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 Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Amy Rowland, and Mark Wilson were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 20, 2002 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz 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. There were no public comments to the Commission.
(Mr. Simonsen arrived at 4:07P.M.)
• NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 010-02, at Washington Square, by Sharon Newton and Karen Edson, requesting the permanent installation of three sculptures by Allan Houser on the grounds surrounding the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. The sculptures were part of a temporary exhibition of Allan Houser's work installed on the square for the Olympics. Washington Square is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
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 stated that Ms. Sharon Newton and Ms. Karen Edson, two interested citizens of Salt Lake .City, were seeking to purchase four sculptures by Allan Houser and install them permanently on the grounds of the City and County Building, formally known as Washington Square. He added that the sculptures were part of a temporary exhibition of Houser's work that was on display at Washington Square during the Olympics. Mr. Knight pointed out that Washington Square and the City and County Building are individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and are zoned PL-Public Lands District.
The following is a brief history of the site: Washington Square, also known historically as Emigration Square and Eighth Ward Square, was one of four public squares included in the original plan of Salt Lake City. During the first 44 years of its existence, the
square served a number of public functions, such as a campsite for newly arrived immigrants in the Salt Lake Valley, an open-air public market, a circus ground, and athletic and baseball fields. In 1874 the neighbors of the square petitioned the Salt Lake City Council to ban the baseball games.
In the late 1880s, City and County officials began planning a new building for local government. At that time, City and County offices were located in several downtown buildings. Eventually, the officials selected Washington Square as the new site for the building. The City and County officials selected a design by a local firm known as, Monheim, Bird and Proudfoot, and work commenced in 1891.
After several stoppages, the building was ·finished in December 1894. The surrounding square was laid out in a formal geometric pattern of angular walkways and circular planting beds. A wide variety of trees were planted throughout the square; a popular story attributes this diversity to the wide variety of trees brought by immigrants who camped on the square.
Public sculptures placed on the building grounds included the extensive artwork on the building, two fountains placed on the west side of the square at the time of its construction, a statue of two schoolchildren at the base of the flagpole on the west side (placed in 1938), and a number of different historical markers stating the significance of the building and grounds. A detailed history of the building and grounds was included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight stated that according to Mr. Steve Oliver, Director of the City's Facilities Services, the City prohibited the placement of monuments on the City and County Building grounds beginning in 1947, in response to the problem of deciding which monuments and how many monuments to allow, as well as landscaping and maintenance issues. He indicated that the City did allow the placement of in-ground plaques at the base of trees honoring worthy citizens for many years, but most of these were removed through theft and attrition, when the grounds were renovated.
Mr. Knight said that, the building and grounds were extensively rehabilitated from 1986 to 1989. He stated that the parking spaces were reduced from eighty spaces to twenty spaces, intrusive additions such as playground equipment were removed, and the grounds were returned to much the way they appeared in historic photographs.
Mr. Knight stated that since the restoration, projects affecting the buildings and grounds are reviewed by both the Historic Landmark Commission for exterior projects only, and the City and County Building Conservation Committee for interior and exterior work. Mr. Knight indicated that in addition, the City's Art Design Board reviews public art projects and gifts of art to the city. He pointed out that the Art Design Review Board had already reviewed this proposal, and a copy of the Board's recommendation to the Mayor is attached to the staff report. Mr. Knight said that the Building Conservation Committee had not discussed the proposal.
Mr. Knight stated that the request by Ms. Newton and Ms. Edson proposed to keep four works by Mr. Houser permanently in the square. He said the other sculptures that were installed for the Olympics have already been removed. Mr. Knight indicated that the Allan Houser estate is loaning the remaining four works to the city while funds are raised for their purchase. He stated that the proposed permanent works were selected based on their representation of Houser's body of work, the themes expressed in the artworks, their availability, and cost. The works include:
1. "Unconquered II" portrays two Apache warriors. (Southwest Corner of the Square);
2. "Homeward Bound" portrays a young Navajo woman and her flock crossing an abstract bridge. (Northwest Corner of the Square);
3. "May We Have Peace" portrays a man expressing a prayer for peace. (North Entrance); and
4. "Spirit of the Wind," an abstract work, was added at the request of the art design board as an example of Houser's later work. (Southeast Corner).
