SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. David Fitzsimmons, 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 4:00 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.
Ms. Giraud introduced Ms. Mary McCarthey, an intern from the University of Utah who is assisting the Preservation Planners in their work.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Simonsen asked Mr. Wheelwright if he had anything to report. Mr. Wheelwright said that he did not. He said that Mr. Zunguze is expected to attend the meeting but was delayed.
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. He said that he anticipated Councilmember Eric Jergensen to be in attendance. Mr. Simonsen said that he would invite him to address the Commission when he arrives. There were no other public comments to the Commission.
[Please note: Comments to the Commission was continued after Case No. 019-03 was completed.]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2003 meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. Mickelsen abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Christensen wanted the record to show that although he was not at the previous meeting he voted to approve the minutes so they could be distributed in a timely manner. A majority of the Comrr1ission members are needed to approve the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 019-03. is a request from the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding draft Guidelines for the City and County Building and Grounds located at 451 South State Street known as Washington Square. Washington Square is on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She mentioned that this case was different than most cases scheduled for public hearings because the Historic Landmark Commission would not be making a decision to approve or deny a request by an applicant.
Ms. Giraud stated that at the suggestion of the Planning Division Staff, the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee is soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission for guidelines addressing "all future considerations of works of art, including statuary, and gifts that are requested to be positioned on this historic site". She added that Washington Square and the City and County Building are listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and thus exterior alterations are subject to Historic Landmark Commission review. Ms. Giraud said that although both the Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission are committed to the preservation of the building and grounds, the Conservancy and Use Committee differs from the Historic Landmark Commission in that it is an advisor to the Mayor and its purview extends to the interior of the City and County Building.
Ms. Giraud referred to the staff report in the following manner:
The Conservancy and Use Committee was established in the late 1980s when the City and County Building and grounds were restored. The restoration not only addressed seismic concerns and the structural stability of the building, but reversed decades of incompatible and insensitive accretions to the interior and the grounds. In order to insure that the improvements to the building would remain and to protect the architectural and historical integrity of the site, then Mayor Palmer DePaulis established the Conservancy and Use Committee.
Within the past year-and-a-half, two sculpture installations on Washington Square grounds have been proposed. The first was a request from two interested citizens, Ms. Karen Edson and Ms. Sharon Newton, to purchase and retain as many Alan Houser sculptures as funding would allow for installation on Washington Square. Because the installation would be permanent, the Planning Division Staff determined that the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the proposal. The request was considered at the April 3, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission voted favorably on the installation of the sculptures, stipulating that final landscaping and site plans associated with the sculptures be brought back to the full Commission. Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton raised sufficient funds to acquire one Houser sculpture, "May We Have Pease". Final plans for the site location and landscaping will be subn1itted to the Historic Landmark Commission once the Conservancy and Use Committee has reviewed them.
At the April3, 2002 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission also requested that the Conservancy and Use Committee or City Staff establish policies and prepare guidelines to help the decision-making process for the City, the Conservancy and Use Committee, and the Historic Landmark Commission when art is proposed for installation in the future. The draft guidelines are a response to this request. A copy of the draft guidelines accompanied the staff report and was 'filed with the minutes.
Recently, Mayor Rocky Anderson proposed the temporary installation of a bust of the South American hero, Simon Bolivar. The Conservancy and Use Committee reviewed the Mayor's request on May 22, 2003, and established a subcommittee to study the request. The Historic Landmark Commission Staff determined that the bust did not have to come before the Historic Landmark Commission because it will be a temporary installation.
On July 17, 2003, the Planning Division Staff met with Mr. Steve Oliver, Director of Facilities Services, and Mr. Rick Graham, Director of the Department of Public Services, to discuss ways of improving the coordination between the Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission. The suggestions that developed from this meeting are listed as Staff Recommendations.
Ms. Giraud gave the following Staff analysis of the proposed guidelines:
Most of the material in the Conservancy and Use Committee draft guidelines pertains to proposal criterion that does not concern the Historic Landmark Commission, such as the administration of events and activities on the grounds and the interior of the building. In Staff's opinion, specific guidelines of the Conservancy and Use Committee are, as follows:
• Since the building is the crowning feature of the square, the grounds are here to complement, not compete with the building. Any art that competes with the building is not appropriate.
• Also, the grounds are laid out in a very geometrical pattern and the element of balance on the grounds must be considered.
Staff presented the following guidelines from related documents to assist the Historic Landmark Commission with making suggestions to the Conservancy and Use Committee for their Washington Square guidelines:
Washington Square Site Conditions Report
The Conservancy and Use Committee also presented an additional document to the Planning Division Staff, the 'Washington Square Site Conditions Report", prepared by Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Design, Inc., in July of 2003. A copy accompanied the staff report and was filed with the minutes. The purpose of this document is threefold:
• The determination of an appropriate location for the Houser sculpture entitled, "May We Have Peace".
• Recommendations as to the appropriateness of the sculptures on the grounds.
• An analysis of site conditions including landscape elements, planting beds, lawns, and other site features such as furnishing (benches, picnic tables) and fountains.
