby restaurants to serve liquor. Other improvement projects for the park have been completed, such as new restrooms, a small stage, and an area for the popular farmer's market. Funds for these upgrades, completed in 1996, came from the City's Redevelopment Agency. The Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee, a group of park lovers formed to recognize the historic significance of the park, spearheaded construction of flagpoles in the center of the park and have maintained the flags that fly in the park.
The park's central location, single ownership, and sheer size have made the park attractive for a wide range of alternative projects, from the golf course proposed in the 1950s to several recent proposals. These have included the proposed construction of the Living Planet Aquarium on the east half of the park (later relocated two blocks west) to the Olympic Commemorative Amphitheater. All of these proposals have generated much public discussion and spirited debate over the future of the park, but none have been formally submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission for review.
Finding a long-term use and solution to Pioneer Park's problems has been a goal of Mayor Anderson's administration. The Mayor secured a grant from the American Planning Association, in conjunction with the City Parks Forum, to fund a "Final Use Plan" for the Park. The City selected Design Workshop, a national planning and landscape architecture firm, to prepare the plan. The consultants assembled a group of 28 stakeholders from a broad spectrum of interests, including history, business and community groups, social service providers, and City staff. In a series of meetings, the stakeholders and consultant team ·first established a set of objectives for the park. These objectives included the following:
1. Design should support activity in park.
2. Interpret and display historic information in park, including entire development and evolution of park.
3. Allow expansion of farmers market in park.
4. Create a safe environment.
5. Preserve open spaces.
6. Create a park that can be maintained as a first rate park.
7. Provide active security.
8. Stimulate residential population.
9. Stimulate economic growth around park.
10.Create a balance between citywide park and homeless population.
11.Create a park that invites all users.
The consultant team and stakeholders then formulated and refined a plan for the park that addressed the broadest range of these objectives to the greatest extent possible. An extensive series of meetings with the public and focused stakeholder groups was also part of the process. There was additional information on the priorities and process from Design Workshop attached to the staff report. At the conclusion of the process, the stakeholders voted to endorse the first phase of the plan. No vote was taken on the proposed ice sheet and water screen.
Design Workshop provided the following description for the overall design concept outlined in the Final Use Plan: The park is organized around a central green, "the gathering place" that is encircled by a large promenade and active recreation uses. The central green functions as an open playing field or audience event space oriented towards a stage to the north. The promenade, which is a wide decomposed granite pathway, surrounds the park that also serves as the market path for the farmers market. Active recreation uses in the park include relocated basketball court, volleyball court(s), and bocce ball courts. The park is designed to be flexible as an event space with a main stage and several small spaces conducive to informal performances. This allows for the park to have different characters at different times of day, during the week, and during the four seasons.
The park's historical significance, dating back to pre-pioneer settlement until the present day, is emphasized by several elements including an historical walkway through the park and ground plane monuments that tell the many stories of community in this neighborhood. The park's east entry will be the historical gateway to the park making reference to the fort's entry point. Heritage gardens will contain the many plants brought to this valley by the pioneers and immigrant communities that have all shaped this region. Monuments on the corners of the park will represent the dimensions of the plat of Zion and represent the scale of the original fort. Historical interpretations will be located throughout the park offering opportunities for learning and discovery with each visit.
Several elements have been proposed that engender the sociability of the park on an everyday basis. "Outdoor rooms" on the four corners of the park are proposed that will act as front porches to the park and make the park more inviting to the community. A cafe and outdoor eating area will attract everyday visitors. Restrooms will serve both everyday users and event patrons. A tot lot, playground, and water play feature will invite families into the park. Benches, drinking fountains, and enhanced lighting are fundamental elements of all parks. A dog park is proposed to provide greater opportunities for current and future residents of downtown and increase everyday presence and community connections.
Proposed future phases of the park include the addition of elements to further diversify the activities and programming of the park. Phase II represents the addition of an Olympic size skating rink into the central gathering place. The skating rink would provide for winter recreation in the park. Phase Ill would introduce a unique water feature that forms a water screen onto which images are projected. The water screen will enliven the park in the evenings and provide a unique entertainment opportunity for the city. The water feature will be a ground plane water element when not in use.
Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Commission should use the standards contained in Section 21A.34.020(G)(1-12), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, of the City zoning ordinance in making its findings regarding the Final Use Plan. Some of the standards are not applicable in this case, because the property is not a building. However, most of the standards are applicable to the park landscape. The standards state the following:
In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Staff's discussion: A stated goal of the Final Use Plan is to retain Pioneer Park as an open and public green space, but to enliven the existing park and make it more inviting to a broad range of users. The historic purpose of the park will be maintained.