Mr. Knight said that details on the permanent bases and surrounding landscaping are yet to be finalized. He said that the existing bases are not intended to be permanent. Photos and additional descriptions of each sculpture accompanied the staff report.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, H Historic Preservation Overlay District, as follows:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. 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;
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;
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;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
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;
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;
8. 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;
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;
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;
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; and
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staffs Discussion: Given the number of review bodies that will review this proposal, staff suggests that the Historic Landmark Commission should limit the scope of its review to the appropriateness of adding the sculptures to the historic Washington Square landscape. The City and County Building Conservation Committee will address similar issues in its review of the proposal, and the City Art Design Board has considered the artistic value of the works and whether the City should accept them as an addition to its permanent collection.
Although Washington Square has not historically been the site of large amounts of public artwork, public art in parks and public areas has a long history in the city. The City's policy of prohibiting monuments in the square is longstanding, but Staff believes that the policy could distinguish between memorials, in which one group or event is memorialized and public art, which would not commemorate a particular group or event. Staff agrees with the Art Design Board's recommendation that if public art in Washington Square is to be considered, clear criteria should be established to ensure the selection of a broad spectrum of artists and types of work.
Historically, public sculpture would have been very similar to these works in terms of materials (bronze), size and scale (close to or slightly larger than life size), and subject matter and style (representational works). As with contemporary architecture, Staff believes that contemporary art works definitely have a place in the historic landscape, and the Commission should not require artwork to follow historic precedent. However, the fact that these artworks are similar to those used historically makes them easier to approve in this case.
Staffs Finding of Fact: The proposed sculptures are in keeping witl1 the historic character of Washington Square and the existing public artworks in the square, and will not have a negative impact on the City and County Building or the Washington Square landscape. The materials, size, scale, and style of the sculptures are similar to those found historically in parks and public settings.
• Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the concept of permanently placing these four works by Allan Houser in the square. Details on the permanent bases and surrounding landscaping, and signage could be addressed at a later Commission meeting or by the Architectural Subcommittee or staff as the design develops. Staff further recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission work with the Building Conservation Committee, Art Design Board, Mayor's Office and City Staff to establish criteria for public art in Washington Square."
Mr. Knight said that the City Art Design Board also recommended that there be a written policy on public art on Washington Square and Staff would concur with that recommendation and would ask to be part of that process.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig asked how often the Building Conservation Committee meets. Mr. Knight said that the committee meets four times a year in formal meetings, but Mr. Oliver, as a member, would be contacting the other members regarding this proposal.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the building, itself, is a monument and the Commission should be very careful about allowing artwork to be placed too close to it. He added that the placement should be far enough away from the building as to not interact with it. Mr. Parvaz also commented that there should be a written policy regarding public art on Washington Square.
Ms. Giraud said that the Commission should review the proposal concerning the context of the building, the preservation of the building, and the effect the sculptures would have on Washington Square.
Ms. Heid talked about the need for a priority system if the fundraising drive was not successful enough to buy all four statues.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants Mr. Karen Edson and Ms. Sharon Newton, were present. Ms. Edson said that they were two normal citizens who had lived in Salt Lake City for a number of years, who love Allan Houser's sculptures, and felt that they enhanced the grounds as part of the Cultural Olympiad during the Olympics. Ms. Edson indicated that she met Allan Houser before his death. She said that Mr. Houser received the National Medal of Arts from President Bush in 1992 and is a world-renowned sculptor.
Ms. Newton said that Allan Houser has a connection with the state of Utah. She
pointed out that he taught in the Intertribal School in Brigham City for sixteen years. Ms. Newton said that three of his sons graduated from high school in Utah and two from Utah State University.
Ms. Edson continued by saying that approval was needed to place the statues before they commenced the fundraising drive. She indicated that the Mayor was enthusiastic about the project, and when they met with the Mr. Oliver, he was also supportive in their efforts.
