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, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Scott Christensen, Amy Rowland, 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 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no public remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded to the approval of the minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2004 meeting, as amended. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze welcomed everyone in attendance and said that he had nothing to report.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 010-02. at Washington Square. by Sharon Newton and Karen Edson. requesting final approval of the selected site for the "May We Have Peace" sculpture by Allan Houser to be permanently placed on the northeast corner of the grounds of the City and County Building. Washington Square is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum outlining the major issues of the case, accompanied by the site plan and photographs, Historic Landmark Commission minutes and original staff report of April 3, 2002, including Staff's findings of fact, and the recommended location by Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Design. A copy of each document was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: This request was previously reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission at the meeting on April 3, 2002. At that meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission approved installation of four sculptures by Mr. Allan Houser on Washington Square {the grounds of the City and County Building). The sculptures were part of a temporary exhibit installed as part of the Cultural Olympiad of the 2002 Olympics. As part of the motion for approval, the final location was to return to the Historic Landmark Commission for formal review. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission requested that the City establish criteria for the placement of public art on Washington Square.
Since that time, funds have been raised for the purchase of "May We Have Peace, " which is currently installed on the east side of the grounds. On October 1, 2003, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed draft guidelines for the placement of art in Washington Square prepared by the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee (CUC). The Conservancy and Use Committee will review a final draft of the guidelines before passing them on to the Mayor and City Administration.
A recommendation on a final site was included in the conditions report prepared by landscape architect Jan Striefel, of Landmark Design. The report formed the basis for the Conservancy and Use Committee's draft guidelines. Ms. Striefel recommended a location at the northeast corner of the square, outside of the formal planter beds. She also recommended that the west side of the block, traditionally the main, public entrance to the building, be left free of sculptures in order to retain its historic layout and appearance. The recommended site will provide, in Ms. Striefel's opinion, easy access for interpretation, excellent visibility from the street, TRAX Station and new library, and minimize the visual impact on Washington Square's historic landscape.
The members of the non-profit group who organized to purchase the sculpture have agreed to the recommended location. Two plaques with historic and donor information will be installed on a stone pedestal adjacent to the sidewalk. Conceptual designs for the pedestal call for it to be constructed of grey stone, to complement the color of the building. The stone would probably be granite or hard sandstone, not the Kyune sandstone used on the building, which would be too soft for use as a monument. Plaques would be bronze.
Further details regarding the design of the plaque and pedestal are yet to be resolved, but the sculpture itself will be mounted in the lawn on its current base.
Current plans call for relocation of "May We Have Peace" when the other Houser sculptures are removed from Washington Square on the first of April 2004. The plaque and pedestal would be installed at a later date. There are no illumination plans for the sculpture.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "It is Staff's opinions that the proposed location meets the intent of the findings contained in the original staff report for this case, and also reflect the discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission regarding appropriate locations for the sculpture at its meetings regarding this case and the design guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the final placement of "May We Have Peace" at the proposed location with its existing base. Staff further recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission delegate final approval of the plaque and pedestal design to Staff, based upon the current conceptual design."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Ms. Mickelsen said that one has to admire the symbolism of moving "May We Have Peace" on April Fool's Day. She said that the applicants originally talked about purchasing a number of the sculptures and asked if there were still plans for those purchases. Ms. Mickelsen also inquired whether or not the Conservancy and Use Committee had taken into account the potential placement of any other statues. Mr. Knight said that it was his understanding that "May We Have Peace" was the only sculpture that was purchased and the other ones will be returned to the Allan Houser foundation. Mr. Knight suggested that Ms. Mickelsen clarify this with the applicants. Mr. Knight noted that "Spirit of the Wind" had already been removed. He reported that there are plans to install the plaque on
September 11, 2004.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the project would return to the Historic Landmark Commission for additional review if the Building Conservancy and Use Committee was not in agreement with the proposed location. Mr. Knight said that the Committee met on February 19, 2004 and the project went through a similar review process where the members visited the site and voted to recommend the proposed location to the Mayor. Mr. Simonsen said that the Committee's recommendation was not clear.
