SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A Held trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Robert Payne, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:15 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Orlan Owen. Mr. Owen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Owen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Miller moved to approve the minutes from the August 18, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Mitchell abstained. Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were
not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 014-99. at Liberty Park. by Ron Salisbury of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division. represented by Hugh Holt of Landmark Design. requesting to construct a new World War II monument and relocate plagues from the existing World War II monument. on the east side of the park. to the new monument site.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the proposed monument would be located at the site of an existing berm on the 600 East sidewalk in front of the concession stands. Ms. Giraud added that the pavement would replace the grass berm and a sixty-foot flagpole would be centered in the pavement. She pointed out that staff recommended to use a green or black-finished metal flagpole. Ms. Giraud expressed her concerns about the old monument being taken away without any consideration for its placement or its eventual repair. She stated that staff recommended that the Commission approve the new monument and that the existing monument be left in place in its present location and in its current condition. Ms. Giraud commented that the Engineering Division would like to have this project completed by Veterans' Day, November 11, 1999. There was a short discussion regarding Liberty Park being a landmark site and the details of the applicant's request.
Mr. Ron Salisbury from the Engineering Division, Mr. Hugh Holt from Landmark Design, and Mr. Val Pope, Director of the Parks Division, were present. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Salisbury circulated photographs of the plaques.
Mr. Holt stated that the project was to create a sense of an enclosure with a three-foot wall curving in three sections having the same inscription as the old monument constructed out of concrete and concrete pavers. He pointed out where the plaques would be installed on the drawings. Mr. Holt gave a brief description of the project.
Mr. Pope said that the project came about from a concern from a veteran. He said that the Boy Scouts of America originally raised the funds to establish the monument in 1922 for Salt Lake City's World War I veterans. Mr. Pope stated that the flagpole was vandalized about eight years ago. He remarked that installing another flagpole into the original base was not feasible. Mr. Pope said that a meeting was held with local chapters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans. He indicated that the City has tried to respond to the concern of the veterans, due to the deterioration of the monument. Mr. Pope said that the City and veterans believed that relocating the monument to the 600 East plaza would increase its recognition and visibility in the park.
Mr. Pope said that a sixty-foot flagpole was proposed due to the height of the trees in the park. He added that the same flagpoles were just installed in Pioneer Park. Mr. Pope said that he would appreciate any input by the Commission members.
In response to a comment made by a Commission member, Mr. Pope discussed the three-foot wall and said that was a little too high for skate boarders; they stay down on the steps by the lake. Mr. Pope added that the project had been reviewed for CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) issues by the police department.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by clarifying some issues relating to the project. He inquired if the concrete pavers were to be set in as blocks or set in sand. Mr. Holt said that they would be set in as blocks. He added that the pavers would have some color. Mr. Littig inquired if there would be some berm behind the proposed wall. Mr. Pope said that the landscaping would not be bermed due to accessibility concerns of the disabled veterans and the requirements of the ADA {Americans With Disabilities Act). Mr. Littig expressed his concerns about a three-foot wall and the criminal element that creates. Mr. Littig asked how the wall would be finished. Mr. Holt said that the finish proposed is a sandblasted finish. Mr. Littig talked about the granite texture of the existing monument and asked if that texture could be used for the new monument, as an historical reference. Mr. Holt said they would look into that possibility. Mr. Littig inquired if the flagpole would be lighted. Mr. Pope said that the flagpole would be lighted, but that the work would be done by Parks Division crews. Mr. Pope talked about the vandalism of the old flagpole.
• Ms. Miller inquired if the dimensions of the old and the new monument would be the same. Mr. Holt said that the dimensions would be the same. Ms. Miller asked if the monument was designed to attract pedestrians. Mr. Holt said that the partial enclosure of the wall would allow pedestrians to read the inscriptions. Mr. Salisbury said the monument was designed for the ease of construction and a place to which the plaques could be moved. Ms. Miller inquired if the inscriptions could be put on the north side of the proposed wall. Mr. Pope said that was a possibility.
• Ms. Mitchell asked if the area would be all hardscaped. Mr. Holt said that it would all be hardscaped, according to the plans. Ms. Mitchell said that the proposed site was beautiful with the existing flowers, and asked if there was some consideration to adding more landscaping to the new monument area. Mr. Pope said that one proposal is to re-use the existing cast-iron flower pots and to place them in a pattern symmetrical with the walkways and to add some greenery. Ms. Mitchell expressed her concerns that the area would look "too severe" as proposed. Mr. Pope said that "they were trying to soften the area". Mr. Pope also talked about the vandalism of the landscaping due to the BMX bikers, who ride in the park and take jumps off of the existing berms.
