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 Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Robert Young, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, William Damery, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young.
Present from -the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 4, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 012-98. by Trolley Square Associates. represented by Doug O'Brien. General Manager. requesting to replace existing signage on the water tower at Trolley Square with new signage.
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 of this meeting. Ms. Giraud said that there was an issue with the back-lit plastic signage because the Historic Landmark Commission had set a precedence by allowing plastic panels that were back-lit; however, most requests were for signs that were at the street level. She added that this request for signage on the water tower at Trolley Square was unusual. Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the proposed signage would be an improvement over the existing theater marquees. She noted that the applicant had made an effort to minimize the impact of the sign by using a mesh panel for attachment purposes, while maintaining a size that would be effective for advertising. Ms. Giraud said that the Staff’s recommendation would be to either table the proposed signage and encourage the applicant to come up with alternative back-lit plastic signage or approve the application if the Historic Landmark Commission members believed that the plastic signage would correspond aesthetically with Trolley Square and not detract from it in any way.
Ms. Deal inquired about the square footage of signage which had been allowed for the Hard Rock Cafe and the Pottery Bam. She said that the current request for signage would not be replacing signs, it would be adding. Ms. Giraud said that her recollection was that most of the signage was on the awnings and over the entryway, but could not recall what the square footage would be without doing some research. There was some discussion regarding the square footage of the proposed signage.
Mr. Doug O'Brien, General Manager of Trolley Square, was present, representing Trolley Square Associates, the applicant. He used a display board to further describe the project. Mr. O'Brien gave a brief update of the recent activities at Trolley Square. He stated that the theaters would no longer exist after May 1st and the theater marquees on the water tower would be replaced with signage advertising other major tenants in Trolley Square. He said that the applicant wanted to change the signage abstraction from a "1974" concept to a "1998" concept. Mr. O'Brien said that he recently found out that the applicant was not locked into the logos which were depicted in the submitted drawings.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by saying that the stairway was constructed to the water tower because it was believed that the structure could be used as a meeting room. He said that he would think that the structure should be considered a building. Ms. Giraud noted that was a good point but said that the Board of Adjustment had the responsibility to determine whether the structure would be considered a building or a pole sign. Mr. O'Brien said that he has only been the General Manager a short time and did not know the history of Trolley Square. He asked if the stairway was ever opened to the public, and Mr. Littig said that it was not originally, but occasionally people were allowed to climb the stairway to the top of the tower. Mr. Littig pointed out that the illustration of the water tower, on the proposed plans, was drawn out of scale, and also expressed his concerns about the proposed mesh. Mr. O'Brien said that the iron work at the top of the water tower could be changed to match the proposed meshing. Mr. Littig further said that the proposed tenant sign, was larger than the letters spelling out "Trolley Square". He believed that the framework of the signage should be limited to inside of the base of the water tower. Mr. Littig said that he was concerned that, upon approval by the Commission, the applicant would be given the license to fill that proposed grid with signage. Mr. O'Brien said he understood why the Commission needed to have more assurance that that situation would not happen.
• Ms. Mitchell said that she needed to clarify what the applicant was actually proposing. She inquired if it was the mesh behind the Hard Rock Cafe logo or the specific company identifications that would be attached to the mesh. Mr. O'Brien indicated that the tenant identifications could be changed. He pointed out that the proposed signage would be on the north and south sides of the water tower, and that the proposed mesh would not be placed all the way around the tower. Ms. Blaes said that she assumed that the square footage was not of the mesh, but of the Hard Rock Cafe logo. Mr. O'Brien said the square footage, that he presented to Staff, was of the existing movie theater marquees.
• Mr. Young asked if it was possible to position the signs without the mesh behind them. Mr. O'Brien said that the mesh would form an element upon which to attach the signs and would not be visible. Mr. Young asked how the letters spelling out "Trolley Square" were attached to the tower, and what was the light source. Mr. O'Brien believed that the face of the tower was lit with neon lighting and the block lettering had lights in them, but did not know how they were attached.
• Mr. Morgan said that the original owners of Trolley Square built the spiral staircase with the intent of an occupancy in the water tower. He said that they later discovered that the City would not allow the occupancy because the egress problem could not be solved, but it has been used to access and service the signage. Mr. O'Brien spoke more about the security aspect of allowing the public on the stairway. Mr. Morgan stated that he did not believe the mesh behind the signage would be necessary. He said that if the mesh was used, it would be introducing an element that was not originally on the water tower and would not be an enhancement to the structure. Mr. Morgan said that the signage could be attached by some other method. Mr. O'Brien concurred that the signage should stay inside of the legs of the trestle and that the mesh should be eliminated.