Staff's finding of fact: The Final Use Plan calls for Pioneer Park to remain in use as a park, and to remain as open space. The proposal meets this standard.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion: No surface features remain from the Pioneer Fort period. The primary character-defining features in Pioneer Park are the trees, landscaping, topography and formal layout. The existing trees were surveyed as to age, size, location, and health. Every effort was made to retain as many existing trees as possible, especially large, mature trees. The plan calls for the retention of 310 existing trees, removal of 10 trees, and planting of 115 new trees. A majority of the park will remain as planted green space. If the proposed second phase skating rink is installed at the center of the park, the rink would require an 84-foot by 200-foot flat paved area. In the summer, this area would function as a large plaza. Planters or other elements that could be removed in the winter could soften the potential effect of this loss of green space. This approach should be explored further in any future design work. The overall topography of the park would remain relatively flat, allowing for unobstructed views across the park, as has been the case historically. Variations of up to four feet are proposed on the central green to create better sightlines to the stage area, and in the dog park area. The new trees, arrangement of walks and overall layout maintains the formal, axial layout of the original park.
Staff's finding of fact: The historic character of the park, including the formal layout, green space, topography, and mature trees, will be maintained if the recommendations of the plan are implemented. The proposal meets this standard.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
Staff's discussion: The Final Use Plan does not call for reconstruction of any fort elements or undocumented park features. Pioneer Park's past will be acknowledged through a set of new elements, such as "history rooms," the "history walk" and new playground that will be designed to have information on all aspects of the park's history and the important events and people associated with the site and the surrounding area. A commemorative bell tower is also proposed as an element to tie the park back to its pioneer fort past. The tower would be similar to that approved by the commission in 2001.
If the City elects to attempt a reconstruction of the original fort or portions of the fort, extensive further historical and archaeological research should be conducted into the original appearance, location and design of the fort and elements such as the bell tower. Earlier proposals for reconstruction, such as those advocated by Nicholas Morgan in 1971, have relied extensively on conjectural design, and do not reflect research conducted since the 1970s. It would be more accurate and appropriate to base any new design on information that can be verified by historic or archaeological evidence, and leave conjectural details out of the design. Such an approach has been used on many recent reconstructions, including the Social Hall Museum in Salt Lake City, the Ben Franklin House in Philadelphia, and the Martin's Hundred Fort reconstruction in Williamsburg, Virginia.
New elements such as new buildings, the ice sheet, and equipment for the water screen have not been fully designed, but the intent of the plan is that these new features should be designed to be compatible with the character of the park, but would be clearly discernible as new construction.
Staff's finding of fact: The plan calls for acknowledging the park's history through the use of new elements, and does not call for any alterations which have no historical basis. The proposal meets this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staff's discussion: The plan calls for the removal of the existing restrooms, playground, tennis courts, and some existing walkways. None of these elements are significant, character-defining features, and most date from the 1996 work on the park.
Staff's finding of fact: No alterations or additions that have acquired significance in their own right will be removed. The proposal meets this standard.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Staff's discussion: Staff is not aware of any distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that would be removed as part of the work proposed by the Final Use Plan.
Staff's finding of fact: The overall character of the park as open green space with many mature trees will be maintained, and no distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the park will be removed. The proposal meets this standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
Staff's discussion: It is the goal of the Final Use Plan to retain the important features of the park, such as the open green space and mature trees. Trees and landscaping will be retained where feasible, and new trees will be selected to be compatible with the park's historic character. New walkways would be paved with decomposed granite, instead of concrete. This material is closer to the historic material used on the park's walkways, as seen in historic photographs.
As discussed previously, it is important that any reconstruction of fort elements be based on historic or archaeological evidence, and not on conjectural design.
Staff's finding of fact: Existing character-defining historic elements of the park will be retained and repaired where possible. Replacement features will be compatible with the historic character of the park. The proposal meets this standard.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Staff's finding of fact: This standard is not applicable in this case.
B. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Staff's discussion: Much of the detail regarding the design of new features and buildings in the park remains to be resolved, but staff is of the opinion that in concept, the proposed new buildings and features would be compatible with the scaled and character of the park. The ten acre size of the park allows the introduction of new elements such as basketball courts, a dog park, a playground, bocce courts and an ice rink without negatively impacting the overall sense of open, green space and tranquility in the park. The proposed water screen would be large when in operation, but it is Staff's understanding that the equipment associated with the screen would have a low profile and would be small in scale in relation to other elements in the park when not in use. Contemporary designs for new elements could be appropriate, as could more traditional designs.
The plan recommends an archaeological survey of the site to determine if archaeological remnants of the pioneer fort still exist. If the survey results show that there is remaining archaeological material, excavation of the areas impacted by new construction would mitigate any loss of archaeological material.
Staff's finding of fact: New park elements as proposed in the Final Use Plan do not appear to impact significant cultural, historical, or architectural material, and the basic form, location, and massing would be compatible with the size, scale, and character of the park. Additional detail must be supplied as the design for individual projects is developed, but the proposal meets this standard insofar as can be determined at this time.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: The proposed changes to the park as outlined in the Final Use Plan appear to be reversible. Conceptually, it is staff's opinion that the proposed new buildings, structures and features would not impair the essential historic integrity of the park. The size of the proposed new buildings would be commensurate with the previous bandstand in the park, and structures seen in other parks historically in Salt Lake City. Larger features such as the proposed ice sheet and water screen will have a low profile above grade, and would probably not significantly affect the open vistas and appearance of green space that is an important historic feature of the park. The compatibility of the new features in terms of architectural features, materials, and detail remains to be determined as the designs of these features develop.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed changes to the park as outlined in the Final Use Plan appear to be reversible. The general size, scale, location and massing of proposed new features is compatible with the character of the park. Additional detail must be supplied as the design for individual projects is developed, but the proposal meets this standard insofar as can be determined at this time.