The “Washington Square Site Conditions Report" states that sculptures visible from State Street and those placed inside the circular planters are especially incongruous and conflicting with historic elements. It acknowledges that the City made a commitment to retain a Houser sculpture on Washington Square, and recommends that the sculpture be installed on a site adjacent to the 200 East sidewalk on the northeast comer of Washington Square. The report then states the following: "No other sculptures should be located on the square because they distract from the grandeur of the historic building and the symmetry of its setting on Washington Square.”
The Salt Lake Art Design Board "Gifts of Art Policy"
The "Gifts of Art Policy" is used by the Salt Lake Art Design Board to assess the appropriateness of accepting artwork on behalf of Salt Lake City. Like the Conservancy and Use Committee, the Salt Lake Art Design Board is an advisory board to the Mayor and does not have the quasi-judicial role of the Historic Landmark Commission. When public art is proposed for commission or gifts of art are considered for acceptance and their installation is located in a historic district or affects a Landmark Site, the Art Design Board's guidelines specify that the Art Design Board will consult with the Planning Division Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission. The general criteria specified in the Art Design Board's guidelines are the following: "In general, as with all public art, the following criteria will be considered: Quality and artistic merit, pedestrian traffic patterns, public safety, relationship to built and natural environment of the site, users of the proposed site, future development plans for the site, landscape design, existing artwork at the proposed site, environmental concerns, visibility and public accessibility to the work. “
Utah State Capitol Grounds Guidelines and Policies
Although the scale of the Utah State Capitol Building and grounds are much larger than the City and County Building and Washington Square, Staff included the pertinent section of this document in the Staff report to assist the Historic Landmark Commission in its deliberation. The guidelines for the Utah State Capitol are especially emphatic in stating that monuments are to be symbolically and visually subordinate to the building: "While it is not inappropriate to have additional monuments on the Capitol grounds, the Capitol Building itself is the principal monument. All others must therefore be subordinate to and consistent with the Capitol and its vistas."
Although the Capitol guidelines do not become so detailed as to specify materials or design, they are more specific than those proposed for the City and County Building in several ways: 1. The sites set apart for future monuments have already been set by identifying where monuments of varying sizes can be placed on the grounds; 2. Night lighting (to be as minimal as possible); and 3. All monuments become property of the State."
Staff is of the opinion that the most compelling requirement of the Capitol guidelines is the following:7he State Capitol building and grounds are reserved for monuments of great historic significance to the people of this State."
Such a requirement could be very effective in limiting most monuments proposed for a public space.
Ms. Giraud stated that to a large extent, Staff is relying on the Historic Landmark Commission to provide recommendations to the Conservancy and Use Committee to incorporate into their guidelines. However, Staff offered the following recommendations:
1. That monuments or gifts of art be of historic significance to the people of Salt Lake City;
2. That monuments or gifts of art not be placed on the west side of the building, as the west side of the building and grounds were historically the main, public entrance to the building;
3. That monuments or gifts of art not be placed inside the circular planters on any side of the grounds, as these are historic elements. As Ms. Striefel's report points out, the installation of art or monuments in these planters disrupts their formal symmetry;
4. That agendas of the Conservancy and Use Committee be mailed to the Planning Division Staff, in order to make the Planning Division Staff aware of potential actions requiring Historic Landmark Commission review;
5. That the Planning Division Staff will receive a copy of the Conservancy and Use Committee's minutes; and
6. That any applications regarding actions to the City and County Building or Washington Square will come from the Department of Public Services, and insure that the Department of Public Services' Staff receives the Historic Landmark Commission agendas, findings and orders and copies of minutes.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Parvaz asked how the Historic Landmark Commission should approach this case because it is different. He believed that the presence of the Conservancy and Use Committee was missed at the April 2002 meeting when the Historic Landmark Commission discussed the Houser sculptures. Mr. Parvaz said that there were many issues surrounding the decision of placing the Houser sculptures on the grounds. He said that the Commission could not make a final recommendation at this time. Mr. Parvaz stated that there should be a separate set of guidelines developed by the Historic Landmark Commission regarding the exterior of the building and the grounds. He expressed his concern that the draft guidelines do not offer any mode of change. Mr. Parvaz said situations could evolve in the future.
Ms. Giraud said that she did not think the Historic Landmark Commission had to make a final recommendation at this time. She added that the guidelines are offered to the Commission to give the members an insight into the Conservancy and Use Committee. Ms. Giraud said that the Conservancy and Use Committee have a subcommittee refining the guidelines and was certain that the subcommittee would be amenable to having the members of the Historic Landmark Commission review the final draft or at least the draft in progress. Ms. Giraud encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to support the guidelines that the Conservancy and Use Committee are producing, because resources are not available to develop a separate set of guidelines. She added that the Commission uses the standards found in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Giraud also stated that Mr. Oliver uses information from the ten-volume report that was prepared at the completion of the building and grounds renovation that specified parameters on any alterations to the building and grounds. She said that he is approached by various administrators or officials who would like to make changes to the building or grounds, and some who would like to display an electronic message board advertising jobs in City government.
Mr. Ashdown asked if Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton were still conducting a fund raiser to purchase the other Houser sculptures and what will be the status of any sculpture that is not purchased.