• Ms. Deal also talked about the size of the lettering of the proposed signage. She said that the water tower was an historic element for Trolley Square and careful consideration should be given that the size of the lettering advertising a tenant would not be larger than the "Trolley Square" lettering. She suggested using a halo lighting method or hanging lights which she said would require a hard surface behind the lighting.
Mr. O'Brien said that he understood the concern of the some of the members of the Commission regarding the mesh, but said that the mesh would look better with age. He stated that the Staff recommended tabling the project to reconsider using the plastic back-lit panel for the signage. He pointed out that he needed to report to Trolley Square and Associates in Indianapolis the results of this meeting. Mr. O'Brien reiterated the concerns of the Commission which were mainly the use of the plastic back-lit signage, the elimination of the mesh, and the retainment of the signage inside the legs of the trestle of the water tower. He also agreed that the signage that would advertise the tenant should not "over shadow" the Trolley Square lettering. Mr. O'Brien continued with his discussion of the proposed signage. In answer to a question, he said that the applicant had no intention of changing any element on the top of the tower.
Ms. Giraud said that she was not concerned of the precedent of back-lit letters, it was using a back-lit panel. She said that back-lit lettering was encouraged. She explained that she did not have a problem with the scale of the panel on a structure the size of the water tower, but was concerned that the entire mesh would be a back-lit panel that could be filled in with many smaller signs.
When Mr. O'Brien inquired more about the process of this request, Ms. Blaes briefly explained how he, as the representative of the Trolley Square and Associates, would be notified of the findings of the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that it was her hope that the discussion provided Mr. O'Brien with enough direction so the intention of the Commission would be very clear. Ms. Blaes further said that the findings of the Commission would be mailed to him.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion turned to the review by the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Deal inquired if the Board of Adjustment would debate the issue of the water tower before or after the Historic Landmark Commission renders a decision on the proposed signage issue. Ms. Giraud said that the Board of Adjustment will rely on the sensitivity of the Commission members about the proposed signage and the compatibility it would have with Trolley Square. Ms. Giraud said that this proposal was so unusual, that the Board would need some kind of direction. Mr. Paterson indicated that the date has not been set for this case to be heard by the Board of Adjustment.
The discussion continued, and several members expressed concern on the following issues: 1) the Board of Adjustment will be requested to make a determination that since the water tower would not be altered and that the signage would only be changing from one use to another, that the Board grant the water tower a non-conforming sign status; 2) this signage proposal would not be representing a theme for Trolley Square, it would be an unusual, one-time, request and the possibility that the Board of Adjustment would give it a "special exception" status; 3) the application should be complete and correct before the review by the Board of Adjustment. The Board should not spend time looking at a proposal that was still evolving; 4) the determination by the Board of Adjustment could significantly impact the approval by the Historic Landmark Commission in terms of the material and size; 5) the parameters should be set by the Historic Landmark Commission for a long-term solution for future signage proposals on the water tower; 6) the final design, depicting the recommended changes to the signage, including the tenants name and/or logo, the attachment method, and the exact square footage of the sign needed to be submitted before an approval could be rendered; 7) any lettering or logo of a proposed tenant would be smaller than the "Trolley Square" name; 8) Trolley Square and Associates would determine what entities would be depicted on a signage proposal, but any future changes to an approved signage plan on the water tower would be regulated by the Historic Landmark Commission; and 9) an expanded square footage of a future non-conforming signs on the water tower, would have to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment.
In conclusion, Ms. Giraud said it was better to have the process for this signage proposal flow in the direction where the Historic Landmark Commission had the first opportunity to influence the design. She continued by saying that if the proposal would have been reviewed by the Board of Adjustment first, the square footage could have been so restrictive that it would have limited the creativity of the applicant.
Ms. Deal moved to table Case No. 012-98, until the applicant can return to the full Commission to address the following issues: 1) no mesh; 2) no back-lit plastic signs; 3) the signage lettering and the signage itself must remain within the boundary of the structure; 4) leave the guardrail at the top alone because it is part of the historic fabric; 5) an accurate rendering of the exact proposed signage will be needed; 6) the attachment system needs to be examined; and 7) a long-range plan for attaching and removing signs without destroying the structure needs to be submitted. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
After a short discussion, Ms. Deal amended the motion.
