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 Oktai Parvaz, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Magda Jakovcev Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.IVI. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the July 18, 2001 meeting. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz 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. There were no public comments to the Commission.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 004-01, at 208 South 1300 East, by Marc Moscowitz of Fantastic Sam's, requesting a review of the revised signage proposal for this building, which is located in the University Historic District. The revised proposal is for a new monument sign to be installed in the front yard of the property. This case was previous reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission on February 7, 2001, and referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for revisions.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Marc Moscowitz, proprietor of Fantastic Sam's Hair Salon, was requesting approval of a new monument sign to be constructed in the front yard of the property. He added that the property is zoned CB Community Business, and is located in the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission previously considered a building mounted sign at its February 7, 2001 meeting. He said at that time, the applicant proposed a3'-0"x11'-9" (approximately 35.25 square feet) metal cabinet sign to be mounted at the front edge of the enclosed front porch. He noted that staff recommended denial of the application, because the size and location of the sign would make it inconsistent with the historic character of the building and the district. Mr. Knight said that after some discussion, the Commission voted to table the application and referred Mr. Moscowitz to the Architectural Subcommittee for revisions.
Mr. Knight pointed out that Mr. Moscowitz met with the Architectural Subcommittee on February 14, 2001 and July 11, 2001. He added that members of the Architectural Subcommittee suggested a monument sign as a compromise to meet Mr. Moscowitz's concern about visibility. Mr. Knight said that at the July 11th meeting, Mr. Moscowitz proposed a 3'-6" wide by 12' high gray sheet metal monument sign, to be mounted in the front yard of the property, ten feet behind the front property line. He said that the cut aluminum letters spelling out "Fantastic Sam's" would be mounted one inch off the face of the sign and the letters would be painted red, and illuminated with neon red "halo" lighting. Mr. Knight noted that members of the subcommittee found the style and the location of the sign acceptable, but expressed concern about the size and height of the monument sign and requested a lower and smaller sign.
Mr. Knight stated that in response to the Architectural Subcommittee's request, Mr. Moscowitz submitted photographs of a mockup of the proposed sign taken from multiple vantage points along the block. These photos were included with the staff report, along with examples of nearby signs and the existing building.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, which specifically addresses signage:
(G)(11): Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a Landmark Site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the Landmark Site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Summary of staff’s discussion: The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allows one monument sign or pole sign per street face in a CB - Commercial Business Zone. The monument sign may be 6 feet high with a five-foot setback from the property line, or twelve feet high with a ten-foot setback. The maximum area for the sign is 100 square feet per sign face. The proposed sign would be twelve feet, but would be set back ten feet from the front property line. Each sign face would be 42 square feet.
Staff's findings of fact: The application complies with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Mr. Knight stated that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy to assist in evaluating whether proposed signs are consistent with the historic character of the city's historic districts. The policy lists a number of standards for any new sign:
Signage Policy: A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee [Historic Landmark Commission] considers the entire principal facade as the "sign" (i.e. in context.) Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.
In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Backlit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
The Historic Landmark Committee considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Summary of staff's discussion: As noted in the initial staff report for this case, this former house sits at the end of a strip of commercial buildings along 1300 East. With the exception of the building at 240 South 1300 East, (the former Crystal Palace Market, now Einstein's Bagels), all of the buildings were constructed after the historic period or are adaptive reuses of buildings that formerly served other uses. Several have been dramatically altered from their original residential appearance. Most of the signage was installed before the historic district was created in 1992 and is not in keeping with the intent of the signage policy.
Staff finds no substantial issue with the location, illumination, style, and color of the proposed sign. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved similarly illuminated signs in commercial areas such as this block (at Einstein's Bagels and W.H. Brumby's, for example) and at Trolley Square. The gray cabinet proposed is simple and unobtrusive, as are the metal letters that would be mounted on the cabinet. The applicant plans to occupy the entire building and does not envision additional tenants who might require additional signage. Any future request for signage would be considered under a separate
application and would be evaluated in terms of this policy.