Ms. Giraud said that they only raised enough funds to purchase the one sculpture. She surmised that any sculpture that was not purchased would be returned to the Houser Foundation. Ms. Giraud stated that Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton feel that they wasted their time and money on the project to find out that they should not have been the applicants; the City should have been the applicant as the owner of the building and grounds. She said that there was an error in the procedure because there should have been better coordination between the City agencies, especially the Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission.
Each Commissioner seemed to have his/her own favorite Houser sculpture. After a short conversation took place, Mr. Simonsen asked the Commissioners to focus on the staff report which Ms. Giraud just presented because other questions could best be answered by the representatives from the Conservancy and Use Committee.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Mary Lou Gotschall, representing the Utah Heritage Foundation, and Chairperson of the Conservancy and Use Committee, and Ms. Susan Crook, landscape architect, who serves on the Conservancy and Use Committee. Mr. Simonsen thanked the applicants for attending this meeting.
Ms. Gotschall said that she read the minutes from the Historic Landmark Commission meeting that was held in April of 2002 where the Houser application was reviewed. She said that there was a philosophical question that should be discussed. Ms. Gotschall pointed out that it had been stated several times there needed to be a distinction between memorial and public works of art. She read a portion of the minutes from that meeting: "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."
Ms. Gotschall stated that Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton restated their support for the Houser sculpture to be placed on the City and County Building grounds in the Conservancy and Use Committee meeting last week. She said that they believe that the sculptures are a symbol of the Olympics which were held in Salt Lake City. Ms. Gotschall indicated that the Ms. Edson and Ms. Newton said that history is evolving all the time and it does not necessarily have to be something that happened a long time ago.
Ms. Gotschall wanted it to be known that the Conservancy and Use Committee was not debating about the grandeur of the artist and how beautiful his sculptures are. She added that if the purpose of the sculptures being on the grounds was to memorialize the Olympics, then the distinction between memorials and public works of art needed to be defined. Ms. Gotschall said that her interpretation falls under public works of art rather than memorials. She commented that the Houser sculptures have no connection with the history of Salt Lake City or Utah. Ms. Gotschall recommended putting interpretative plaques on any element if placed on the grounds in the future. Ms. Gotschall substantiated that the Conservancy and Use Committee considers many requests, both inside and outside of the building and on the grounds, that does not require a review by the Historic Landmark Commission. She did declare the importance of open communication between the Conservancy and Use Committee, the Historic Landmark Commission, and other pertinent City agencies
Ms. Crook said that Ms. Giraud made reference to the preventive maintenance manual for the building and grounds that is being implemented and enforced. She added that the role of the Conservancy and Use Committee is to check to make certain that the maintenance is being done and the management of the building and grounds is being done so this Landmark would remain worthy of the National Register standing. Ms. Crook said that the Committee is concerned about how activities affect the building and grounds. She said that any building and grounds would have the normal wear the tear. Ms. Crook pointed out that those who do the maintenance have to rely on their funds and resources for the level of maintenance required. She noted that the Conservancy and Use Committee was the advocates of the levels of maintenance in that preventative maintenance manual.
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 saying that he believed the Historic Landmark Commission should study the guidelines more thoroughly before a decision could be made whether or not to support the proposed guidelines. He also said that he believed that the field of design would be more of the Commission's concern rather than philosophical issues. Mr. Parvaz said that he supported the idea of more coordination between the Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Christensen said that he believed the definitions of memorial versus monument versus artwork need to be resolved. He referred to bullet point number one of the Staff recommendations, "That monuments or gifts of art be historic significance to the people of Salt Lake City." Mr. Christensen said he believed that two of Alan Houser's sculptures might fall into the definition of historic significance: "Unconquered II" which portrays two Apache warriors and "May We Have Peace" which portrays a man expressing a prayer for peace, due to the American Indian historic clothing style. He added that Mr. Houser's free form sculpture "Spirit of the Wind” would fall more into the category of a work of art. Ms. Gotschall stated that the City and County Building and grounds are a symbol of Salt Lake City, and due to its National Register designation, should be considered differently than other green spaces or parks. She said that the Conservancy and Use Committee strongly discourages any future gifts of art that do not directly relate to the history of Salt Lake City or the City and County Building and grounds. She added that nothing should be placed on the grounds that detracts from the building; the grounds should complement the building and not compete with it. She referred to some pieces of on the grounds that have been in place for many years. Ms. Gotschall said that she questioned if today's Conservancy and Use Committee would have approved the statues of the children at the flag pole because they were not directly relevant to the history of the building or grounds. She quickly pointed out that Salt Lake City schools raised money for those statues. Ms. Gotschall said that there could be a wide open definition of cultural significance because Salt Lake City is a city of many culturals and diversities. She believes that each request should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Gotschall noted that perhaps some flexibility should be considered for the guidelines that would be more inclusive of every component or activity to be reviewed on its own merit and not launch into one rule that would try to fit all situations. Mr. Christensen said that he concurred regarding statuary reflecting historical events or people in an historical setting. He pointed out that the Salt Lake Arts Council had reviewed Mr. Edson's and Ms. Newton's request to permanently place the Houser sculptures on the grounds. Mr. Christensen said that it was pointed out to the Commission that the Arts Council was anxious for art to be represented on the grounds. Ms. Crook said that one of the things the Committee struggles with is that over time Washington Square and the City and County Building have in and of themselves become the culturally significant markers of the city so that these have become the art piece in a public place that defines history of the site. She stated that she did not believe that other elements could be added, but it is a matter of interpretation to a large extent. Ms. Crook said that it was pointed out at the meeting of the Conservancy and Use Committee that if the Committee wanted to be "purists" then any interpretation should be of the encampment before the building was constructed on the site. Ms. Gotschall referred to the draft guidelines which stated, ...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." She said that the grounds are subject to very high intensity of use as a gathering place and attraction. Ms. Gotschall pointed out that there were more events held on the grounds during 2002 than at any other time. She mentioned that the grounds have taken a beating. Ms. Gotschall believes that the Conservancy and Use Committee should be taking a more "pro-active" role, rather than "re-acting" to situations as they arise. She said that the guidelines should be helpful in that role. Ms. Gotschall said that the Committee was considering making a change in the guidelines by adding, 's a general rule, any modification or installation of a permanent nature would be strongly discouraged." Ms. Gotschall said that the Conservancy and Use Committee welcomed any input the members of the Historic Landmark Commission have to the draft guidelines.