10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and
b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials.
Staff's finding of fact: This standard is not applicable in this case.
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Staff's finding of fact: This standard is not applicable in this case.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and
City Council.
Staff's finding of fact: No applicable additional design standards have been adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council for Pioneer Park. This standard does not apply in this case. If the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council adopt the Final Use Plan, the Plan will serve as an additional set of design standards to be used in evaluating future projects in the park.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Overall, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed Final Use Plan addresses the wide ranging objectives identified by the stakeholders committee, without negatively impacting the historic integrity and character of the park. Many details remain to be resolved as individual projects go forward. Based upon the findings of fact in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the plan as proposed and adopt it as the basis for review of future projects in the park., with the following conditions:
1. The projects outlined in the Final Use Plan will return for approval by the Historic Landmark Commission. The conformance of the projects with the adopted Final Use Plan shall be considered in addition to the standards in the ordinance for review of the projects;
2. The design for the park will acknowledge the entire history of Pioneer Park and the surrounding neighborhood;
3. An archaeological survey of the park will be conducted to ascertain the extent of archaeological resources in the park, and that any impact on these resources is mitigated as construction proceeds. The survey and mitigation will conform to the standards established by the National Park Service; and
4. The text for historic, commemorative or interpretive elements and plaques will be reviewed by a historian for historical accuracy. The historian shall meet the professional qualifications established by the National Park Service in 36 CFR Part 61, Professional.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff pertaining to the staff report or Staff's findings of fact; any questions about the proposal should be directed to the applicant.
Mr. Simonsen said he did not find any discussion whether or not the findings of retaining and preserving the elements are of historical character. Mr. Knight said that the most striking features of the park are the trees. He added that historic photographs show that the sidewalks and courts are more contemporary.
Ms. Rowland asked if the archaeological survey would only be done in the areas to be excavated. Mr. Knight he did not know if the entire park would be surveyed as to where the archaeological resources were located, and then concentrate on any areas that would be disturbed.
Mr. Christensen said that he really appreciated the four points in the Staff’s recommendation. He inquired that if artifacts are found, would they be the property of the City. Mr. Knight said that he believed the State Archaeologist at the Division of State History would be involved because the City has little provisions in the ordinance for archaeological resources. He added that the City also does not have the expertise and the experience to deal with these issues.
Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the park would be closed during construction. Mr. Knight suggested asking the applicant.
Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commissioners who participated in the stakeholders' workshop comment on the process and share any prospective they had that might be useful to the full Commission. It was pointed out that Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Giraud, Mr. Knight, and former Commissioner Willy Littig, were among the stakeholders.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Mr. Rick Graham who is the Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, and Ms. Nancy Monteith, Consultant, from Design Workshop. Mr. Graham stated that this proposal was an attempt and a mission to create a Final Use Plan for Pioneer Park. Mr. Graham said that he believed this study has been an important opportunity to see the many changes in the community and to contribute in the long-range future of the park.
Mr. Graham stated the following: "As we met with our stakeholders group and went through that process we really tried to talk about what the community is going to be like in the future and what we can do to utilize our future monies wisely and design something that is going to work not only at the present time, but also create wonderful opportunities and stimulate growth and development in the future. I am very pleased with the work that our stakeholders group has done and very pleased with the process. It was a very interesting process with a diverse group of people." He indicated that over a dozen meetings were held, including meetings during the farmers market activities soliciting public comment. Mr. Graham said he believed those involved have accomplished much towards their goals for Pioneer Park. He added that a broad range of input that was received was incorporated into the proposal. Mr. Graham said that as this park development emerges one would then see what it would do to the local community and whether or not it would stimulate neighborhood and residential development, and stipulate other types of development and economic growth, as well.
Mr. Graham said that the stakeholders wanted to enhance the facilities for the farmers market. He mentioned that the farmers market has become a very important part of the community. Mr. Graham stated that the stakeholders wanted to enhance the historical character of the park and be able to tell the story of the park and its lively and diverse community. He said he believed that the story would be told in the design elements and in other ways, as well. Mr. Graham said that added improvements which offer a broad range of diverse opportunities for activities, not only on a periodic basis, but was wanted on a twelve-month yearly basis.
Mr. Graham mentioned that the proposal was submitted in three phases. He said that the key to the success of the park was to create an activity base for the community. Mr. Graham said that the ice sheet and the water feature would ''fill a real niche and need" and provide a unique opportunity to generate and to bring people into the park on a year-round basis. Mr. Graham said that by adding unique features such as a wintertime activity as in the ice sheet and the feature like the water screen are opportunities to draw a large population and give the public a reason to come down and participate in something very unique.