The Commission has approved the use of monument signs in commercial areas throughout the city's historic districts, though none were of the size and height proposed here. The Commission has approved pole signs similar in size to the proposed sign. The applicant has noted these approvals and the numerous existing pole signs on the block as justification for the size and height of the sign proposed. The photographs supplied by the applicant suggest that the proposed sign is not an intrusion on the existing streetscape because of the pre-existing pole signs. However, none of these signs are in keeping with the signage policy and the intended character of the district. Like these signs, staff believes that the proposed sign overwhelms the Fantastic Sam's building and the surrounding buildings in scale, and would have a similar negative impact on the streetscape. The architectural character of the building would become subordinate to the signage in the relationship of the building and its surrounding streetscape. This is contrary to the purposes of the historic district, where the architectural character of the buildings and neighborhood should be maintained.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signs would complement the building and streetscape in terms of location, illumination, style, and color, but not complement the building or streetscape in terms of size and scale and thus, would not be consistent with the historic character of the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight explained that the City Council adopted the 1300 East University District Area Plan in 1991. He said that the plan is intended to guide future development in this neighborhood, and emphasizes appropriate land use, parking and circulation, historic preservation, and urban design. Mr. Knight said that the plan specifically mentions beauty and hair salons as a desirable use in this area, and states, "businesses should be designed in such a manner which suggest their proximity and compatibility with nearby residential uses."(p.2) The plan includes the following statement on signage:
As with all structures, signage should be appropriate and complementary to the surroundings. Building and monument-style signs are encouraged that are compatible with, and strengthen area quality. Natural materials should be used with colors and finishes being respectful of the desired townscape. All signage should make a design statement that contributes to the area's amenity. (p.7)
Staff's discussion: Because of the size and height of the proposed sign, staff believes that the proposed signage would not be appropriate and complementary to the surroundings, nor would it strengthen area quality.
Staff's findings of fact: The application does not comply with the design standards of the 1300 East University District Area Plan because of its size and height.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of this staff report, staff believes that the proposed monument sign would not be consistent with the historic character of the University Historic District. This is primarily due to the size and scale of the sign. Staff recommends that the Commission explore Mr. Moscowitz's willingness to reduce the height of the sign. If the applicant does not find this to be an acceptable solution, then staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission deny this application."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired about the recommended size of the monument sign. Mr. Knight said that he left that open to the Historic Landmark Commission's interpretation.
Mr. Simonsen asked what the size limitation was in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Knight said it was 100 square feet in the base zone. There was a short discussion that the sign proposal did not exceed the maximum square feet allowed in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Simonsen also asked if there had been any monument signs approved since the University Historic District was adopted? Ms. Giraud said that the Wells Fargo sign was a replacement sign, signifying a change in ownership, but all the other monument signs were "pre-historic district". When asked, Ms. Giraud said that the Architectural Subcommittee members requested the applicant to reduce the monument sign. Mr. Young said that the Architectural Subcommittee members asked the applicant to reduce the face of the sign from 3' 6" wide to 3'.
Mr. Littig also said that the Architectural Subcommittee believed the property was below street level, after seeing the photographs, but that is not correct. He added that the location of the proposed monument sign would be at street level.
Mr. Littig made the following statement: "I talked with the corporate office for Fantastic Sam's and where generally their logo is all one word continuous 'Fantastic Sam's', they have allowed for the two words to be separated 'Fantastic' 'Sam's', which in this case could not make the sign as wide That is not information we had before; it is information that I have learned."