Ms. Deal moved to table Case No.012-98, until the applicant can return to the full Commission to address the following issues: 1) no mesh; 2) no back-lit plastic signs; 3) the signage lettering and the signage itself must remain within the boundary of the structure; 4) leave the guardrail at the top alone because it is part of the historic fabric; 5) an accurate rendering of the exact proposed signage will be needed; 6) the attachment system needs to be examined; 7) a long-range plan for attaching and removing signs without destroying the structure needs to be submitted; and 8) the signage will be limited to the north and south sides of the structure on 700 East. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig,
Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission's Awards Ceremony. to be held in
May of 1998.
Ms. Giraud stated that the proposals were not ready for the Historic Landmark Commission Commission's Awards Ceremony so the discussion would be postponed until the April 15, 1998 meeting. She gave a brief history of the awards ceremony. Ms. Giraud said that she had been inventorying all the administratively-approved cases, as well as those which had been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. She spoke briefly about some of the projects which had been administratively approved. Ms. Blaes asked for volunteers to help Staff prepare for the awards ceremony. Ms. Giraud noted that she would have more information for the future meeting. The discussion continued.
Discussion regarding the issues surrounding the proposed project at 225 No. A Street.
Ms. Blaes asked the Staff to give the members a brief update regarding the project at 225 No. A Street. Ms. Giraud said that the project consisted of a roof addition to a 1950's ranch-style non-contributing house. She gave a brief history of the project, by saying that the project was reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee. She said that the Subcommittee approved the project after some changes were recommended.
Ms. Giraud said that items on the agenda for the Architectural Subcommittee, were not noticed to surrounding property owners. She said that the Architectural Subcommittee meeting was not a public forum; however, anyone could attend. Ms. Giraud said that the "Sunshine Law" was followed in terms of posting an agenda in the building twenty four hours in advance of the meeting. She noted that during a Subcommittee meeting, an applicant has an opportunity to refine the details of a project and to have a technical one-on-one discussion with the members, which has been a benefit to property owners in historic districts.
Ms. Giraud informed the members that the applicant. residing at 225 No. A Street, had shown his proposed plans to the surrounding property owners. She said that it was not necessary for an applicant to receive the endorsement from the surrounding property owners to appear at an Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Giraud said that the surrounding property owners have vehemently opposed the addition and believed that the addition would not be compatible to the ranch style house or be in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Giraud said that she reviewed the pertinent City ordinance with the City Attorney's office, and discovered that there was no evidence that would prevent something that had been approved by the Architectural Subcommittee from being constructed.
Ms. Giraud said that after careful scrutiny, it was determined that the building permit was issued in error because of the 2 1/2 story or 30-foot height limitations. Ms. Giraud said that there has been a "Stop-Work Order" placed on the permit; however, there is no evidence that work has been started on the property. She said that the issuance of the permit had been rescinded. There was some discussion regarding previous projects for that property on A Street.
Ms. Blaes said that when plans go before the Architectural Subcommittee, it is really treated as an administrative approval because the Subcommittee members are working in an advisory capacity to the Staff. She stated that the circumstances surrounding this issue, introduced a larger issue. Ms. Blaes pointed out that the City ordinance states that only an applicant can appeal an administrative decision and the neighborhood has no recourse and no opportunity to be heard to appeal a decision.
Ms. Giraud said that surrounding property owners are notified of a proposed demolition of a non-contributing structure in an historic district. She said that the public has a fourteen-day time frame in which to call and request the Planning Director to have the demolition reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Giraud said that the purpose of the Architectural Subcommittee was to streamline projects and to make them "user friendly". The following suggestions were made by the Commission members as to when and how surrounding property owners could be notified of projects being reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee: 1) the same process could be followed for proposed additions as for demolitions of non-contributing structures; or 2) devise a policy for additions, such as limiting the dollar amount of the project, or any proposal where the addition would affect more than the first story, would have to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission where the surrounding property owners would be notified.
A discussion regarding this matter continued. Ms. Mitchell said that the policy should not be so restrictive that a property owner would need the approval of the neighbors before any proposal for a non-contributing structure could be developed. Ms. Giraud said that an approved project would still have to conform to the criteria of the City ordinance. She said that it was not necessary to deny a project because it may block someone's view. Ms. Deal said that a person "does not own a view corridor, unless the property is in a specialized zoning district."
In conclusion, Ms. Blaes said that the goal was not to solve the problem at this meeting, but suggested that the members of the Architectural Subcommittee think about the issues which have been raised, and by working together, try to find a way to solve this problem.
Introduction of a new member.
Ms. Blaes introduced Mr. Orlan N. Owen as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Gordon. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:05 P.M.