• Ms. Heid commented that the guidelines mentioned things that are not wanted and it seemed to her there should be some allowance for change.
• Mr. Ashdown stated that in his mind, a memorial is something that is commissioned specifically to mark an event, whereas the Houser sculptures were public works of art that came from the Houser Foundation warehouse and was not specifically commissioned to memorialize the Olympics. He said that he believed the "Prometheus" which is a sculpture by a Greek artist, is a better memorial to the Olympics. [This was a gift to Salt Lake City for the Olympics that was placed at 500 West and 100 South.] Ms. Gotschall said that the Houser sculpture would be better off if it was placed on the library block or some other location in the city. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Houser sculpture was more of a reminder of the event, rather than something that was associated with the Olympics. She added that it was not made for the Olympics. Ms. Gotschall read a statement in the proposed guidelines in the Arts and Gifts section, anyone engaged in fund raising for a specific piece of art cannot promise the donors placement on the City and County Building grounds without prior review and recommendation from the Conservancy and Use Committee." She said that she felt very strongly about that statement. Mr. Parvaz said it was made clear to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission at the meeting in April of 2002 that it is difficult to find places that accept art in Salt Lake City and that the city needs more art. Ms. Crook pointed out that there are places designated on the Capitol Building grounds for art, which was explained earlier.
• Mr. Knight said that the Memory Grove plan designates additional monument sites. Ms. Heid said those would be monuments and not works of art. Mr. Knight agreed and said that "monuments" is one of the purposes of Memory Grove.
Ms. Giraud commented that the Salt Lake Arts Council advises people about where the placement of artworks should be and the policies regarding that placement. She added that this was interesting because there are a lot of different, well intentioned, bodies all having a different perspective on this issue. Ms. Gotschall said that Ms. Nancy Boskoff, Director of the City's Arts Council, attended the last Conservancy and Use Committee meeting and said that she would "immensely appreciate" the guidelines when they are adopted.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that it seemed that there is a lack of vision of what is desired for this space. She added that the guidelines would be a good beginning to some kind of master plan. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was hard to imagine any kind of monument that would detract from this building because of its scale. Ms. Giraud said that maybe it is not a matter of detracting but a matter of competing. Ms. Mickelsen indicated that if there were too many pieces of art, the grounds would be too cluttered, especially when a public event occurred. She said that perhaps three or four locations could be designated. Ms. Gotschall said that there should be no disruption of the symmetry and geometrical pattern to the grounds.
Mr. Simonsen said that he values the vision of this building and the grounds as in and of themselves. He said that he did not think the citizens of Salt Lake City really appreciated the significance of the City and County Building and grounds as a landmark facility and that it is a work of public art. He added that people are educated to paintings and sculptures as works of art, or consider performing arts, but not landmark sites as works of art. Mr. Simonsen conveyed that the pattern to the grounds is part of its identification. He observed that part of the cultural value of the site is that it is a gathering place for civic and cultural events, and if the site becomes too cluttered, it may impede a function and that is a very important consideration. Mr. Simonsen said that the formal elements of the site have an inherent value. Ms. Crook stated that another aspect which is often overlooked, with grounds as significant as Washington Square, is that it is certainly a candidate under review for the Historic American Landscape Survey which is the companion to the Historic American Building Survey. She believed that this site should be considered for that sort of documentation. She said that all the historical changes to the site should be documented and preserved. Mr. Simonsen said especially when the landscape matures and changes occur. Ms. Crook said that she is on a national committee working on guidelines interpreting how landscaping should be preserved which is different than buildings. She mentioned how adamantly Ms. Striefel states in her report that no sculptures be placed in the circular flower beds because they are part of the historical elements on the grounds. Mr. Simonsen also asked if there was some way art could be treated on the grounds like it is treated inside the building; having a designated space on a permanent or temporary basis. Ms. Gotschall said that it seems to be the general consensus that there needs to be designated areas for art. She said that the opinion of the Conservancy and Use Committee is that anything as large as the Houser sculptures, and has no particular relevance to the historical aspect of the grounds, should not be placed on the grounds on a permanent basis. Ms. Gotschall added that in answer to the general consensus comments, the Committee has not seen any place that would be recommend. Ms. Crook said that the Committee also has to deal with finding a temporary location for the placement for the bust of Simon Boliver. She indicated that it might be placed by the flag poles.