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Marc Moscowitz, the applicant, was present. He made the following statement: "Mr. Littig took it upon himself to contact the national franchiser, who is not an applicant before this Commission, who is a contract vendor with myself. He's also contacted the Denver region. Again, I'm in contract with them contractual relationship with them, and again they're not an applicant before this Commission. The net result of the contact was that the national organization was unaware that we were trying to alter the approved signage, which Mr. Littig now has the benefit of, I believe by fax, from the regional office. The regional office did discuss it with him, although the person discussing it was in charge of training, with light marketing duties, a non-official of the company or anybody in the position to make any official statements by the company. The national organization became aware and concerned about my sign problems today. I've spent the better part of the afternoon trying to save my franchise from being pulled by the national organization. They don't want their trademark corrupted. It is my duty and, in attainment of my franchise, to make sure that I'm in a zone where the franchise can exist and where I can comply with franchise's requirements. We were kind of flying under the rail by having the owner of the Denver region, with whom I actually am licensed, attend to the sign approval Now that the national organization has become aware of the contention, they are bringing pressure to bear to pull my franchise. If I lose my franchise, I lose my entire investment which at this point is around $200,000, the better part of my retirement fund. This, in my view, constitutes contract interference. The Commission has no business with the national organization or the regional owners not before this Commission. We'll see what happens as the result of this, but I don't know if Mr. Littig was acting in an official capacity on behalf of Salt Lake City and this Commission, or as a party by himself, as an individual, but the repercussions of it are still unknown. I don't know whether I'm going to be able to continue on."
Mr. Moscowitz said that he read the staff report and he said that there were a couple of misstatements of fact. He said that there is no neon proposed for the monument sign. He referred to the drawing and added that the sign would be painted letters indirectly backlit with LED lighting for a halo effect. Mr. Moscowitz said that the proposal changed from a building sign to a monument sign so there would be no interference with the architecture of the building. He said that his signage proposal would "fit in" with the urban fabric of the area so that it would be "compatible" with what exists. Mr. Moscowitz said, "He interpreted the rules that regulate the Historic Landmark Commission to a body of preservation." He continued by saying that the strip along 1300 East is "what it is"; it is a "hodgepodge of random signage" that is extremely uncomplimentary to the architecture of the buildings and the neighborhood. Mr. Moscowitz said that his proposal is not comparable to the pole signs because they are in excess of twenty feet high. He added that he did not want to violate the existing regulations in the district that limited his proposal to twelve feet. Mr. Moscowitz expressed his concern that the Historic Landmark Commission might have other issues with his proposal other than the height. He noted that he has tried to comply with what he knew the issues were with his signage proposal. Mr. Moscowitz concluded his discussion by further describing his project.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by saying, "I did not mention who the client was that was reviewing the signs. I only introduced myself as a commissioner, not representing the Commission. I have the correspondence, the E-Mail, I did not bring it with me, but I would be glad to show the correspondence to Mr. Moscowitz." Mr. Littig reiterated that he did not represent the Historic Landmark Commission when he made the call. He also said that he did not use Mr. Moscowitz's name.
Mr. Simonsen addressed the applicant's concern about other issues beyond the size. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Commissioners had any other issues. Mr. Knight said that he believed the issue was the size.
• Mr. Littig said that he was not clear what "LED" lighting is. Mr. Moscowitz said that LED is generally used in confined spaces. He said that LED is a tube type material that emits light.
• Mr. Wilson inquired if one would be able to see the light source from the side. Mr. Moscowitz said that the light source would not be exposed from direct view; it would be a halo effect. The applicant said that the monument sign would be a two-sided sign. He further explained how the signage would be attached . Mr. Wilson asked if the franchise required the store to have a sign and Mr. Moscowitz said that it did. The applicant said that the regional director was going to "hand walk" the proposal through to get the national organization's approval for this type of sign. Mr. Moscowitz said that the site of the proposed monument sign would be three or four feet below the street level.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired about the structural base for the proposed monument sign, the appearance from the back, and the size. Mr. Moscowitz said that although staff recommendations are significant, the Historic Landmark Commission was not mandated to follow a staff recommendation. The applicant talked again about the issues the Commissioners might have with the proposal. He added that he would like to resolve any of those issues at this meeting and gain an approval. Mr. Parvaz said that the staff report is a guide to the Commissioners and after reviewing the document the Commissioners will make their own decision.