In response to Ms. Heid's question, Ms. Edson prioritized the art, as follows:
1. "May We Have Peace", which is the largest and the tallest of the sculptures. The one on display during the Olympics belongs to the Smithsonian. It is a beautiful broad-based Indian sculpture. The cost would be $520,000.
2. "Homeward Bound" has a lot of appeal since there are many natives in Utah who belong to the Navajo tribe. The cost would be $280,000.
3. "Unconquered II" depicts two Apache Indians and is the most expensive. The cost would be $800,000.
4. "Spirit of the Wind" is a contemporary impressionistic sculpture of the wind. The Salt Lake City Arts Council and the Art Design Board believed that there needed to be a wider representation of this kind of art. The cost would be $220,000, even with the 20 percent discount offered by the Houser’s
Ms. Newton said that the appeal, pricing and availability prioritized the sculptures.
Ms. Edson talked about the maintenance of the sculptures. She pointed out that they had obtained liability insurance through the City with an agreement that they had to make a concerted effort to raise some of the money in the next year. Ms. Edson said there is a possibility that the Houser’s would extend a loan agreement to four years. She said that would give them a more realistic timeframe in which to raise the money.
Ms. Newton talked about her excitement and assured the Commission that they would not profit from this in any way. She referred to the article that was in the local newspaper regarding their efforts to raise the money.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if the applicants had any preference where the statues would be placed. Ms. Edson said that they would "love" to have the sculptures remain on Washington Square. Mr. Parvaz asked if the applicants had any problem with one of more of the statues being placed on the Library block just east of the City and County Building. Ms. Edson said that they would be given to the city and a professional Architectural Landscaper should be consulted for the placement of the sculptures. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the base of the statues. Ms. Edson said that the existing bases are made so the sculptures could be removed. She added that they should be a permanent part of the statue.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the markers would be replaced on the sculptures. Ms. Newton said that some of the markers were trashed, but they would all be replaced. Mr. Ashdown inquired if the wording would reference the Cultural Olympiad. Both Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton said that they did not know. Ms. Edson said that they should because it was one of the "drMng forces" for the sculptures to be on display in the first place.
Both Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton thanked the Commission for letting them appear before them with their request.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Brandon, a student at the University of Utah, commented that he was concerned with the impact the sculptures would have on Washington Square because there were no other pieces of public art or monuments on the grounds. He stated that the sculptures would represent the Indian tribes, which are symbols of a great part of Utah's history. But he also said that the proposal would be monocultural with only Native American art represented.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Most members of the Commission were in agreement that the sculptures by Allan Houser were beautiful works of art, but a lengthy discussion took place regarding other matters relating to the proposal before the Commission, such as:
Ms. Giraud thought that it was important to make a distinction between memorials and art and that fact that the past policy was based on memorials and not art.
Mr. Young talked about the possibility of the new Library having money for art, as part of the overall project. He was concerned that if there was enough money to buy one of the statues, would that be excerpting the right of other Utah artists competing for a chance to have their artwork displayed. Mr. Young pointed out the all four pieces of artwork, if placed on Washington Square, would be by the same artist.
Mr. Littig thought there would be some money available but would be handled through the Library. Mr. Littig believed there was very little money allowed for art in the state and explained his thoughts on the matter. Mr. Littig has always been bothered that the Native American depicted in the statue in front of the State Capitol was from Massachusetts.
Mr. Christensen said that was the case of someone who raised money to bring a copy of Chief Massasoit to Utah. He added, "It certainly is part of Utah now because it has been there for so many years." Mr. Christensen would rather have seen a statue of Chief Black Hawk, Chief Walkara, or Sagwitch, who were part of Utah's history. Mr. Christensen talked about the State of Utah "borrowing" other symbols, such as the California Gull as the state bird, the Colorado Blue Spruce as the state tree, and Chief
Arts Council, which was included with the staff report, where it recommended that representation from the Native American community be consulted as a matter of inclusion and respect. He was worried that the sculptures would come to represent Utah. Mr. Christensen displayed a book that was edited by a Native American and another about Sagwitch. Mr. Christensen recommended that Staff convey the Commission's thoughts on the matter to the pertinent boards.