Mr. Christensen stated that when these issues came up as part of the discussion at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting in April of 2002, the actual resolution was that the Houser sculptures could be on the square but encouraged the applicants to look for other city locations. He added that the sculptures would not technically have to be accommodated on this block; they could be placed on the library block or other City property. Ms. Gotschall read the motion from the April 3, 2003 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The motion was as follows: "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." Mr. Christensen said that he wanted to make certain that the Conservancy and Use Committee realize that potentially there are other sites for the Houser sculpture.
Mr. Simonsen asked about the input that the Committee would like from the Historic Landmark Commission. He inquired if the discussion from this meeting would be adequate or would the compilation of comments be more desired. Ms. Gotschall suggested a-mailing any comments directly to her.
Ms. Gotschall said that any interior display of gifts to the city is useless without an interpretative plaque or sign of some sort. She added that the tour guides who volunteer their time know and can explain all the displays inside the building, but they are meaningless to the general public. Ms. Gotschall said that another issue that is arising is that the display that was placed inside the building after the restoration needs to be returned. She added that there were many interesting pieces and objects that pertained to this building included in the display.
In conclusion, Ms. Gotschall declared how "passionate" the members of the Conservancy and Use Committee are about the City and County Building and grounds and believes that this national landmark site deserves better.
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. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen thanked the applicant and closed the hearing to the public. The Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was some discussion regarding comments any member of the Commission might want to submit and the time period in which to do so.
Mr. Simonsen said that he wanted to make clear that this Commission is acting in an advisory capacity and not trying to set policy or trying to undermine the Conservancy and Use Committee.
Mr. Zunguze clarified that the Commissioners should send their recommendations and suggestions to Ms. Giraud who would compile them. He said that the compilation would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission at its September 17, 2003 meeting before the final version is forwarded to Ms. Gotschall.
Mr. Simonsen said that the deadline would have to be Friday, September 12, 2003, so Ms. Giraud would have time to collate them.
It was the general consensus of the Commission that there needed to be a resolution for this case, so Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 019-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission table this issue and continue the discussion at its meeting on September 17, 2003, to allow members of the Commission to provide written or oral comments to the Preservation Staff to be incorporated into a document that would be presented to the applicants and the City and County Building Conservancy and Use. Committee. Further, the Commission encourages the applicants to explore all the issues that were presented in the discussion at this meeting, including the definition of memorials, monuments, artwork, and cultural versus historical. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION (Continuation)
At this time, Mr. Simonsen continued the Comments to Commission portion of the meeting since Councilmember Jergensen arrived. Mr. Simonsen invited Councilmember Jergensen to address the Commission.
Mr. Jergensen stated that he appreciated the invitation to attend this meeting. He stated the following: "As a City Council, we passed a legislative action meant to review the enabling zoning ordinance of the Historic Landmark Commission in an effort to take a look once again at the Historic Landmark Commission, at the ordinance, and at how we are doing in terms of historical preservation in that delicate balance of reuse and preservation. I do not have the specific legislation action, however, I think it has been distributed to members of the Commission.
"I think the overall desire is simply to say let’s look generally at how we are doing as a Historic Landmark Commission and how we are doing interfacing with the City and with neighborhoods and communities. We may look at ways in which we might improve the process, might redefine the process, if necessary. We may look at how Staff interacts with other City organizations like the Redevelopment Agency and how the Redevelopment Agency plays into the role of the Historic Landmark Commission so that we can smooth over some of the real rough edges of that relationship. That is an important part of what I think we need to do, especially as the Redevelopment Agency begins to take a role in the West Capitol Hill area so that there is an understanding on both sides as to what needs to be done.
There was some questions regarding the involvement of the Architectural Subcommittee in terms of design, as well as some desire to review. In fact, this was on the recommendation of Staff about some desire to review how Staff interacts with the Commission and if there is sufficient staffing to efficiently operate the Historic Landmark Commission and the historical preservation aspect of the Planning Division." He invited Mr. Zunguze to add anything to those comments."
Mr. Zunguze said that all involved have worked diligently with the Commission providing a full copy of the legislative action and asking the members to comment. He stated that the Commission did provide their comments to the Preservation Staff. Mr. Zunguze said that the Preservation Staff prepared a very comprehensive and in depth response to that legislative intent which he is currently reviewing. He added that he was satisfied with the progress so far and is happy about where things stand at this point. Mr. Zunguze remarked that Mr. Jergensen being in attendance at this meeting will help to solidify some of the good thoughts of having a great opportunity that had been going through everyone's mind and more importantly, that there was nothing sinister behind the request from City Council. He said that all who are involved are essentially trying to have communication between Council and the Commission working properly, revisiting the relationship, and evaluating whether or not the right path is being explored.