• Mr. Christensen asked if the cement slab would be about one foot and Mr. Moscowitz said that it could not be a six-foot slab, and it depended on the slope of the bed on which the monument sign would be placed. He added that the height of the sign would not be over twelve feet.
• Ms. Coffey clarified that the applicant might be willing to negotiate the size of the sign if that is the only issue, the Commission has. Mr. Moscowitz said that in any retail business, a visible sign is necessary to attract business. He noted that he was only willing to discuss the height and the area of the proposed sign to get the process moving forward.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Commission had any unresolved issues beside the height and the sign of the proposed monument sign.
The discussion continued with the Commissioners expressing his/her concerns regarding the following: 1) the signage being consistent with the historic district; 2) the zoning ordinance allows a 12-foot monument sign in the CB Zone, but that the Commission could limit the height and size because the Historic Overlay District takes precedence over the base zone; 3) the visibility of the building is limited because it is set back; 4) preserving the buildings in the neighborhood is most important; 5) the monument sign is preferable to a large sign on the building; 6) the Commission is more disturbed about all the 7-11 signs across the street and the enforcement issue; 7) the monument sign would not have the visual clutter effect that some of the signage has on the 1300 East strip; 8) reduce the height and width of the monument sign by 12 to 18 inches; and 9) the sign should not be higher than the eave of the building.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved to approve the monument sign for Fantastic Sams for Case No. 004-01, based on staff's findings of fact, with the reduction in size to a maximum of ten feet in height and three feet in the overall depth and width of the sign. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Moscowitz expressed his dissatisfaction with the limitations of the approval and said that he did not think the Commission had any basis to reduce the height to ten feet. He said, "I'm concerned that I am getting an approval for something that will not work and won't be seen." He continued by saying “I don’t know why the Commission would ask me to have a sign that is blocked from view when there are no other signs blocked from view on the street." There was further interaction between some of the Commissioners and the applicant. Mr. Parvaz explained the appeals process.
Continuation of Case No. 015-01, at 651 East 400 South, by Chasebrook Company, represented by Christopher Webb and Bruce Baird. This case is a continuation of the request to construct a new retail building. The building would replace an existing office building, which is less than fifty years old. The Historic Landmark Commission will make a determination if the building to be demolished is a "contributing" or a "non-contributing" structure in the Central City Historic District, as well as review the request for new construction.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that at the July 18, 2001 Commission meeting, members asked staff to obtain additional information about the history of the existing building at 651 East 400 South. Mr. Knight pointed out that the Commission may then use this information to determine if the building should be considered a "contributing" or "non-contributing" building with respect to Chasebrook Company's request for demolition.
The following is a brief summary of the history of the building: Research indicated that the address of the building was once 659 East 400 South. Edward Cook, the owner of the property, obtained permits for a new one-story office building on August 6, 1962. The contractor for the building was LT. Eckman, and the architect was Bruce J. McDermott. City directories list First National Life Insurance as the tenant at 659 East 400 South beginning in 1963. They appear to have remained in the building through the 1970s, after which the building housed a succession of commercial tenants. Staff located no additional information for Edward Cook or LT. Eckman, but did find information on the architect, Bruce J. McDermott. Mr. McDermott was an employee of Ashton, Evans, and Brazier from 1949-1953 before starting his own firm, Bruce J. McDermott and Associates. The firm was active for over thirty years.
Mr. Knight listed some of the other buildings for which Mr. McDermott was the architect, such as Wasatch Towers and Wasatch Manor. He said that Mr. McDermott partnered with another local architect, Mr. Harold Beecher, to design the Salt Palace arena and convention center, which was demolished in 1993.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(B) of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance for the definition of a "contributing" or a "non-contributing" building:
Contributing Structure: A contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C2 of this section and is of moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact, and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.
Non-contributing Structure: A non-contributing structure is a structure within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C2 of this section. The major character-defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Non-contributing structures also include those which are less than fifty years old.