Mr. Graham stated that he hoped after the Commission evaluated the planning process that the conclusion would be the same as Staff's recommendation to adopt this planning concept.
Mr. Graham introduced Ms. Nancy Monteith, consultant from Design Workshop. Ms. Monteith used a briefing board to help describe the project. She said that she would like to describe the elements more carefully and show how the process influenced both the choice and the design of the park. Ms. Monteith reiterated that the challenge of the park was to create a balance between reviewing the rich history of the park, as well as creating a place for a contemporary urban lifestyle.
Ms. Monteith said that the idea of the planning concept was to create a lot of movement and circulation throughout the park. Ms. Monteith presented a detailed description of the elements proposed in the Final Use Plan, which included the following:
Existing trees: Through the public process, the trees were often identified as the most valuable resource in the park. The planning efforts have endeavored to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible, relocating trees where feasible, and minimizing the number of trees that would be removed. 54 trees would be relocated and 10 trees would be removed.
Proposed trees: The proposed planting scheme aspires to complement the existing structure of the tree planting. It also serves to articulate the pedestrian promenades and creating areas of refuge.115 new trees are planned in the proposal.
Gateways/History: Archeological surveys have been recommended in the park. History rooms are proposed on each of the four corners. The curb will be bumped out into the street to make the park more accessible.
Heritage garden: Approximately 10 planting areas are planned for a heritage garden. The park was used for experimental agriculture in order for the pioneers to discover what plants would prosper in the Salt Lake Valley. A desire for more botanic richness in the park was identified through the public process. Numerous decomposed granite pathways that facilitate access to the gardens and seating areas in the garden will bisect the garden.
History walk: The existing east west path occurring at the midpoint of the park is recommended for improvements including new concrete, increasing its width, and utilizing the ground plane for a historic timeline.
Playground: Currently a playground exists in the park. The plan recommends that the location of the playground be moved to the northeast corner and could incorporate historic narratives and themes to express the history of the park and the area. The playground also contained a zero depth water feature to expand the play opportunities in the park.
The water feature could refer to the spring that was located where the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church now stands.
Bell tower: The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers (DUP) would like to see the replica of the Nauvoo bell located in the park near the eastern gate. This plan identifies a preferred location for the bell tower.
Farmers market: The farmers market has been a vital presence in Pioneer Park for the past 12 years. The large numbers of people who felt that its continued presence was an important key to success for the park evidenced the popularity of the farmers market. The proposed promenade would constitute the primary circulation for both the park and the farmers market. A wide path of decomposed granite is bounded on either side with concrete paths. Vehicular access for the vendors is to be located just south of the northeast and northwest corners of the park.
Festivals/Concerts/Events: The park has been designed to invite both small and large gatherings. The great lawn forms the central and primary gathering place in the park. It is a large area that can host an audience for a major event or can function as a large informal playing field. The cafe/stage building will house a counter service cafe, stage, and six restrooms. The south half of the building functions as an open-air stage in the summer. In the winter glass panels come down to enclose the space and create an indoor seating area for the cafe. Surrounding the north end of the cafe is outdoor seating.
Active recreation: Bocce ball courts had a tremendous support, as did basketball courts and volleyball courts.
Passive recreation: The trees and cool grass of the park serves as a much-needed refuge for the area residents and homeless populations particularly during the heat of the summer. Benches will be located along the promenade path, the heritage garden, and in the history rooms. Moveable chairs and tables would be located in the outdoor seating area surrounding the north end of the cafe.
Neighborhood activities: Pioneer Park has had a long history of criminal activity. Design and planning efforts have been directly focused on reducing the opportunity for this kind of activity to persist in the park. Creating many activities in the park as well as maintaining sight lines through the park are the two primary objectives to address the safety concerns in the park. A dog park is proposed in the southwest corner. The dog park will be an off leash fenced area. Water and shade would be present for both dogs and their owners. A fence will complement the other site features in the park.
Visitor activities: Visitors to the area will be attracted to the historic elements and narrative, the recreation possibilities, and the care with outdoor seating.
Phase II: This phase would constitute the addition of an 84-foot by 200-foot skating rink (ice sheet). The skating rink would occur in the center of the park and serve as the primary attraction during the winter months. It would be large enough to accommodate hockey. In the summer, it would function as a large plaza area that would be filled with tables, chairs, and umbrellas.
Phase III: This phase would introduce a water screen feature for large-scale entertainment purposes. The water screen is a unique entertainment feature with equally unique technology. Water is projected into the air onto which a 70mm film is projected. The images could be something of historical content, and should enrich the historic content of the park.