Mr. Young also expressed his concern about only one of the sculptures would represent one of Utah's Native Americans, which would be the Navajo woman.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission that Allan Houser lived in Utah for sixteen years and as a teacher had a very influential role in shaping Native American art. Ms. Giraud stated that the City's Arts Council and the Building Conservation Committee should resolve those issues. She had informally discussed the proposal with two members of the Building Conservation Committee, Don Hartley and Sandra Hatch, who she pointed out used to be members of the Historic Landmark Commission, and they had no issues with the statues being placed on Washington Square. Preservation of Washington Square and the City and County Building was the foremost issue.
Mr. Simonsen said that the same comments could be made about architectural styles that are not traditional styles. He added that the architecture of the City and County Building was borrowed and had no connection to Utah. Mr. Simonsen said that that art could be appreciated for many different reasons. He stated that the sculptures may not have connections to local history but they were beautiful works of art and represent extraordinarily talent. Mr. Simonsen also believed this discussion was outside the realm of the Commission's jurisdiction. He did not see anything in the proposed artwork that would be detrimental to the historic nature of the site. Mr. Simonsen added, "I think in fact the grounds lend themselves to cultural displays like what is being proposed. I don't think there is anything about this that would preclude other proposals in the future from changing the monocultural aspects of it." He suggested that the Architectural Subcommittee be involved with the placement of the statues.
Mr. Littig, referencing changes in history, said that the grounds on Washington Square could be xeriscape in the next three years. Mr. Giraud said that the Commission voted in favor of the water-wise request for the east side of the building.
Mr. Ashdown's concern was similar to the young student's, in that it would be not only "monocultural, but monoartist in a way". He questioned devoting that much real estate to one artist on Washington Square. Mr. Ashdown suggested approving temporary locations and if the fundraising is successful, have the matter revisited for permanent locations.
Ms. Mickelsen would be a lot more comfortable if a policy was established before an approval was given. She said that the Commission needed to consider harmonious placement and the relationship to the building and the grounds. She believed the sculptures would create an interest so more people would use the grounds.
Mr. Parvaz believed the sculptures should be placed on the four corners away from the building. He too would like a set of guidelines established for public works of art. He believes that the City and County Building is one of the most important buildings in the state. Mr. Parvaz talked about the geometrical landscape design with everything very well placed around this "monumental" building.
Motion for the four Allan Houser sculptures:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 010-02, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, there does not appear to be conceptually any adverse impact on the City and County Building and the grounds of Washington Square by the location of four statues, but would like to see the final placement return to the Historic Landmark Commission for a formal review, and recommend that the Architectural Subcommittee be involved somehow with the other organizations in working through placement issues and any potential placement off this block. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr.
Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen again brought up the issue of a long-term policy for Washington Square on public art. Mr. Parvaz suggested making a separate motion.
Motion for public art on Washington Square:
Ms. Mickelsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission work with the Arts Design Board, the Building Conservation Committee, Mayor's office, and City Staff to establish criteria for public art in Washington Square. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz,
as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Appreciation was given by the members of the Commission to the two applicants for their willingness to endeavor to raise the funds for this project.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update from Danny Walz, Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Project Manager, on the progress on a design for the proposed commercial node at 500 North and 300 West. The finished proposal is tentatively scheduled to return to the Historic Landmark Commission for review in June 2002.
Ms. Giraud stated that Staff invited Mr. Walz to attend this Historic Landmark Commission meeting to give the members an update on the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project for the commercial node at 500 North and 300 West. She pointed out that the site is located in the Capitol Hill Community Council. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission would not make a decision at this meeting. She pointed out that handouts from the open houses accompanied the staff report.
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) acquired properties at this site in order to develop a neighborhood scale commercial center. In January 2000, the RDA applied for demolition of six contributing properties on this site.