Subsection (C)(2), as referenced in the definition, requires that to be considered a "contributing" structure, a site must be at least fifty years old, or have achieved significance within the past fifty years, if the properties are of exceptional importance.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Based on the evidence presented, determine if the building is 'contributing' or 'non-contributing'. If the building is contributing, the commission should table the request for new construction, pending the outcome of the demolition review. If the building is non-contributing, then the commission should take action on the request for new construction."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for staff, and asked how many times the Historic Landmark Commission had determined that a building less than fifty years old was a contributing building. Ms. Giraud said that she could not recall any, although there could be some in the city.
There was some discussion whether or not the meeting would be opened for public comment. Mr. Knight reminded the Commission that a notice of demolition for a noncontributing building was sent out, and the public had 14 days to comment; there has been no comments. Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Bruce Baird, representing the applicant, stated that he did not have anything new to add. He said, "He believed that it was virtually impossible to call this building exceptionally important. If you do that, you are demeaning what exceptionally important really means." Mr. Baird said that the Commission would have to find it significant based upon artistic, historical, or cultural values. He said, "As far as he knew, no one famous lived there, died there, or worked there." He added that he did not think "the insurance business, with all due respect,
is a cultural value that we need to preserve by enshrining this old building”. Mr. Baird concluded by saying that he agreed with staff that the building should be considered non contributing.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Since the Commission had no questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and he opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
• There was a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion
Motion on whether the building would be considered "contributing" or "non-contributing":
Mr. Payne moved for Case No. 015-01, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact and consider the building at 651 East 400 South to be "noncontributing". Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Protasevich was opposed. Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was some further discussion.
Motion on the proposal for new construction:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact and grant approval on the new construction concept for Case No. 015-01, and have the applicant attend an Architectural Subcommittee meeting for final approval, after addressing the following issues: 1) height; 2) fenestration; 3) materials; 4) the large blank facades on the south (front), north, and east elevations of the proposed building. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen , Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 017-01, at 330 South 1200 East. by Kathleen Hansen, represented by Sandra Hatch, architect, requesting to construct a second-story addition on the rear two-thirds of this house which is located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Kathleen Hansen, the owner of the house at 330 South 1200 East, is requesting approval to remove the roof of the rear two-thirds of her home and replace it with a second story. She said that the house is located in the University Historic District and is zoned R-2 single- and two-family residential district. The purpose of this district is to preserve and protect for single family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Ms. Giraud said that the house was constructed c. 1890 and that there is very little historical information available.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Architectural Subcommittee approved a similar plan in 1997, but the approval expired. She said that the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed the revised plans on July 11, 2001 and the Subcommittee members determined that the proposed alterations merited a full Historic Landmark Commission review.
Ms. Giraud presented the following proposal: The original proposal involved removing the existing roof behind the side-gabled portion of the front of the house and building a second story with dormers and a deck at the rear. The effect would be a long mansard roof extending from the ridgeline of the side-gable to the rear wall; this mansard would be slightly visible from the street when the house was viewed directly from the street. When Ms. Hansen asked an engineer to review this concept, however, she was told that the remaining walls and front portion of the house could not support the new load. Ms. Hansen hired an architect, Sandra Hatch, to revise the plans.
The revised plans were presented to the Architectural Subcommittee. The plans show a second story with a clipped gable extending straight up from behind the front part of the house. The revised plan portrays a taller addition but one that leaves the front, side-gable part of the house intact. Members present expressed concern that the massing of the roof extending to the rear of the house would be excessive, and suggested lowering the pitch two feet. The submitted drawings reflect this suggestion.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.020(G) in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:
(G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff determined that the following standards are most pertinent to this application:
• G)(2) The historic character of
a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Summary of staff’s discussion: This house does not appear to have undergone many, if any, exterior alterations. It is a simple house with little detailing. Its massing, consisting of the steeply-pitched side-gable wing in front with the even more steeply-pitched cross gable centered above the front door, places this house in the Gothic Revival rubric and gives the house its most distinct quality. Other important features include the round, bracketed canopy over the front door and the six-over-six divided light windows. Additional details include the deeply-recessed windows, fascia’s and the depth of the eaves.