Mr. Graham said that the water feature exhibit could be used for a variety of things. He added that it would be a unique feature in Salt Lake City. Mr. Graham said that most of the structure would be underground and computerized. He stated that the water screen would only be seen at night and the water feature would be developed as a fountain during the day. Mr. Graham said that the water would be contained and re-circulated. He noted that there would be some evaporation and spillage. Mr. Graham said that there has to be enough pressure to project the water screen 80 feet into the air, re-circulate it and keep it going. When asked, Mr. Graham said that there were existing sites in Baltimore, Maryland, and in the Olympic Park in Sydney, Australia, where it was a popular venue during the Summer Olympics.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the cost to install and maintain a water feature such as the one proposed for Pioneer Park. Mr. Graham said that he did not have the exact figure, but knew that it would be relatively expensive. He stated that procuring the funding would be one of the challenges they face. Mr. Graham said that he believed that the benefits would be significant enough for the City to invest into the unique water feature. He added that the figures the design consultants developed were 1.2 million dollars for the construction, the mechanics, the videos, the images, but not the programming. Mr. Graham said that a 70mm film is not like a home movie. He noted that there would be a production cost on top of that. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would have to be professionally done. Mr. Graham agreed and said that someone would be hired who specialized in this sort of projection. He pointed out that the City is already involved with the entertainment business and provides musical concerts; this would be a new aspect of the entertainment business.
Mr. Simonsen asked if it would be similar to any outdoor film venue except the screen would be different. Mr. Graham said that it would but it would not be a "Hollywood" clear picture. He indicated that a water screen can only be so smooth. Mr. Graham talked further about the quality of the projection by saying that it would be a different type of entertainment with visual effects and a great opportunity for telling some pioneer stories and stories about this community through images, pictures, music and the spoken word. Mr. Simonsen said that it would be specialized with programming and doing a film series. Mr. Graham said that would be true.
Ms. Heid inquired why the stakeholders endorsed Phase I, but did not vote on Phases II or Ill of the proposed project. Mr. Graham said that Phase I is called the base of the project and believe all those elements would be absolutely important in accomplishing the City's objectives. He said that not knowing what the extra costs would be involved in the construction of an ice sheet and the water screen, the stakeholders collectively had questions about Phase II and Ill. Mr. Graham added that there was a very strong support for Phase I. He stated that the entire concept would be proposed to the City Administration and show how the concept would tie together in the grand scheme as the park matures and opportunities are available. Mr. Graham said that these types of activities are unique and would help to accomplish the City's goals of activating the park in such a way to have continuous types of activities that would be of interest to the public.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that he was pleased to see the criminal issues in the park were addressed under "Neighborhood activities" as part of the analysis. He said that at the time when Pioneer Park was being considered as an Olympic Park, the Police had serious concerns about sight lines through the park and the ability to drive around the outer perimeter of the block and monitor the various activities in the park. Mr. Christensen talked about the four-foot berm and the fencing of the dog park and inquired if that would become a "nightmare" for the Police. He asked if the Police Department had been brought into the discussions with the stakeholders. Ms. Monteith said that she did not have enough background information to be able to answer that question. Ms. Mickelsen said that Police Officers were part of the stakeholders group. Ms. Monteith said that the sight lines through the park would remain. Mr. Graham said that a building would be added which would curtail the sight lines through that area. However, he said there is currently a restroom building in the park. Mr. Graham pointed out that one of the City's objectives is to make the park a safe place and everything will be done to maximize that so the Police Department will be consulted. Ms. Monteith talked about the topography of the park and the fact that there is only about a 2o/o grade in the center. She also said that when other cities were consulted, neighborhood dog parks have created a lot more activity. Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the walkway around the park would be accessible for vehicles so Police could continue to drive around the perimeter of the park. Ms. Monteith said that was accurate, but she was hoping for horse-drawn carriages around the park. Mr. Simonsen asked if the intent was that the dogs could run lose within the dog park. Ms. Monteith said that was correct. Mr. Graham pointed out that there would be a physical barrier with a three or four-foot decorative type of fencing; whatever would meet the criteria historically.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there would be a place for skateboarders since that activity is very popular with the youngsters. Mr. Graham said that skateboarding did not come up in all the discussions as a high priority feature but clearly one of the things that he had been looking at. He pointed out that the hard surface of the ice rink could be used as a modular skate park in the summer months. Mr. Graham said that the modular pieces of equipment have become very attractive, sturdy, durable, and could easily be moved around.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired further about the proposed ice rink. Mr. Graham said that it would be an Olympic size ice rink so it could accommodate many people. He added that the proposal did not consider using it for league hockey games, but more of a public recreational use, but things could be adapted over a period of time. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the ownership of the heritage garden and how the garden would operate. Mr. Graham said at this point the City would take ownership and take the responsibility of maintaining the garden. However, he said that the City would always be looking for opportunities for partners as the development of the garden takes place. Mr. Graham said there are groups representing different nationalities that participate in the International Peace Gardens. Mr. Fitzsimmons said it would be a very labor-intensive operation. Mr. Graham said that it could be but the garden would not be a formal ornamental place; it would be comprised of natural plants native to the area, as much as possible, representing what was existing when the pioneers first arrived. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the proposal called for gray water to be used. Mr. Graham said that gray water is used in other areas where it is accessible. He talked about studies being done developing strategies with Public Utilities to use gray water in the Rose Park area for Rosewood Park and the Rose Park Golf Course. He said that well water was being used at the Glendale Golf Course.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about any discussion regarding water usage in the park and the limited resources available. Ms. Monteith said there were discussions about the water resources when the concept was proposed at the farmers market. She added that public comments were to make it as arid as possible and every effort for the use of the water should have a maximum effect with the minimum amount of water. Ms. Monteith said that there would still be an addition of a water element in the base plan, but as small as possible so that it would serve its function but not too excessive. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that it still would be ten acres of irrigated space. Mr. Graham stated that the City would use the most up-to-date technology and resources in terms of water application, recapturing water, which would be controlled and operated by a computerized system. He added that manually operated systems have become a challenge in some of older parks in the city. Mr. Graham said that technology for systems that focus on conserving water is becoming better but he recognized the challenges of having such a large grassy area. He noted that the plantings in the garden would reflect that.