Mr. Ashdown asked if there would be trees that would need to be trimmed or moved for the potential location of the sculpture. Mr. Knight said that he was not aware of any trees that would have to be moved or trimmed because the proposed location would be in an open space on the grounds. Mr. Ashdown inquired about the Utah Arts Festival, which was held on the grounds of the City and County Building last year. He said that the stage was located very close to where the sculpture is proposed to be placed. Mr. Knight said that he assumed that thought was considered. He suggested that Mr. Ashdown ask Mr. Steve Oliver who is in attendance. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Oliver is the Facilities Manager for Washington Square and oversees all the events that take place on the grounds. Mr. Simonsen said that he knew the Conservancy and Use Committee expressed concerns about having the stage on the grounds so it may be placed in another location.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be hard surface surrounding the sculpture when it is placed on its base so people would be able to walk up to it to take photographs, or would the people walk on the lawn. He said that another issue was that there were no dimensions on the site plan of the base on which the sculpture would be placed or the plaque. Mr. Knight said that the plaque would have a little bump out so one could step off the main walkway to read the plaque. He added that from what he understood, the sculpture would be surrounded by lawn. Mr. Knight said that when he met with the Committee on site, someone stood in the proposed location of the sculpture and the rest of the Committee seemed to agree with the location. He noted that no one provided staff with drawings that showed the exact dimensions of the plaque or the sculpture setting. Mr. Parvaz said that the location was not "set in stone yet" because no one provided the dimensions. He believed that the project needed further study.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if a marker would be placed on the potential location of the sculpture. Mr. Knight said that he did not believe there would be a marker on the base of the sculpture. Mr. Simonsen said that if the Commission believed these are critical issues then they needed to be addressed.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Sharon Newton and Ms. Karen Edson, the applicants, were present. Ms. Edson said that they were able to raise over a half-million dollars to purchase the sculpture "May We Have Peace" and said they were "thrilled" with the proposed location that the Conservancy and Use Committee had chosen. Ms. Edson said that they had intended to raise money for four sculptures but the Conservancy and Use Committee did not want to have more than one sculpture on the grounds. She said that they ceased trying to raise the $280, 000 to purchase "Homeward Bound". Ms. Edson said that there was still some thought of
trying to purchase it and moving it to another location off the grounds. She also said that she thought the sculptures would be removed on April 5, 2004, and not on April Fool's Day.
Ms. Newton said that there is a slight correction on the information submitted. She said that the monument plaque location would be on the angle that would face the statue from the crossing of the two streets rather than inside the grounds like it is shown. Ms. Newton said that the proposed material for the base for the sculpture would be Indiana limestone, which they believed would be more durable than sandstone, but would be a good match to the sandstone that is on the building. She said that the plaque would be a 30-inch by 30- inch square cut and polished and the verbage would be sandblasted into the stone and easy to read for anyone in a standing position. Ms. Newton said that the inside of the lettering would be painted black, which would be a nice contrast. She said that it needed to be angled in such a say that the water would run off the stone to help it from deteriorating. Ms. Newton said that she hoped it would face to the east because Mr. Houser liked it facing in that direction.
Mr. Simonsen 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 about the color and asked if the applicants brought a sample of the stone. Ms. Newton said that they had a sample, which was displayed.
• Ms. Mickelsen said that the applicants should be congratulated for having the ability to raise the money for the sculpture. Ms. Newton said that it has been an interesting road to travel. Ms. Edson said that they were proud of it. She said, 'We think it will be a nice addition to the groundsIt has a lot of historical significance because it was placed here for the 2002 Winter Olympics and 'May We Have Peace' has a lot of good connotations and we hope that it will bring peace." Ms. Newton stated that the value of the sculpture has greatly increased since the financial arrangements were made with the Houser family. She said that the popularity of the sculpture came after the 9/11 disasters. Ms. Edson said that the Smithsonian Institute would be opening a new Native American Museum in September and Allan Houser will be the featured artist. She noted that several of his pieces including "May We Have Peace" would be featured at the museum. Ms. Edson pointed out that the people in Salt Lake City were very fortunate to have the sculpture located on these grounds. Ms. Newton said that the actual sculpture which was on the grounds during the Olympics was the one that belonged to the Smithsonian and would be displayed in the museum. She added that it was only on loan to Salt Lake City Corporation for the Cultural Olympiad. Ms. Newton said that it was replaced with another casting. She pointed out that only eight castings were made of "May We Have Peace".
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no 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
Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. The discussion continued regarding the issues of the case.
When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the procedure and who would submit the plans that showed more details, it was the consensus of the Commission to re-open the public hearing. Mr. Simonsen re-opened the meeting and invited Mr. Steve Oliver, Facilities Manager, to address the Commission. Ms. Newton joined him. Mr. Oliver said that on April 5, 2004, the two sculptures would be removed and returned to Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the Allan Houser Foundation is located.