Ms. Mickelsen said the members of the Historic Landmark Commission who attended the special meeting that was held to respond to the legislative action, believed that the City Council had provided an excellent opportunity for those on the Commission to talk about what the Commission has been done and what the expectations are. Mr. Jergensen said that he appreciated that and it had been an excellent opportunity for the Council to take a step back and look at what is historic and what are the City's historical preservation goals. Mr. Jergensen said that the Council looks to this Commission for guidance on those particular issues.
Mr. Jergensen continued by saying, "I was very intrigued with the discussion just finished regarding memorials and public art. We have been having that discussion at the Council level and I remember the discussion regarding the Houser sculptures and do they fit in terms of the legacy of this particular building. We really do look to you people for guidance on how we respond to those kinds of questions because frankly we were divided. There was no policy. We knew of no policy at the time as to placing that type of sculpture and
that type of art on this place and how we might interpret such activity. I think the legislative intent was to ask those kinds of questions. Is the Commission enabled properly? Are there more things that we should be looking at in terms of the Commission? Are we too intrusive into the neighborhood or the personal aspect of the home or design? Are we not intrusive enough? These were all questions we need to ask. "So the overall desire to Council passing the legislative action was to say, 'Let's take a positive approach to reviewing the Historic Landmark Commission's enabling ordinance and see if there is some way to tweak it or fix it if necessary, or to improve it, or to expand it." Ms. Mickelsen said that it was forwarded to Staff. Mr. Jergensen said that he was looking forward to seeing the Commission's response.
Mr. Jergensen said that Commission Member, Scott Christensen, was interviewed last evening for his annual "roasting" at the table and he did a great job. He said that it seemed as if the Council's major focal point was how the Historic Landmark Commission was progressing on the response on the legislative intent. Mr. Jergensen said, "I think that Mr. Christensen gave some great answers in terms of focusing on what we were looking at."
Mr. Jergensen continued once more by saying, "There were concerns expressed to me by Commissioner Member, Pete Ashdown, regarding the intent of the action and I hope that those of you who may have been concerned that it was an attempt to 'decapitate' the Historic Landmark Commission are now satisfied that was never the intent. It was always a desire to improve the ability of the Commission to function and for the various agencies that work with the Commission to also improve that function as they work together."
Mr. Simonsen asked about the final outcome of the legislative intent. He added that it has been very frustrating to many of the Commissioners that there are some very significant structures in the city that the Historic Landmark Commission was not able to preserve, other than some facades. Mr. Jergensen said that was just putting band aids on the buildings. He referred to the Brooks Arcade building.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he was not referring to that building, but there are some real preservation challenges with some fairly significant landmark structures. He said that it seemed to him that the Commission sometimes focused on some insignificant projects or buildings and somehow missed the opportunity to preserve, in some cases, a real landmark and that is very unfortunate. Mr. Simonsen added that it was his hope that there may be an opportunity to review parts of the enabling ordinance to redefine some of the roles of all of the players involved with historic projects. He also said that he would like to clarify the interaction with the Redevelopment Agency and set guidelines for Redevelopment Agency projects. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission is ultimately interested in improving neighborhoods that are problematic in terms of crime and other related conditions due to the lack of maintenance and improvements, and the deteriorating character, which is the same as the Redevelopment Agency. He pointed out that he would also like to see some elements that will help strengthen Commission's ability to preserve some very significant structures, maybe to the point at even looking at funding mechanisms and things like that. Mr. Simonsen added that there are a number of communities that have established such funding. He referred to the bond election that was discussed at the Council meeting. Mr. Simonsen stated that he was brainstorming but perhaps there is a way that the City can look at some sort of funding mechanism to help preserve significant historic structures. Mr. Simonsen stated that he would like to know the intention of the Council once the response to the legislative intent is back and whether or not the ordinance will be reviewed and how the Commission can be involved.
Mr. Jergensen stated, "If I might speculate just on how I believe the Council will respond, we will receive the report from Mr. Zunguze and the Planning Staff, and we will review it. My guess is that we will probably create a subcommittee of the City Council to meet with the subcommittee of the Historic Landmark Commission to take a look at some of the specific issues and have the Preservation Staff, as well as Mr. Zunguze work with us on that particular issue, and begin to develop a series of recommendations similar to what you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman. I think that could proceed as quickly, as we want it to proceed. As soon as we receive the report, we will certainly move briskly forward. We don't want to let the grass grow under the issue. We want to get moving. The intent will be to create a working group based on the recommendations of Staff and meet with you all and then move forward from there. If there are changes to the ordinance that make sense we will put those steps in order to make those changes in the ordinance."
Ms. Giraud said that she really welcomed the chance to have this dialogue. She said that she believed it is going to turn out to be a very positive thing. Ms. Giraud said that much has been accomplished through preservation in the city and yet there is still so much more that can be done, especially when the issues with the revitalization of downtown and Main Street. She pointed out that a prominent economist who writes exclusively about downtown revitalization extensively that no downtown in the United Stated has been successfully revitalization without a strong preservation component.
Ms. Giraud said she listened to the questions that were posed to Mr. Christensen and acquired the figures from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the State tax credit, but not the Federal. She announced that since that legislation was enacted in 1994, which was nearly nine years ago, their State tax credits have totaled to $23,000,000 and she did not believe the members of the Council were aware of that.
