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 Thomas Cerruti, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, Robert Young, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Lynn Morgan, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. Burke Cartwright, Bruce Miya, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller, Planners. Janice Jardine, liaison for the City Council Office was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He 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. Deal moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 1997. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of signage for commercial structures in historic districts and on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Egleston presented an overview of the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She indicated that she had received a request to use a "rope light" on the
New Grand Hotel building, which is located in the Exchange Place Historic District for a Mexican import store. She said that the store owner explained that the rope lighting would be about one-third the cost or neon lighting and he felt that was a big expense for which he should not be obligated. Ms. Egleston stated that the request to use the exterior rope lights on the building was denied, she said that she also suggested to the store owner to use the rope lights on the interior window. Ms. Egleston said that she was very sympathetic to the store owner and believed that New Grand Hotel management should have informed him of the requirement for signage. She pointed out that other signage on the building has been successful. Because Mr. Cooper was consulted on the signage request for the Mexican Import store, he commended Ms. Egleston for the courteous and professional manner she showed while working with the store owner.
Ms. Egleston stated that she thought this request warranted a separate discussion because she was not familiar with that type of lighting. Ms. Egleston spoke of either amending the signage policy in historic districts or continuing to review new types of signage on a case-by-case basis. She mentioned that included in the staff report were copies of pertinent paragraphs from the signagepolcy.as well as a copy of the exterior signage criteria of the New Grand Hotel. She said that she believed that the criteria was not being used.
Mr. Kirk Brimley of Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO), as a representative of the sign Industry, was invited to report on the new types of lighting, such as rope and fiber optic lighting, which are available as an alternative to neon. He has had 57 years of experience in the sign industry. Because of his experience and expertise, he is asked to speak at seminars throughout the country on the subject of signage.
Mr. Brimley reported the following:
Rope lighting is a series of small incandescent lights, which are called "wheat lights” because they are about the same size as a grain of wheat the light cord is encased in a clear plastic tube. A sample of the product was not provided. However, photographs were circulated of similar lighting types. One of the problems that exist with the use or rope lighting is that when the lamps burn out they are very difficult to change. The plastic tubing, after about a two-to-three-year period of time depending on the sun exposure loses its luster and yellows with age.
Fiber optic lights are also enclosed in a continuous flex of cable, but has the same aging problems as the plastic tube for the rope lights. There is a very intense light source at the end of the bundle. When light is projected, it is transmitted through the fiber optic units and dead-ends at certain Intervals. It gives an appearance of continuous light. One advantage or disadvantage is that the intense projected light source can change colors like a rotary color wheel. The best uses for fiber optic or rope lighting are for trim around another sign, the outline of a window, or halo and indirect lighted lettering. Because of the inflexibility of the cable for either the rope or fiber optic lighting, they are not recommended for the formation of letters.
There is a new version of the fiber optic rope light be·1ng marketed which is becoming widely used. The light is more brilliant but again, the problem is that the plastic tubing attracts dirt and begins to lose its elasticity, then it becomes brittle from the sun's ultra-violet rays. As the plastic breaks down, moisture gels inside and the problems are magnified. In general use, the rope lighting has not been successful throughout the country. The fiber optic light produces a more uniform light than rope lighting, but cannot be compared to the uniformity of neon.
In many cities and towns throughout the country, neon is being prohibited in historic districts because the officials do not feel that neon contributes to the historic nature of an area. However, those communities are inviting legal problems by banning one medium and not other types of lighting. A case was addressed where neon signs were prohibited but plastic signs in windows or other types of lighting were allowed, and the courts ruled against a mandate for one medium and not others. Historic districts have more leverage than regular business districts. It’s a matter of judgment whether or not fiber optic or rope lighting meets the standards of an historic district.
Neon is a gas-filled light. There is no filament in neon except the electrode at the end which ignites the gas within the tube and creates the combination and there combination of the gas; positive and negative electrons. Neon can last 50 to 60 years, or almost indefinitely. The cost of a ten-foot piece of lube for a straight application of rope or neon lighting would be about the same. However, the cost of neon rises when the tubes are in pieces or are formed into letters. There is no environmental impact with neon if a tube is broken because neon is in the air the same as oxygen, hydrogen, or helium. One disadvantage of neon is that it operates on high voltage. A statute, of the regulations of the National Electrode Code, requires neon to have an interrupter that will short-circuit and shut down which prevents the circuit from drawing an arc. Also neon can be varied to use a lower milliamp-rated transformer so the input voltage is not as high, so safety precautions have been implemented.