Since the Historic Landmark Commission meeting in January or 2000, the RDA has attempted to market the property for sale but so far no developer has proposed an appropriate project. Last June, the RDA's Board of Directors, which is the City Council, designated a subcommittee to review the overall development and marketing strategy for the commercial node property. In response to hearing limited interest from developers, the subcommittee recommended that the agency proceed with preparing a reuse plan to develop the property. If a developer were willing to develop the site as approved in the reuse plan, this strategy would still allow the agency to sell the property.
The RDA Board selected the IBI Group to facilitate a community-based design process and develop a reuse plan for the property. The agency and IBI have hosted three open houses to receive comments and input from the community regarding the issues and proposed reuse of the site. A steering committee was formed to expand on some of the topics discussed and Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Simonsen are serving on this subcommittee.
At the last open house on January 23, 2002, four different design options were presented. Using the input received, the RDA instructed IBI to prepare a fifth site plan, known as the Arctic Court Option.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Upon hearing no questions, Mr. Parvaz invited Mr. Walz to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Walz stated that he wanted to give the Commissioners a sneak preview of what the RDA is looking at for the site. He said that the IBI group has been working on a community-based reuse plan. Mr. Walz said that the community has been involved in this process through the open houses and as members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Walz stated that the option that he would present was the one the community council had approved and received preliminary approval from the Board of Directors last month allowing the consultant to further define the plan. Mr. Walz used a briefing board to further describe the project, as follows: 1) Residential would be restored on Arctic Court with new single-family homes with detached garages in the back; 2) The mixed use building, fronting 300 West, would be three stories in height. Commercial development would comprise the first floor on 300 West and 500 North and two levels of residential units would be above the commercial; 3) Behind the commercial would be parking for both the commercial and residential uses. A portion of the parking would be a one-half level below ground: 4) Plans for either a cMc or community building which has not yet been defined; 5) The homes on Arctic Court, as well as the buildings on 300 West would be demolished; and 6) If possible, the nine-unit apartment building and the old triplex, which at one time was a store, would be preserved. Mr. Walz requested
pulled back into the development, either through demolition or preservation.
Mr. Walz stated that the RDA had not finalized how to market the site, as yet. He said that the property may be marketed again as a development site, but given the past history, he said that historic structures may have to be separated out and try to deal with a developer who is more experienced in dealing with historic preservation rather than your typical retail commercial developer. Mr. Walz said that the residential on Arctic Court may be separated out as well for a residential developer.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by saying that in the past the community council had an agreement that there would not be an entrance off 500 North, except for the Arctic Court entrance. He pointed out that the plans show a drMng entrance off 500 North. Mr. Walz said that the community council did not want Arctic Court to become a service alley for the commercial. Also, he said that they wanted another entrance to be approximately 150 feet off Arctic Court so that there would still be some street wall along 500 North. Mr. Christensen inquired about the side yards on the proposed new single-family homes on Arctic Court. He said they looked like they would be very tight. Mr. Walz said that the plans show that there would be side yards. He added that the goal is to restore that court to residential. Mr. Christensen inquired about the $80,000 incentive provided by the City Council to anyone who would restore a multi-unit apartment building. Mr. Walz stated that changed with the recent change of the City Council.
• Mr. Young inquired if the developers would have to go through a PUD (Planned
Unit Development) process and Mr. Walz answered in the affirmative.
• Mr. Simonsen said that he recalled from past discussions that one goal was to maintain the residential integrity of Arctic Court. He added that the scale of the potential single-family homes would be consistent with the existing historic structures. Mr. Simonsen said that the consultant looked at a number of options but this seemed to be the one that was supported by most of the community. He said that much of the community who attended the open houses said they would like to "get rid " of the historic structures. Mr. Simonsen said that with a little vision, the two most prominent ones on 500 North could be restored and retained which would address the character-defining elements of that neighborhood. He said that the others on Arctic Court are so far "tucked back in" that almost all of the fabric of that court has been eroded. Mr. Simonsen indicated that other major comments were to maintain some integrity to the street frontage along 300 West. Mr. Simonsen stated, "Like many transitional historic districts it certainly is in keeping with a change from historic residences to more commercial in nature-most of downtown Salt Lake City has gone through that transition and in some cases three or four generations of transitions or structures. This seems fairly consistent with preserving an appropriate scale transition from single-family residences to more commercial uses.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired if RDA could act as a go-between agent and amortize the cost. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed a number of demolition requests where different values were factored into the cost, such as separating the value of the land from the value of the structures. He also asked if RDA could help defray the cost to a developer to make it economically feasible to restore those historic buildings. Mr. Walz said that RDA has already taken a "hl.1ge hit" on the property, and there has been discussion about selling the site just for the value of the land and "throwing in the structures for free".