Mr. Jergensen said, "No I think part of the goal here is to educate the Redevelopment Agency and the Council as to the importance of preservation. One of the important issues to me has been preservation. We live in a house where...it was built as a single-family unit then ‘apartmentized' to seven units in 1934. We are in the process concluding to bringing it back to a single-family home. We know the difficulty that is inherent in such activity. The concern I have is that not only do we need to put a focus on preservation, but I am concerned of that issue of reuse. For in our neighborhoods we need to encourage people to go in and take some of these homes that have been so poorly treated and so badly managed ... and we do not have the mechanism now to move people into these homes and these neighborhoods and to recapture some of the neighborhoods again. If we don't start doing that, there isn't the reinvestment in these historical neighborhood, specifically the residential neighborhoods, and we will lose these homes. They will be beyond repair. I travel along 300 West and you can see four or five homes now that would be beautiful historic structures, I don't mean Marsh Auto, I mean homes that are now beyond repair because they were so poorly maintained. The investment mechanism wasn't there and now they are lost. Not only are we looking at the ability to modify the relationship between the Historic Landmark Commission and the Redevelopment Agency, and various resources to the City, we need to take a look at funding mechanisms via Redevelopment Agency or the housing development group. We need to be serious about that. Whether that becomes part of this legislative intent or not, I don't know, but that is something as a Council we have to look at the policy issues surrounding such things and put those types of mechanisms into place. So, I agree with you."
Ms. Mickelsen said that there certainly was a precedence for this all over the world; the blend of frustration in neighborhoods and the maintenance of historic structures which usually works very well today.
Mr. Jergensen said, "If you take a look at where Peter, Scott and I live, you really have the opportunity to create a wonderful 'Georgetown-like' atmosphere being a few short blocks from the heart of downtown. A great case in point is the development of Em's Restaurant and Center Street Grocery on Center Street. That has been welcomed with tremendous success in our neighborhood. You have chances to redevelop some of these areas. The apartments are being remodeled and improved. We have some infill spaces that we can begin to look at. We with the Redevelopment Agency are looking at a green space opportunity to create useable, livable green spaces in the West Capitol Hill area and having some success in finding resources in terms of money to develop these areas. We are looking at different ideas in terms of residential rather than commercial in some of these areas. A lot can happen, but I think part of that first step is saying, 'Let's redefine, if necessary, or let's fix, let's reemphasize, let's expand or renew, if you will, that relationship between the Commission and other areas of the City. If changes need to be made to the ordinance, we can make them, if not, then we can move forward, but I think the improvement by the way we all work together to enhance the preservation of our resources in the City needs to be done. I hope that is helpful. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you all this afternoon."
Mr. Simonsen thanked City Councilmember Jergensen for attending the meeting.
(Mr. Ashdown excused himself and left the meeting at 5:48 P.M.)
OTHER BUSINESS
A presentation by Alan Barnett. Preservation Consultant. of the findings of the City's recent reconnaissance-level historic survey of the East Liberty Neighborhood.
Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Alan Barnett who prepared the East Liberty Neighborhood survey using money from the CLG (Certified Local Government) grant.
Mr. Barnett stated that he wanted to give an overview of what he saw, what he learned, and what recommendations he had for the neighborhood. A copy of the reconnaissance level survey of the East Liberty Neighborhood was 'filed with the minutes.
Mr. Barnett gave a slide presentation of the East Liberty Neighborhood. The boundaries of the survey area lie between 700 East to 1300 East, and 900 South to 1300 South, excluding the northeast corner which is the Gilmer Park, which was already designated as an historic district.
Mr. Barnett offered the following history of the neighborhood:
Soon after Mormon settlers first arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, they laid out a city based in concept on Joseph Smith's plan of the "City of Zion", an idea in which cities would be laid out with a residential core surrounded by farmland. In theory this would allow members of an agrarian based community to live in the city and enjoy the benefits of community life while supporting an agrarian lifestyle by farming land surrounding the residential core. Salt Lake City was thus laid out on a grid of ten-acre city blocks, each divided into eight residential lots. Because the land to the west of the city was considered unsuitable for agriculture, and the city was hemmed in on the north and east by mountains, the land to the south of the city was designated as the supporting agricultural land for the city. In 1848 surveyors laid out what became known as the Big Field Survey. Ninth South was the southern edge of the city. This simple grid of three rectangular blocks laid out in 1848 and their location just on the edge of the city became important factors in the development of the East Liberty Neighborhood.
Once the Big Field had been surveyed, the lots in the area were assigned to various owners. Over time a few scattered farm homes were built in the area and the land was used primarily for agriculture. Water was a vital commodity in the development of Salt Lake City and for the surrounding agricultural land. Farm owners in the East Liberty area undoubtedly made use of water from Red Butte Creek, which ran through the area, and possibly from Emigration Creek, which at one time apparently crossed the southwest corner of the survey before flowing into the block now occupied by Liberty Park.
As early as 1855 a canal was planned along the east bench to bring water into the city, but the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal was not begun until 1879. The canal entered the survey area just east of 1100 East at 1300 South. Presumably following the contour of the land, the canal continued to the northwest to present-day McClelland Street, thence curving as the modern street does, and turning north before crossing 900 South into the city. In the 1930s the canal was piped and covered. The evidence of the canal apparent today is the right-of-way that runs northwest from the East Side Market on 1100 East near 1300 South to Inglewood Park.