Mr. Simonsen said that the question Mr. Parvaz asked was whether or not there would be more detailed site drawings that would identify the exact locations of the sculpture and the plaque. Mr. Oliver said that a more detailed site plan would have to be submitted by the Conservancy and Use Committee if that was necessary. He said that he could show the members of the Commission within a few feet of the proposed location where the sculpture would be placed. Mr. Oliver mentioned that the plans were very simple. He said that the base would be moved into a six-foot round hole, then re-welded. He added that it was fortunate there were no sprinklers with which to be concerned.
Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the Commission was reviewing a proposal to place two objects on the grounds of the City and County Building and no plans have been submitted that shows the exact location in relationship with each other and the angle of placement. He added that these decisions should have been made in advance of this review. Mr. Oliver said that the plaque would be placed parallel with the diagonal sidewalk. He noted that when one would read the plaque, it would be in direct alignment with the sculpture and the main doors on the east side of the building. Ms. Newton said that the plaque would be on the sidewalk and will be able to be viewed from any of the three directions where the sidewalks intersect. She said that the plans are to keep the sculpture clear of the canopy of the trees. Ms. Newton said that was discussed at great length at the Conservancy and Use Committee meeting. She said that it would have been difficult to pinpoint the exact location at that time because the area was underneath 2-feet of snow.
There was a short discussion regarding the proposed location of the sculpture and plaque. Mr. Simonsen said that the applicants have not submitted detailed drawings, which could be discussed in the executive session and whether or not that is a necessary factor to render a decision. He added that the intent apparently, was not to provide any drawings.
Since there were no additional questions, Mr. Simonsen re-closed the public hearing and resumed the executive session portion of the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen stated that Mr. Parvaz raised an important issue and asked other members to express their concerns regarding this matter.
Ms. Mickelsen said that it made her feel a little uncomfortable.
Mr. Parvaz said that this issue is very sensitive to the location of the placement of the two elements and believed that detailed plans should be submitted before a decision is made.
Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commissioners think this through very carefully and with the understanding that if the Commission requires the proposal to return for an additional review, that it would happen on the schedule. He said that in his personal opinion not having a specific location for this piece of art is an appropriate way to handle this matter, but other Commissioners may have a different opinion.
Mr. Ashdown pointed out that the Conservancy and Use Committee carefully looked at the grounds and had good intentions to find the best place possible for the artwork. He added that the Committee came up with an approximate location. Mr. Ashdown said that there was not "a lot out in that space". He did not believe having detailed drawings was necessary for this project.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there was a specific historical aspect of the site that would require detailed drawings. Mr. Parvaz stated that the subject sculpture, itself, was not a problem but the fact that it could be placed anywhere that someone wanted it to be placed. Mr. Simonsen stated that he believed the intent would be to determine the exact location on site, rather than trying to map it out ahead of time. The discussion continued regarding this matter.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 010-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staff's findings of fact and recommendation and approve the appropriate location of the relocated sculpture "May We Have Peace" with the understanding that the approximate plaque location was not as it was drawn on the plan of the City and County Building site plan, but will be placed in relation to where the streets intersect closer to the sidewalk on the northeast corner of Washington Square. Further recommend that all interested parties will do their best to make a proper placement. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Parvaz said that he was opposed because he believed a plan should have been submitted.
OTHER BUSINESS
Final review of the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules of Procedure" update.
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum regarding the Historic Landmark Commission's final review of the "Rules of Procedure" update, of which a copy was 'filed with the minutes. She said that these were fairly minor compared to 'first draft. Ms. Giraud stated the following: Attached is the latest draft of the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules of Procedure". Please note that the changes made since the meeting on February 18, 2004, are in bold and are underlined. This draft addressed the following concerns that the Historic Landmark Commission members expressed at that meeting. Included are the following:
1. A definition of "Planner" in Section C- Organization.
2. A clarification of "Conflict of Interest" (Section 0.1O.a) and specified that conflict of interest rules also apply at the Architectural Subcommittee level.
3. A new section on the submission of materials in Section F.24- Procedure- Order of Business.
4. Moving "Explaining the Vote" and "Not to Vote Unless Present" from Section G - Procedure, Order and Decorum to Section H - Procedures, Voting. I plan to give "Procedures- Motions" a separate heading and letter.
5. Adding languages in Section 0- Architectural Subcommittee- clarifying that the planner shall take notes, and that the Historic Landmark Commission can establish standing or ad-hoc committees.