There have been very few accidents with neon lighting when it is properly installed. YESCO was instrumental in developing a new neon installation manual, which is fully Underwriters Laboratory (UL) approved, that gives in-depth instructions on how to use and how to regulate neon. The Classic Cleaners in downtown Salt Lake City has had the same neon lighting, since the mid 1930's. The sign is a classic itself and is often featured in the historic neon books and publications. Referring to an article in an industry publication, it states that nothing will ever replace neon."
Mr. Brimley stated that there has been many products come and go which supposedly would revolutionize the sign industry. He added that through the years, no product has been able to compare with neon.
Mr. Bob Farrington, Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance, was also present. He stated that the Downtown Alliance wanted to make certain that the highest quality of signage and building appearance could be achieved in the downtown area, but they would also like to encourage more retailers and businesses to occupy the vacant storefronts that exist. Mr. Farrington said that some of the retailers might not last as long as a neon sign. He said that there should be dome incentives to lure retailers and businesses to locate in the downtown area. He suggested extending a “little bit of a downtown area, upgrades in the buildings would be encouraged to reach the same quality level. Mr. Farrington noted that the Downtown Alliance would be proposing in the new budget to make some dollars available for signage enhancement. He expressed his desire to have public bodies provided gap-financing as part of the incentives.
Mr. Farrington made the comment that the signage criteria of the New Grand Hotel building was the general direction in which the Downtown Alliance would like to head. Mr. Brimley suggested that if a theme could be established, in the Exchange Place Historic District, as an example that could be used by retailers or businesses for the signage, lighting, or a variation of the lighting, it would be advantageous, which he has seen in other parts of the country He said that another “carrot” to retailers or businesses would be to lease signage and pay on a monthly basis, which would reduce some of the initial cash outlay.
Historic photographs of Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City. were circulated which showed the clutter of signs in comparison to how it looks now.
Ms. Hatch said that the Commission is receiving more requests to identify building tenants on the exterior of the buildings in historic districts or landmark sites. She expressed her concerns about the damage to an historic building’s exterior when signs are continually attached and removed to accommodate new tenants. Ms. Hatch said that the Commission, in the past, has felt that it was important to have only one sign, which would identify the building, and the tenants would be identified by an interior directory. Ms. Hatch said that this did not necessarily apply to retailers because they needed street identification.
Mr. Farrington stated that there have been fewer concerns about an extra identification sign on a building, than a tenant occupying a storefront, who does not have the means to have quality signage, so hand-made signs are plastered over the windows. He said that kind of display deteriorates the quality level of an entire area. He spoke of some retailers just outside of Exchange Place Historic District where that kind of clutter occurs. He said that perhaps extending the district’s boundaries would prevent some of that mishmash of signs.
Mr. Brimley stated the people in the sign industry hear from people who say that they would like to go downtown but could not get enough signage to draw people into the store, so they go elsewhere. He talked about a new large chain store that just opened in Indianapolis which takes an entire block in the middle of the downtown area. He said that the complex offered a high-rise office building and other amenities that attracted retailers. Mr. Brimley reminisced about Salt Lake City many years ago when shoppers would walk from 300 South, along Main Street, to South Temple. He suggested that while the downtown area is being revitalized, there should be more incentives to encourage small businesses to locate there. Mr. Brimley stated that he understood that signage should be limited in the downtown area, so there would not be a clutter of signs, as there was in the past, yet would allow retailers to be identified.
The discussion turned to the following: 1) portions of the existing Salt Lake City Sign Ordinance; 2) the traffic that is current being generated in the downtown area is from automobiles 3) the possibility of more pedestrians in the downtown area when the light rail system is operating, 4) financial incentives for the store owner. 5) other signage that has been approved by the Commission, and 6)the need for retailers to generate more traffic.