Most of the structures built in the area during this period were on farms. All outbuildings were likely destroyed as land was subdivided for housing. A handful of the farmhouses have survived and are mixed in with the later residential neighborhood.
In the 1880s a number of factors set the stage for development of the East Liberty area. Between 1880 and 1890 the population of Salt Lake City more than doubled in size. Many of the large ten-acre city blocks were subdivided and developed to accommodate the growing population. The Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railroad was constructed through the area, following the line of the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal. Although originally built for transporting building stone from Red Butte Canyon to the city, the railroad also transported passengers and provided a transportation connection for the area. By 1890 electric streetcar lines were extended to 900 South.
In anticipation of population growth, developers began purchasing property in the Big Field Survey and filing subdivision plans with the City engineer. Between 1888 and the end of 1893 a total of 106 subdivisions were filed in the Big Field. The subdivisions proved to be a little ahead of their time. With so many new subdivisions being created throughout the Big Field Survey, supply outstripped demand. Furthermore, the area was still considered rather remote from the center of the city and transportation and infrastructure needed time to catch up to the paper subdivisions. By 1908 the last of the formal subdivisions had been created in the East Liberty area. During the next several decades a steady pattern of home construction continued and the neighborhood began to solidify and mature.
Public transportation improved and by 1926 streetcar lines and bus lines ran along the major north-south streets in the area and no home was further than a block-and-a-half from public transit. Furthermore, the automobile was becorr1ing increasingly popular, and garages lined the alleys that bisected many of the blocks in the neighborhood. The automobile also made the steeper terrain between 1100 East and 1300 East more accessible and hence more desirable for construction of homes.
There were no zoning restrictions, including minimum setback, frontage, and lot size requirements. Lot sizes varied from one subdivision to the next within the East Liberty Neighborhood. In some cases purchasers built homes on a single lot, while many purchased two or three narrow lots to allow for a larger house. The result of these factors and the fact that the neighborhood was developed over a relatively long period is that it includes a mix of house sizes, styles, forms, and lot sizes. The housing demand during the post-war boom led to the infill of most of the remaining empty lots in the neighborhood.
Beginning in the 1960s, the East Liberty area saw some of the decline experienced by many urban residential neighborhoods. The area became less desirable for single-family homes and some homes turned into rentals, especially the ones closer to Liberty Park. Many of those homes were divided into apartments. Nearly all the new buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s were larger multi-family apartment buildings that contrasted with the existing homes in the neighborhood.
While some properties deteriorated, some homeowners renovated and updated their homes. Aluminum or vinyl siding was applied to many houses and some homes were enlarged to accommodate larger modern living space expectations. By the 1990s, the neighborhood began to reclaim its former desirability as a residential neighborhood near downtown and adjacent to Liberty Park. Many of the homes have seen renovation sympathetic with their original character. A few new homes have also been built on vacant lots that had previously been passed over because of their steep terrain.
The East Liberty neighborhood includes buildings from a broad time-range, dating from as early as the 1870s to the present. Most are one or one-and-a-half-story-homes, but a fair number of two-story houses are found throughout the area. The majority of the buildings are built of brick, but some are frame and some are completely or partially covered in stucco. The earlier homes built were typically cross-wing plans. By the turn of the century various forms of central block plans began to appear. A few examples of shotgun plans can be found and by the end of this period bungalows became quite common. There are more bungalows in the East Liberty Neighborhood than any other style. Also examples of Victorian Eclectic, Italianate, Queen Anne, Period Revival, and Four Square styles can be found. Yards with mature landscaping, sidewalks between the front yards and the park strips that have a variety of mature trees and "historic" style streetlamps, which have been installed, gives the neighborhood a "charming" and historic environment.
Each primary building was evaluated as to its historic quality using the criteria established by the National Register of Historic Places. The vast majority of the 1175 primary buildings in the area appear to have been constructed in the historic period prior to 1958. Eligible buildings make up about 76% of the neighborhood, which is a high percentage, and ineligible historic buildings make up 19%. Only about 5% of the buildings surveyed were built after 1958.
This Reconnaissance Level Survey documents both the rich and diverse architectural resources of the East Liberty Neighborhood and the significance of the area in illustrating the unique urban growth patterns of Salt Lake City. Once this documentation has been collected, the historic resources of the neighborhood should be given official designation. While such designation could be applied to individual buildings or to a representative group of buildings, in this case the significance of the entire survey area warrants the creation of a historic district either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or locally listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Making property owners aware of tax credits may be one of the most effective ways of encouraging tangible preservation in the neighborhood.
During this presentation, there was a question and answer session where a variety of issues were discussed. A question came up about basements and Mr. Barnett said that it looked like most of the homes had basements. Because the East Liberty Neighborhood is on a bench, there was discussion about the slope of the land and the fact that the houses on the east side of the streets sat higher than the houses on the west side of most streets running north and south. The development of the boundaries was discussed and the possibility of a change to exclude 1300 East. The discussion led to other areas of the city that have been surveyed and the different character of the neighborhoods the farther south one goes from downtown.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Barnett for his presentation.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:45P.M.