Mr. Christensen said that he probably was the only person in the room that did not know what bocce was. Mr. Graham said that bocce could be characterized as lawn bowling. Mr. Christensen asked if the courts could be used for something else. Ms. Monteith said that the courts would be made from decomposed granite and a combination of crushed oyster shells, but they could be on grass. Ms. Monteith pointed out that a week after the concept plan went public, Mr. Graham received a letter from the Utah Bocce Association wanting to know if the courts could accommodate them in one of our parks because they wanted to have international competitions. He said that he was excited to have that type of activity in the park.
Mr. Simonsen said that in the interest of time he would like to move on to the public comment, unless the Commission had additional questions or comments.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen commented on the letter from Ms. Hermoine Jex, an interested citizen. A copy of which was filed with the minutes. The letter contained several points of interest. She wanted Pioneer Park to be protected and preserved and the ten-acre park to remain open space.
• Mr. Bob Farrington, Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance Association, said that the Association represented 2,500 property owners in the downtown area and was the organizers of the farmers market and the downtown arts and crafts market. He stated that great cities have great parks and he said he believed the planning concept for Pioneer Park has the potential of turning it into a great park. He added that he has welcomed the involvement in the stakeholder group because it has been an excellent process. Mr. Farrington said that it has been a collaborative process to come up with a plan that met the objectives of most everyone involved. He commended the Staff and the consultants who he said did a "great job" of articulating the entire package. Mr. Farrington stated that the farmers market brought in 100,000 people last year which makes that event the largest "users" and sometimes "abusers" of the park. He said that the Downtown Alliance has worked closely with the design group working out details that would have a significant improvement enabling them to operate and expand the farmers market. Mr. Farrington indicated that when the farmers market first moved to Pioneer Park twelve years ago, there were five vendors; there are now 200 vendors, which has created a better community event. He said that the Downtown Alliance hardily endorsed the proposal.
Mr. Tim Funk, Crossroads Urban Center, stated that Crossroads is both a service and advocacy organization and serves many homeless people who use Pioneer Park. He said that Crossroads has been an advocate for better use of Pioneer Park and for a better use for different parcels of land in the immediate area. Mr. Funk said that Crossroads was active in getting the multi-family-ethnic senior high rise in 1977. He said, "We have been there and have been very truculent about the other proposal for the park. We fought against the park becoming a baseball park. We fought against it becoming an aquarium in the desert. We fought against the Olympic Park. We have participated in good faith in the present process. This process is how it should be done...We feel like we have been heard." Mr. Funk said that there has been a good response about the concerns of keeping the park open space that is hospitable to the people who use it primarily during the daytime hours and the clients of the local homeless service providers. Mr. Funk said that the Crossroads Urban Center Support Phase I, but have a problem with Phase II and III. He said that the problem is again with a "grandiose" concept. Mr. Funk pointed out that Pioneer Park did not have to be a regional or a destination park; it just needs to be a park. He urged the Historic Landmark Commission to support the base phase, but to evaluate the concept of the other two phases carefully. Mr. Funk stated that a good illustration was when the discussions began of the possibility of making Pioneer Park an Olympic park. He said that there was no planning process, it was a "gargoyle" presented to the community. Mr. Funk said that during a briefing session, he heard the former Planning Director say that the plans were progressing because there was money available and the City should take advantage of the money that was offered. He cautioned the Commissioners to approve the base plan and move forward with vigilance with Phase II and Phase Ill, until it would be financially feasible and fit into the community.
Mr. Gary Porter, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated that he also would like to express appreciation for the planning process and allowing the stakeholders to express their special interests, and for the way the plan has developed particularly in keeping the historical element of Pioneer Park in place. Mr. Porter said that the pioneers who came to this valley and established the heritage ought to be recognized, highlighted in the park, and be a large part of the presentation so that their contribution is not forgotten; a memorial to the Pioneers. He also said that the plan seemed to have a considerable amount of open space, which was in keeping with the original intent of the park, to beautify the city enabling the neighborhood residents to enjoy it. Mr. Porter stated that he supported any activities that would enhance the downtown area. He said that the farmers market has been a very positive event bringing about activities in the park for families and others to enjoy the aesthetics of the park in a downtown area. Mr. Porter said that he supported Phase I, but was less enthusiastic about Phases II and Ill because of the higher operating costs and less emphasis on the historical significance of the park.