Ms. Giraud thought she should be able to give the Historic Landmark Commission some flexibility to respond to different situations that should come about. She pointed out that things that were new from February 18th are in bold and underlined. The other things are just in bold. She mentioned that the lettering would be corrected on the final copy.
The following are suggestions on the final draft copy of the "Rules of Procedure" made by members of the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting:
1. The Architectural Subcommittee and the establishment of standing or ad hoc committees should be subsections under a new section called "Historic Landmark Commission Subcommittees".
2. Consistency with the words "committee/s" and "subcommittee/s" throughout the document, including the acronyms.
3. Change the name from "Architectural Subcommittee" to "Architectural Committee".
4. Add the word "days" to the new section regarding submission of materials by interested parties.
5. Consistency with the name "Historic Landmark Commission" rather than using "full commission".
6. Subsection 18 should be eliminated because this is in conflict with the ordinance, which says "that no business may be conducted when there is no quorum present".
It was pointed out than an "interested party" could not appeal a Historic Landmark Commission decision because that person would have no standing rights.
Mr. Zunguze said that is one of the things that is somewhat contradictory in the ordinance. He said that he favored a better wording than "anyone could appeal" because in other cases there is no standing requirement so someone from Sandy, Utah, could appeal as long as they attended that meeting. Mr. Zunguze stated that this might be a means for Staff to go back and address the weak points with respect to the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment policies and procedures.
Mr. Simonsen said that the change in the wording would eliminate an arbitrarily appeal; one would have to have a direct interest.
Mr. Simonsen asked about the procedure at this point. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission could make a formal motion approving these with the expectations that the changes would be made. She added that the members would be provided with a copy of the "Rules of Procedure"
A short discussion followed regarding the modifications that were suggested during this meeting. It was decided that a draft copy of the document did not need to be reviewed by this Commission. Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved to accept the latest draft, dated March 10, 2004, of the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules of Procedure" and the suggestions that were made at this meeting are to be incorporated into the final document. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms.Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen thanked everyone for their efforts in updating the "Rules of Procedures" and making the Historic Landmark Commission more valid.
Historic Utah Theater.
Mr. Parvaz talked about an article in the newspaper regarding the old Utah Theater and expressed his concerns about saving the historic building. He said that he believed this was an important issue for downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Parvaz added, "If we don't get enough interest it will be demolished."
Ms. Heid said that "if there aren't enough dollars it will be lost". She added that she would "hate for us lose one more historic building that could not be replicated".
Mr. Simonsen noted that the building had not been listed separately as a landmark site the Historic Landmark Commission had no purview over the building but any member could become an advocate. Ms. Giraud agreed. Mr. Simonsen said that if someone wanted to pursue a registration of the building to become a landmark site it would certainly be appropriate if the owner was of the same opinion.
There was some discussion about the changes that have occurred with the building over the years.
Ms. Giraud stated that in her opinion when she read the article that it was unclear what political bodies would be involved with the Utah Theater. She added that it might be Salt Lake County because of the number of its fine arts venues in Salt Lake City, or it might be the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Giraud said that citizens could lend their support for saving the historic site.
Mr. Zunguze said there is some interest on the part of some Salt Lake County Council people to do something.
Mr. Ashdown said that there was a prior article in the newspaper that there were plans that something might be done but it made no mention of anyone viewing them. He added that he had a "hard time holding out on a lot of optimism for this place. Mr. Ashdown said that downtown should be made an historical overlay district so the historic buildings could have some protection from being demolished.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission could initiate a petition for rezoning and go through the review process with the Planning Commission and the City Council, if members of the Commission feel strongly about that suggestion.
Mr. Zunguze stated that part of the discussion with the City Council regarding the Legislative Action will be the notion of elevating the preservation program. He said, "In all our discussions about land use I think there is always a disconnect, in my view, where the zoning considerations track off without regard to preservation." Mr. Zunguze added that there are several zoning districts that are not respectful to preservation issues as a result, the preservation assets are compromised. He noted that the market forces commercial zoning and profit is important. Mr. Zunguze stated that the City Council needs to have a
full understanding of the importance of preservation "in our setting", then that fact would be reflected in any zoning policies, in the master plans, and in the practice of planning in the City, which is not the case right now.
Mr. Zunguze stated, 'We hope that the members of the Commission will chime in as best as you can when we start that debate. We need to equalize the discussion, so that what we care about gets reflected not only in the plans but in our practice. I would like to have that reflected in the entire administrative functions in the City."
Mr. Simonsen said that members of the Commission were grateful to hear that perspective on preservation issues.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:00 P.M.