Mr. Brimley spoke of a publication that was written by a land use attorney in Dallas about the need for visual acuity. He said that people traveling in autos need to have a certain distance to read signage, which is different that in a pedestrian oriented area.
Ms. Williams concurred and said that is frantic to try to read a sign while traveling in a vehicle. She addressed the need to determine whether an area would accommodate automobile traffic. Ms. Williams spoke of a visual interest of window signage, if properly scaled in the window of storefronts. She thought it could add to an experience of walking on a sidewalk while shopping.
Ms. Egleston stated that the signage controversy in the downtown area might not be the issue of materials as much as uniform signage. She spoke of the Eagle Gate Building on South Temple and State Street which has a uniform sign program on the exterior of the building for the tenants. She fell that would be an outstanding way to control some of the signage issues. Ms. Egleston also referred to the signage criteria for the Now Grand Hotel building and suggested to encourage building owners to take some of that reasonability.
Ms. Valda Tarbet from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, was present. She stated that the Agency has a strong preservation program which is not limited to historic districts. Ms. Tarbet said that signage was an absolute necessity for buildings in which the Agency would participate. She added that the agency would be willing to look into that issue, if it was desired by the Historic Landmark Commission, because her office was in the budget season as the present time. Mr. Tarbet said that although it may be difficult to fund a neighborhood business loan which would include a signage program in this fiscal year, it is a long term process and deserves a long term solution.
Ms. Williams inquired further into the possibility of a neighborhood business loan which would include signage for the establishment. Ms. Tarbet said that property owners, rather than the tenants of a building, would be the party who would receive the secured loan. She continued by saying that the Redevelopment Agency would rather provide larger loans to address several issues rather than several small loans over a period of time. Ms. Williams asked if a prospective tenant of a building desired to participate in the loan program and could provide the Redevelopment Agency with adequate security, would the Agency consider the possibility of a loan to a tenant. Ms. Tarbet stated that all of the programs have waiver abilities within them and would have to be approved by the Board of Directors, she added that the prospective tenant would have to have substantial assets. Ms. Tarbet stated that for the long run, she agreed with the idea of building owners providing a comprehensive signage plan for prospective tenants.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session,
Executive Session
Since this portion of the meeting was only a discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission did not take action. There was much discuss on regarding the issues that surrounded the denial of the rope lighting on the Mexican Import store•
An Interchange or thoughts followed. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as: 1) the feasibility of amending the signage policy to allow some of the new technology for the signage industry; 2) the avoidance of blanket policies for signage on non-contributing buildings; 3) a signage policy should provide protection for the Historic Landmark Commission and the Staff against potential law suits if a particular form of sign art was denied; 4) the conflict of incompatible signage on the same building: 5) the signage is contingent on whether or not the future goal for businesses in the downtown area is to create an environment for pedestrians or continue to create an environment for vehicles; 6) the signage policy has fewer regulations for window signs. At times, signage is more appealing in the window than on the exterior of a building; 7) the potential for a variety of period signage that would be appropriate on historic buildings; and 8) the difficulty of enforcing temporary plastic banners on buildings. There was also much discussion regarding the various signage throughout the downtown area.
In conclusion, the Historic Landmark Commission recommended the following:
1. That an owner or a building in an historic district or a landmark site and the developer of a strip mall in an historic district, should be motivated to have a signage policy so that the signs or each retailer or business would be more consistent:
2. To continue to review signage on a case by case basis, for the time being; and
3, To encourage the unique historic signs to remain where possible.
NEWCASE
Case No. 004-97. at 681 No. West Capitol Street, by Juan and Penelope Gonzales. requesting to construct a new single-family home.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the design of the single-family home, which was approved by this Commission a year ago, cannot be constructed because engineering defects were discovered on the plans. Ms. Egleston spoke of the diversity in the style and size of homes in the Capitol Hill Historic District. She concluded by saying that the staff did not make a recommendation for the current proposal, since this was a first-time review for the project by the Commission.