Mr. Brad Baird, Downtown Alliance and current manager of the farmers market, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to speak on behalf of the farmers market and its 200 plus vendors and the 100,000 people being brought into Pioneer Park every summer and fall. He too expressed appreciation for the planning process that has taken place and participating in the stakeholders' discussions. He added that the City Staff and the consultants were willing to listen to everything that the Downtown Alliance offered and to be commended for the design and for the challenges they met in incorporating all of the different ideas that were present. Mr. Baird stated, 'We could not do the market without the ambience of the park. We hear from customers every single week that they absolutely love the park." He urged the Historic Landmark Commission to retain the park's beauty and the historic nature of the park.
Mr. Michael Place, President of the Western Nut Company, stated that his company was located in very close proximity to Pioneer Park. He commended those who serve on the Historic Landmark Commission for their service to the community. He said that the Western Nut Company has been located near the park for almost 25 years and he has been there for 20 years. He talked about the evolution that has transpired with the park over the years. Mr. Place said that he believed progress has been made with the concept proposed for the park. He asked three questions, What are we going to do with the park? When are we going to do it? How are we going to do it?" Mr. Place said that it was absolutely essential that as a bare minimum that Phase I be done at one time in an effort to change people's impression about the park. He talked about his involvement with the stakeholders group and said that the plan would address the issue of lawlessness that has existed in the park. Mr. Place stated that many of the folks who take services from the various service providers that are located in close proximity to the park, have a social problem and other problems that require the use of ambulances and ·fire engines responding to emergencies on numerous occasions. He added that when a family staying at the hotel across the street sees these kinds of activities they are frightened away. Mr. Place said that it would be his recommendation to make sure the funding is in place for Phase I. He added that if it is "piecemealed" the City would be throwing money away. Mr. Place commented that he did not have enough information regarding Phase II and Phase Ill to say those plans were a proper investment of "our" money. He mentioned that many of the "great legacies that were left to various communities" were done during the great depression and they still stand as monuments to the country today. Mr. Place said that he did not find the dog park in harmony with the historic nature and the memorial historical events of the park. He added, "I don't think you would put a dog run in a cemetery." He said that was his only objection to the Phase I proposal. Mr. Place said that he was clearly interested in the future of the park and mentioned that he has allowed the public to use the parking lot of his company Saturday mornings for the farmers market activities. He said that it was simply a token gesture to show how committed his company is to doing what is best for the community.
Ms. Mary Johnson, Daughters of the Utah Pioneers (DUP), thanked the Commission for letting her have a voice on the proposal. She said that the DUP has been involved as a stakeholder from the very beginning. Ms. Johnson said that the main purpose of the DUP is to the Utah pioneers and to preserve the history and the heritage of all those who came to Utah. She pointed out that the DUP is nonsectarian, nonreligious, and truly interested in Pioneer Park. Ms. Johnson said that not enough people know the history of the park and the DUP is anxious to help promote that. She mentioned several proposals for the park and were disappointed that the lack of money stopped them every time. Ms. Johnson said that the DUP supports the planning concept for the park and hopes that Pioneer Park will continue to represent the pioneer movement.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission is a planning body and many of the public was interested in funding issues. However, Mr. Simonsen said that funding issues are things that the Historic Landmark Commission would not consider, but that the public comments would be recorded in the minutes. He continued by saying that those in the City who would consider the funding for this project will be made aware of the public's concerns and ideas. He thanked everyone who participated in this meeting.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen stated that the process the planning concept has been through has been excellent. She said that the first week of the stakeholders' group discussion was spent by studying the entire block of Pioneer Park and identifying the different uses that are currently in the park. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was quite an "eye opener'' for those who have the misconception to think of the park as a desert and that speaks well for the future of the park. Ms. Mickelsen noted that there has been a certain amount of hesitancy about Phases II and Ill. She said that in her mind, they did not derive from the process. She added that the stakeholders were not involved with the conceptual plan of Phase II and Phase Ill. Ms. Mickelsen said that on the last day of the meetings, the final plans depicted the ice sheet and the water screen. She did not believe the stakeholders felt comfortable about endorsing those two phases because they were "tacked on" at the last minute. Ms. Mickelsen said that ice skating was considered consistently throughout the planning process and was always objected to as being unfeasible for that park. She added that she was not saying that it should never happen at the park, but it appeared late in the planning process and Phase II and Phase Ill should go through the same analysis as Phase I. Mr. Simonsen asked if Ms. Mickelsen believed the process should be held back until all three phases have had the same assessment. Ms. Mickelsen said that the process should not be held back. She said that she wanted to go on record saying that there are some significant design features in Phase II and Phase Ill that needs to be considered and studied further.
Mr. Simonsen stated that all the phases are being presented at this meeting as a formal proposal with associated elements and findings needed to be clear whether or not the proposal is appropriate within the guidelines of the ordinance, and not based on whether or not the process was appropriate.
Ms. Heid commented that Staff's recommendation covers the plan in its entirety and not based on just Phase I. Mr. Knight stated that Staff based its recommendation on how those particular features, the ice sheet and the water screen, would affect the historic character of the park. He added that Staff did not get into the financial aspects of those features.