These details would remain; it will be the massing of the rear wing that will be significantly altered. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved this approach in the past; the most recent being a duplex at 175-177 North "E" Street in January of 2001, which is similar to the subject property. The approval included the construction of a second-story addition at the rear, but the addition, while visible from the street, would not interfere with the roofline of the front part of the duplex, and the original form of the house is clearly discernible. Staff believed that this concept can be successful if the original form of the primary portion of the house remains and if the details of the new addition correspond to the historic character of the house.
Staffs finding of fact: Staff finds that the character-defining elements of the subject property would not be affected by the proposed addition, and that the applicant meets this standard.
(G)(8) Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Staffs discussion: Again, staff finds that the significant architectural material (the roofline and massing of the front part of the house) will not be destroyed by the new addition. The structures that flank either side of this house are similar in scale to the subject property, but two-story houses proliferate in the vicinity of the subject property.
Staff's finding of fact: Staff finds that the proposed new addition meets this standard. The addition will not overwhelm the streetscape and the most visually-significant part of the house within the context of the historic district will remain unchanged.
(G)(9) Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: The architect and owner have tried to minimize the impact of the addition by separating it structurally from the front portion of the house. This will differentiate the old from the new construction. The new work would not be out of keeping with the scale, design and materials of the original house and the nearby structures. If the addition were to be removed at some point (admittedly an unlikely prospect), the original roof could be reconstructed on the building.
Staffs finding of fact: The new work will read as such and will allow the most significant features of the building to remain intact. The addition is constructed so that it could be removed at a later time. Staff finds that the proposal meets this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the staff’s recommendation, as follows: "Staff recommends that the full Commission approve this project."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for staff. Upon hearing no questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Sandra Hatch, architect, representing the applicant, as well as Ms. Kathleen Hansen, the applicant, were present. Ms. Hatch said that they would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking about the height. Ms. Hatch stated that when the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed the project in 1997, that was an issue and the roof was flattened into a Mansard roof to meet the requirements. Ms. Hatch said that she pursued a way of simplifying the roof, and the only way it could be done was to let it "peak out". Ms. Hatch added that the suggestion by members of the Architectural Subcommittee was to reduce the effect of the addition's height on the original portion of the house by using a "jerkin head" gable.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the proposed materials. Ms. Hatch said that the old part of the house is stucco and the addition would be stucco as well. She said that the proposal called for architectural type shingles.
• Mr. Protasevich pointed out that the windows were unevenly placed on the facade. Ms. Hatch said that they had retained the existing configuration of the windows on the lower level.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicants and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no discussion. Motion:
Mr. Young moved to approve Case No. 017-01, based on staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed
Case No. 018-01. at 400 W. South Temple. the Union Pacific Depot, by House of Blues Salt Lake City. represented by NBBJ Design. requesting to install signage for a new restaurant/nightclub to be located in the north wing of the building. The Union Pacific Depot is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that the House of Blues, a national chain of music-themed restaurant/nightclubs, is requesting approval for signage for their new location in the Union Pacific Depot. The Union Pacific Depot is individually listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. The depot and surrounding property is zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use.
Mr. Knight gave the following brief history of the depot: The Union Pacific Depot was constructed in 1908-1909, and was designed by D.J. Patterson, architect, and John D. Isaacs, consulting engineer. The building served as a railroad station until the 1980s, when Union Pacific gave the building to the State of Utah. The Utah Arts Council occupied the station for a time, and numerous proposals were put forward to restore the building for a new use. Gateway Associates, a group led by the Boyer Company, a local developer, acquired the building in 1999 and are renovating it to serve as the centerpiece of their large mixed-use development on the surrounding blocks.