The applicant, Ms. Penelope Gonzales, was present she addressed the problems she has had with the design and the engineering of her previous proposal and the uniqueness of the lot she spoke of the driveway next to the property site which leads to land-locked properties. Ms. Gonzales said that when she approached the appropriate division in the City for a potential use of the driveway, the City indicated that there was no record of that driveway, therefore, she could not use it. Ms. Gonzales referred to the proposed location of the garage and said that it could be moved back five feet to meet the zoning requirement for the setbacks. Ms. Gonzales further described the exterior materials of the proposed home.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cooper led the discussion by suggesting that the applicant change the location of the proposed garage to the rear of the property by constructing a driveway leading to it There was some discussion of the maximum allowance of a 16% grade for the driveway. Mr. Cooper further recommended that the footprint of the proposed garage be shifted so one would drive into it from the side, rather than drive straight into it from the street. He said that by making that change, the doors on the proposed garage would be visibly shielded from the street. Ms. Gonzales responded affirmatively to that suggestion and further commented that she would much rather have the garage located in the rear and tucked underneath the house if the driveway right-of-way could be resolved. Mr. Cooper spoke of the proposed boulders in the landscaping which he thought would handle the grade drop, but then recommended that the potential drainage problem be addressed.
• Mr. Young suggested installing two garage doors, rather than one large door. The applicant was responsive to that idea. Mr. Young also expressed his concerns regarding the massiveness of the rear and the two side facades that would intrude on the visual aspect of the community's environment and thought that was a very critical issue.
• Ms. Egleston discussed the problem on the Capitol Hill area with the topography and said that it seemed as if people were not using their garages if they were not level with the streets. She noted that there had been other proposals approved by the Commission where the garages were located in the front.
• Ms. Hatch inquired about the total square footage of the proposed house. Ms. Gonzales thought it was approximately 2,000 square feet. which would include the sub-basement and the area underneath the garage. There was some discussion regarding the proposed structure being too large for the neighborhood.
• Ms. Deal stated that the intended plans for the house were for a stock house which could be located anywhere in the suburbs, and it would not translate well in this unique neighborhood. She continued by saying that she would have difficulty approving this proposal, even if the garage location was shifted. She said that a house plan needed to be created specifically for this property site.
• Ms. Williams directed her comments to the staff analysts and findings, and said that most of the issues which had been raised were not specifically stated in the staff report. She referred to the section which addressed that the proposed house differed in the scale and width from the surrounding houses. She asked if that meant contributing houses or just the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Williams pointed out that some of the homes in that neighborhood, which had been approved by previous Historic Landmark Commissions, might be reassessed if they were to be currently review. She said that she thought there was a problem with that the staff report referred to as the “streetscape”. Ms. Williams said that the potential decision the Commission would render for the applicant, would be based on the findings of fact found in the staff report. She added that analysis and comparison would be difficult in this proposal.
A lengthy discussion took place. Section 17-1.8 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance was read, which requires the Historic Landmark Commission to consider that (a) Scale and Form, which includes; height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shapes, and scale of the structure, is to be considered and should be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. The discussion focused on the size of the newly constructed houses in the Capitol Hill area and the fact that the down-hill facades were too massive and seem to “loom” over the more historic properties. The question was raised that since those massive homes were not contributing to the neighborhood, should the Commission consider those or contributing properties in its analysis of scale and form in “surrounding properties”.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Joan Degiorgio, who resides at 618 No. West Capitol Street stated that each time someone purchased the property site, she was encouraged by the potential of the property being developed. She said that the design of a house for this property needed to be integrated to the topography of the site and the historic neighborhood. Ms. Degiorgio indicated that she was not concerned with the proposed garage located in the front of the house. She expressed he opinion that she thought it was important to the historic neighborhood not to have more, what she considered, “bad development”, and critical to the neighborhood that the Commission only approve proposals that would be appropriate for the area and not proposals that could be located in a subdivision in the suburbs. There was much discussion regarding the issues which were raised.
• Ms. Helen Draper, who resides at 680 Wall Street, stated that her property is located next to the subject property site. She spoke of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the historic neighborhood and district. Ms. Draper said that the long-time residents of the area seemed to take great care with the restoration and the landscaping of historic properties. She also encouraged the Commission to be cautious with the new developments in the area and stay clear of any more approvals of what she called, "San Francisco-style" houses. Ms. Draper stated that property values were sky-rocketing and the residents wanted to maintain the "old homey and folksy environment that the residents feel.