The following is a summary of the discussion that took place regarding the planning concept, with the Commissioners expressing his or her point of view:
Ms. Mickelsen said that there was once a swimming pool in the park so an addition of a water feature would not be new in the park.
Mr. Simonsen said that the water screen would not be a permanent structure, but even though it would be temporary, it would create barriers for sight lines.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the ice sheet proposal was not well studied or presented because an 84-foot by 200-foot outdoor ice sheet environmentally and economically would not fit with the Salt Lake City climate and the proposed plan does not show the large required indoor spaces for an ice shaving machine and mechanical/electrical rooms and services. He also felt that it had no relevance with the historical aspect of the park. He believed it would be too costly. He thought it would be appropriate to only make a decision on Phase I and wait until further study had been made on the other two phases.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission would only be approving the concept of the plan and not the total design. She said that each element would have to go through a Commission review with more detailed plans. Ms. Mickelsen reminded the Commission that the design issue needed to be reviewed and not the feasibility issue.
Mr. Fitzsimmons complimented Staff on the excellent report. He supported Phase I and had concerns about the other two phases. He questioned the dog park but could see that it could become very popular.
Mr. Simonsen expressed concern that the Commission would make a decision based on the financial or environmental feasibility of the plan, and. not focus on what is an allowable use in the park. He was not sure that the ordinance clearly spells out that the Commission has to recreate any historical aspect of the park. He was not sure that comments about those historical types of theme have any relevance because they are not based on a historical use or based on the original use from which this park was designated as a historical site that is still evident today.
Ms. Rowland asked if the public would have to pay to use the various venues in the park. She said if there is a cost to the public, then the project would become a commercial venture and not be appropriate.
Mr. Christensen expressed concern that the Historic Landmark Commission would be bound if the concept for all three phases was approved at this meeting. He wanted to be certain that each element would be subject for review.
Mr. Zunguze recommended that the Commission look at the activities being planned in this proposal and consider whether they would be consistent with or would they take away from the historical aspect. He said that the other thing that needs to be understood was the fact that there is an expectation that each aspect of the project would be thoroughly reviewed in detail by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that the Comrr1ission has to make a decision on the findings within the guidelines of the ordinance. He added that the Commission could not "pick and choose" based on what individuals would prefer.
Ms. Giraud stated that it would not be the historical soil that will be preserved. She said that an archaeological study would be done no matter what was being proposed. Ms. Giraud said that the historic nature of the park is far more evolutionary than what one will find with other historic sites or resources.
Mr. Simonsen said that he had been struggling with this discussion trying to understand what relevance it has to the findings of fact that the Commission uses to make decisions. He said that there are a lot of design considerations that the Commission might have questions about, but that is not what is being reviewed at this meeting, nor do the uses present any obstacles to the park being used as a recreation venue. Mr. Simonsen said that the only finding that has much relevance to it is the size and scale of each of those venues, unless they present obstacles of major structures that would impact the historical use of the park as an open space. He said that there was very little here that would change the characteristics of this park as an open space.
Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. First motion:
Mr. Parvaz moved in Case No. 026-03, that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Phase I, only, based on the findings of fact and staff report. There is no clear reference to the elements in Phase II and Phase Ill of the proposal in the ordinance or the guidelines. The other two phases need to have more study pending further investigation of the potential impact with the archeological findings.
The discussion continued.
Mr. Simonsen called for a second to Mr. Parvaz's motion. Hearing none, Mr. Simonsen announced that the motion died due to the lack of a second.
Second motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 026-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staffs findings of fact with the specification listed with particular emphasis on the archeological study before any work is done and that each individual phase as it nears a point where a design is going on subsequently be brought before this body for more specific information.
Mr. Christensen suggested as part of the motion that any artifacts that come from the archeological study that Salt Lake City would work in tandem with the Utah Division of State History to determine the appropriate housing of such artifacts. Since there was no second to the motion, Ms. Mickelsen restated the motion.
Final restated motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 026-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staff's findings of fact with the specifications listed with particular emphasis on the archeological study before any work is done and that each individual phase as it nears a point where a design is being developed subsequently be brought before this body for more specific information. Further, any artifacts that come from the archeological study that Salt Lake City would work in tandem with the Utah Division of State History to determine the appropriate housing of such artifacts. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
At 6:25P.M., Mr. Simonsen announced that there would be at five-minute recess. Mr. Simonsen officially resumed the meeting at 6:30P.M.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission's 2004 Merit Awards Ceremony and selection of award winners.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Citizens Awards Ceremony is an important part in the public relations between the community and the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that the Commission recognizes projects, whether they are large or small, and awards property owners who did the right things to be compatible with the historic district. Ms. Giraud said that it is also a time that former members of the Commission are recognized.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Zunguze asked the Staff to look at structuring the awards in the future by having an Awards Nominating Subcommittee.
The members of the Historic Landmark Commission voted for the projects of their choice. Ms. Giraud said that the results would be tallied and transmitted to the Commissioners.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:50P.M.