The Historic Landmark Commission approved the renovation plan for the depot, along with the two new adjoining additions, in December 1999, and December 2000. At that time, the future tenants for the building were unclear, so signage proposals were not included in the approvals. However, the Commission placed a condition of approval that the existing Union Pacific signs on the East and West facades will remain. There was some question on the age of the sign on the west fa de and its status as a contributing architectural feature, and the Commission asked the applicants to supply further information on the age of the sign. At the December 2000 meeting, the applicants supplied staff with a memo showing that the sign was added to the depot in the early 1970s.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the new signage proposal: The House of Blues will occupy the entire north wing of the building. They have proposed a large signage package that includes: [Please note: For the sake of clarity, staff has used the sign names included with the applicant's submittal.]
1. A freestanding "Projecting Building" sign 52'-7" high and 3'-6" wide at the northeast corner of the building. "House of Blues" in aluminum and blue neon letters would be attached to an "aged finish" cabinet with exposed rivets. The cabinet would be mounted on a metal pole and secured to a brick pier. The pier is part of a proposed fenced entry/patio area around the east side of the building. The city defines any freestanding sign mounted to one or more poles or supports as a pole sign.
2. A "Gate Logo Sign" with the House of Blues logo mounted on a metal frame above the east entrance. The logo would be aluminum and colored neon. This type of sign is also considered a pole sign under the City's Sign Ordinance.
3. A ''Ticket Sign" with a blue neon directional arrow indicating the location of the ticket office. The sign would be 4' by 1'-8" and mounted on a seven foot pole, near the ticket window and east main entrance to the depot. The City defines this sign as a private directional sign.
4. A "Ticket Window Sign" of neon letters and window border inside the main ticket window at the east entrance of the depot. The City does not regulate signs mounted inside a window, but does regulate signs on the window glass itself as a window sign.
5. A "Roof-mounted Sign" on the west side of the building. Blue aluminum and neon letters would be mounted on a metal framework attached to the roof structure and would spell out "House of Blues the Home of Live Music." The sign would be 75'-0" long by 10'-6" high. The City's Sign Ordinance does not allow roof signs, but provides a loophole for signs mounted on the lower slope of a mansard roof. Such signs are considered wall signs.
6. "Retail Entrance Signs" on the south side of the depot's north addition marking the entrance to the House of Blues retail store. The City also considers this sign a wall sign.
7. Two other signs in the depot's main lobby are included in House of Blues' submittal packet. They are located on the interior of the building and are not subject to Historic Landmark Commission review.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11) of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a Landmark Site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the Landmark Site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs;
Summary of staff's discussion: The applicant is requesting to use five different types of signs defined in Chapter 46 of the zoning ordinance. The signs and their compliance with the zoning ordinance are listed in the staff report. Note that a number of signs will require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment may allow modifications to the size, location, and design of a new sign in an historic building if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size, and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure (21A.46.070.V). This exception has been used to allow historic signs that no longer meet the City's Sign Ordinance (such as the Coca-Cola sign on the side of the New Grand Hotel at 400 South and Main St.) or to allow a type of sign that is appropriate for a historic building but not allowed by the sign ordinance (such as the blade signs used by some merchants in Trolley Square). The use of this exception to justify a pole sign in lieu of a building sign has not been considered by the Board of Adjustment in previous cases. Planning Staff determined that the signs should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission before they go to the Board of Adjustment. The Historic Landmark Commission can then recommend that the special exceptions be granted or denied after determining if the signs are in keeping with the historic character of the building.
Staff's findings of fact: The ticket window and retail entrance signs comply with the requirements of Chapter 46. The projecting building, gate logo, and ticket signs require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. The roof-mounted sign does not meet the requirements of Chapter 46.
Mr. Knight explained that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding:
(1) A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee [Historic Landmark Commission] considers the entire principal facade as the ((sign" (i.e. in context.) Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.