• Mr. Skeeter Draper, who also resides at 680 Wall Street, said that he liked the applicant's previous proposal and was disappointed that it was found to be structurally unbuildable. He urged the Staff to investigate the potential usage of the existing driveway next to the proposed property site, if the applicant wanted to use it. He said that the driveway was the only access to two homes in the middle of the block and the City should not continue to ignore the problem. Mr. Draper stated that if the applicant had access to that driveway, she could place the garage underneath the house in the rear where it needed to be located. Mr. Cerruti asked for clarification regarding that existing driveway and asked the applicant if she was certain that her property did not include a portion of that driveway. Ms. Williams asked if a descriptive easement could be drawn and Mr. Cerruti said that it could not because the proposed property site was a vacant lot. The discussion continued. Mr. Damery stated that he thought the driveway was an important issue and would have an impact in the development of the proposed property site. In conclusion, Mr. Cooper pointed out that the issues surrounding the driveway were not under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission. However, Mr. Paterson said that he would explore the rightful ownership of the existing driveway
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public.
The main vein of the discussion focused on the wording of the City Ordinance dealing with new construction in an historic district Section 17-1.8 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, "Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure was read. A copy of this section of the ordinance was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Each of the following points of interest was thoroughly discussed, by members expressing his or her opinions: 1) the height of the proposed structure would be within the zoning requirements and whether or not a 2 ½ story building “loomed” over the surrounding structures, especially the view from Wall Street. 2) whether or not all four elevations, which would be exposed, would be considered “principal” elevations; 3) concerns about the overall massing of the proposed structure. It was suggested that the facades should be broken up by reveals and shadow lines, and the house should be designed to step down the hill; 4) the architectural elements had the appearance of applied decorations rather elements to the design of the house; 5) the composition of the window pattern seemed to be awkward and needed to be resolved; 6) concerns about 8-12 feet of boulders, that would be used as a retaining wall on the south elevation, was an engineering issue, 7) the two story deck in the rear needed to be articulated and have more detail; 8) concerns about attempting to revise a “stock house” to make it translate to the slopping lot by adding a sub-basement; 9) concerns about the use of genuine river rock and not sheets of a veneer artificial rock, as one of the proposed exterior materials; and 10) due to the topography of the area, it became a customary practice to put traditional house forms, on the steeper lots, on large foundations, which was a characteristic of defining the area. It was pointed out that technology had improved and there were many structural alternative so that characteristic did not need to be reflected as the “sign of the times.”
Mr. Cerruti inquired about a proposed landscaping plan, which was not submitted. Ms. Egleston said that the Staff had received an extensive landscaping plan for the previous proposal that was approved by the Commission. Ms. Egleston said that she determined it was important that the applicant focus on the design of the house for the initial review by the Commission and that a landscape plan would be forthcoming. Mr. Morgan commented that it would be a wasted effort to design an extensive landscaping plan that would be contingent upon the approval of the design of the house. Mr. Cooper commented on the importance of landscaping being a major element of the environment in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Historic District.
The discussion continued.
Mr. Morgan moved to table the application for Case No. 004 97 and requested that the applicant, as well as the house designer, meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to review options for improving the external elevations of the proposed structure. Further, the applicant is requested to return to the full Commission for final approval, as quickly as possible so the applicant could begin construction this year. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
Ms. Williams asked if the staff was comfortable with the references that were found in the staff findings, even though they were not clearly stated in the motion. The members of the Commission determined that they were.
Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion carried.
Mr. Cooper invited all members of the Commission to attend the subcommittee meeting. He further suggested to the applicant that it would be beneficial if the house designer became more familiar with the property site.
OTHER BUSINESS
The discussion of demolition standards for garages in historic districts and for properties listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources was postponed until a future meeting.
Ms. Miller explained that it was important that the Commission finalized the list of potential award recipients for the awards ceremony. There was a suggestion made by Ms. Williams that because May had been designated by The National Trust as "Preservation Month" to have the Historic Landmark Commission's awards ceremony as part of that tradition.
Each project on the list was discussed and analyzed until there was a consensus by the members of the Commission of the award recipients. Ms. Miller presented a brief outline of the format of the ceremony and the wording on the certificates that would be awarded.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 P.M.