• Ms. Giraud asked if there was any way RDA could restore the structures and Mr. Walz said that RDA, typically, does not do their own development. Although, he added, there has been some exceptions.
• Mr. Ashdown pointed out the two recently restored buildings on 300 West, which are now vacant. He said separating those two historic buildings from the rest of the site would not provide much motivation for someone to consider that this was a good investment. Mr. Walz said that he was right, those two structures have been tough because they are vacant. He said that the vacant structure that RDA owns ·at 700 North is also a problem, because there was no interest in anyone restoring the building. Mr. Ashdown inquired what would happen if no developer steps forward for this project. Mr. Walz said that RDA would have to consider doing the project. He said that residential developers were more plentiful than commercial developers. Mr. Walz said that RDA also feels that by starting some development piece by piece, perhaps if some developer would see the potential and the interest would grow.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if developing the property and then ground leasing it would be an option and Mr. Walz said that could be a possibility. He added that there is still is an opportunity for negotiation with several options open.
The subject turned to the proposed design guidelines that would be developed by RDA, the community, and the consultant.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the enforcement of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City for the property. Ms. Giraud said it was their hope that the two would mesh together. She added that the Commission's guidelines did not contain extensive information for big commercial projects because it was designed for residential structures.
• Ms. Lew asked how do you account for the fact that the timing might not be right for the development of this property. Mr. Walz stated that the RDA has had the luxury of time and has not been driven by the bottom line. He said that RDA could sit on the project until the market starts to rebound.
• Mr. Walz stated the goal for RDA is to return to the Historic Landmark Commission for review of the final plans, including the guidelines, in June of 2002. He invited all to attend the last open house, which would be held the following evening.
• Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for Mr. Walz, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
+ Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the council has looked at many plans for this corner. She talked about the cooperative nature that Mr. Walz and the Preservation Staff have shown working with the community. Ms. Gardner said that she originally wanted to keep all the historic houses on Arctic Court, but finally realized that this neighborhood had lost so many businesses that she preferred to get something going on the site. Mr. Ashton asked why she changed her mind regarding those houses. Ms. Gardner said she realized she was a minority of one. She added that the community has been very anxious that this not be just a strip mall. Ms. Gardner said that the community council is generally pleased with the development plans and would like to see it move forward.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the demolition of all the structures might be imminent. He said that RDA has exceeded its bona fide effort trying to market the property. Mr. Simonsen said the property has been on the market for over two years and the statute the ordinance requires is one year. He said, "I think the fact that there are two structure being represented in the final plan is very indicative of the sentiment of the community for wanting to see some preservation but understanding the economic reality, which may suggest that it is not feasible to save any of them. I think it is very fortunate to see at least two of those structures still represented in the final plan."
There was some additional discussion regarding what kind of retail markets was desired in the neighborhood.
Upon hearing no further comments, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and thanked Mr. Walz for the update on the 300 West and 500 North commercial node property site.
Election of Historic Landmark Commission Chair and Vice-Chair for 2002.
Mr. Young nominated Mr. Simonsen to the office of Chairperson. Mr. Parvaz seconded the nomination. Mr. Young nominated Ms. Mickelsen to the office of Vice Chairperson. Mr. Littig seconded the nomination. By acclamation, both Mr. Simonsen and Ms. Mickelsen were voted in their respective positions for the year 2002-2003.
Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Simonsen were congratulated on their tenures as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission during the year 2001-2002.
• Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:45P.M.