• Mr. Parvaz said that because the monument honors the veterans of the World Wars, he suggested moving the monument to a less crowded location where one could pause and reflect. Mr. Pope said that issue was discussed with the veterans and they proposed that the monument be placed in a more prominent location where it would be more visible. Mr. Parvaz talked further about the proposed location. Mr. Pope said that the site would fit into the Liberty Park Master Plan, and said he believed the center area would be the best site, with the focus being given to the flag in the center where people could see it from all areas.
The discussion continued regarding the proposed project and the proposed location. Mr. Owen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Owen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Owen suggested that there were several issues to consider, such as the issue of the new flagpole and monument, the issue of how to deal with the monument that is in ruin, and some design issues for the new proposal.
Ms. Giraud said that the original plans showed that the monument would be removed. She added that she was told by the Engineering Division that if the Historic Landmark Commission did not want it moved, it would not be moved. She said that when she wrote the staff report, she believed that the plaques on the old monument, such as the eagle, had already been removed and were waiting for the new monument. She said that the plaques on the old monument have, in fact, not been removed and could remain on the old monument if the Historic Landmark Commission requested as such. Ms. Mitchell said that removing the plaque from the old monument would remove the remaining historical element.
Mr. Gordon said that it would be good to have a flag and flagpole in the park, but he said that it seemed to him that the flagpole was the attraction and the monument to the world war veterans would be used to "dress up" the area.
Mr. Knight talked about the plans to renovate the Chase House and the proposed changes to the landscaping. He said that there would be more lawn area around the fountain to allow more space for the audience for concerts and other activities, that would use the porch of the Chase House for the stage.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that the proposal would not include maintaining the original monument. Mr. Parvaz said that it would give more importance to the monument if it was placed in another location, rather than with the concession stands, the Chase House, and other attractions to park visitors. He said that, design-wise, the proposed location of the monument put it on an axis that runs along 600 East. This axis is already crowded with elements such as the Tanner Fountain and the fountains in front of the aviary and the Chase House. Mr. Parvaz said that he thought additional elements should be located to establish cross axis to the established 600 East axis. He added that the cross axis to the Chase House was already established, and said the monument should be placed in a location where the monument would establish an additional cross axis.
A discussion took place with some members of the Commission making suggestions for other possible locations for the proposed new monument. Ms. Giraud said that the Engineering and the Parks Divisions might have found it to be most cost effective to locate the new monument at the proposed site.
It was a consensus of opinion, that the meeting should be reopened to make further inquiries of the applicants. Mr. Owen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Owen asked if the proposed location was selected for a financial consideration. Mr. Pope said that there were some financial considerations, but that was not the important factor. Mr. Pope said that other sites were considered, but each site had a conflict, such as existing trees or landscaping that would not accommodate the flagpole and monument. He said that the 600 East site for the proposed monument would correlate with some of the other monuments, such as the Chase Mill, the Chase House, and the fountain in front of the aviary.
Mr. Littig said that he was uncomfortable with the severity of the contemporary-look to the proposed wall because the constituency, that would be honored by the monument, are well in their years. He said that a little historic recognition would help soften the look of the area. Mr. Littig suggested having the inscriptions repeated on the back of the wall. The discussion continued.
Mr. Owen reclosed the meeting to the public.
It was recommended that the suggestions and issues, that had been discussed, be included in the motion. Mr. Parvaz said that he believed it would be wise for the Engineering and Parks Divisions to work out a correlation of the master plan, rather than consider projects in "bits and pieces". Mr. Owen said that it had not been established if the site would be a contemplative monument and if people would visit it and reflect, or a place for a ceremonial flag raising for veterans. A discussion took place regarding the wording of the motion.
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 014-99 and refer the proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee at its meeting on September 8,1999 to address the following issues: 1) the hardscape and other landscaping; 2) the inscription on the wall; 3) other possible location sites; 4) the proposed intensity of the lighting for the flag and flagpole; 5) the finish of the flagpole; 6) historical references; 7) how this project relates to the master plan of Liberty Park; and 8) the function of the flagpole and monument. The final decision can be made administratively. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were
not present for the vote. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Continuation of Case No. 011-99. at 460 South 1000 East by Diamond Lil's Restaurant. represented by Deanne Leatherman of VESCO. requesting to legalize a plastic back-lit sign.
Mr. Knight referred to the memorandum, that was included in the Commissioner's packets, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, and stated that the applicants planned on removing the bulb from the back-lit sign and installing an indirect light for the sign. Mr. Knight added that by making those changes, the signage was legalized according to the motion passed by the Commission at their last meeting and no further action from the Historic Landmark Commission was necessary.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Owen asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:35P.M.