Summary of staff's discussion: With the exception of the roof-mounted sign on the west fa9ade, none of the signs will be attached to the building, in order to have as little impact as possible on the historic fabric of the depot. This approach may justify a size of sign that would be allowed under the provisions of the base zone, but would be considered excessively large by the Historic Landmark Commission if mounted on the building itself. Such is the case with the projecting building sign. The roof sign is too large for the building and would require several roof penetrations as part of its framework. Admittedly, the roof is not a historic element of the building, but a smaller sign, perhaps on a newly constructed element such as the exit stair towers, would be more in keeping with the applicants' stated goal of preserving as much of the historic building as possible.
When considered as a group, the applicant proposes a 1,007 square feet total signage area, over half of which is the proposed roof mounted sign (587 sq. ft.). Staff feels that the amount of signage proposed is excessive, especially when compared to similar cases the Commission has reviewed at Trolley Square. Trolley Square is also a City Landmark Site with similar houses restaurants, theaters, and retail businesses. The Commission has generally limited the signage allowed at Trolley Square, and has emphasized that the architecture of the historic buildings should not be overshadowed by signage.
The proposed signs follow historic design antecedents for train station signs and use materials similar to those that were used historically. The proposed neon illumination also follows historic antecedents, and has been routinely approved by the Commission on other commercial projects. The dominant blue color of the signs is consistent with the name of the proposed business and is appropriate to the building.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs complement the building in terms of location, illumination, materials, style, and color, but not in terms of size because of the number of signs proposed for the building. The proposed roof mounted sign exceeds the size allowed in the G-MU zone and is out of scale with the historic building.
(2) In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee [Historic Landmark Commission] encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staffs discussion: Vintage photos of the depot show that historically, there was little signage on the building. The large shield and "Union Pacific" lettering over the front entrance appeared shortly after the building's completion. Before that, there appeared to have been three painted signs over the east entrance marking the building as the "Union Station for the Southern Pacific and Oregon Short Line Railroads". Historic photos also show no signs on the rear of the building.
With the building's change in use and the lively atmosphere envisioned for the development, staff believes that additional signage is warranted. Staff also believes that the number of signs proposed for this single tenant is excessive and inconsistent with the amount of signage allowed by the Historic Landmark Commission in commercial areas, such as Trolley Square. Mounting the signs away from the building and onto freestanding poles does help to preserve the historic character of the depot, much as the spotlighting recommended by the sign policy. However, reducing the total amount of signage would, in staff's opinion, do more to preserve the character of the building than the freestanding signs.
The Union Pacific Depot is illuminated at night, and the stained glass windows in the lobby are visible from the exterior. A bright neon sign adjacent to the windows, such as the proposed roof mounted sign, could overshadow this character-defining feature. No backlit or animated signs are proposed.
Staff’s finding of fact: There is no historic precedent for the amount of signage that is proposed. Due to the number of signs, the proposed signage for the depot is not "low-key".
(3) The Historic Landmark Committee [Commission] considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Staff's discussion: It is difficult to analyze the proposal within the context of the entire building, because scarce information has been provided on possible signage for other future tenants of the building. Representatives of the Boyer Company have stated that there will probably be at least two tenants in the south wing of the depot. Staff assumes that each tenant will expect exterior signage. A signage "master plan" for the depot is desirable in order to provide for consistent reviews of any future signage proposals, and to assist potential tenants in determining the restrictions and expectations of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Staff's findings of fact: The owner should provide a comprehensive signage plan for the entire building before approval of this application and any further applications for signage on the depot.
Mr. Knight further stated that the applicants are also proposing a fenced and gated patio area on the east side of the depot. The proposed fence would be wrought iron, with brick piers evenly spaced along its length. The proposed height is not noted, but appears to be six feet, with the brick piers rising an additional two feet. The projecting building sign would be mounted to the top of the pier at the northeast corner of the patio.
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of four feet for fences in front yards. The Board of Adjustment may allow a higher fence as a special exception. Staff believes that a six-foot fence in this location is too high and would result in a pedestrian-unfriendly streetscape. A four-foot fence would not require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment and would still delineate the transition between the public sidewalk and the private House of Blues.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Overall, staff finds that the design and materials for the proposed signs are consistent with the character of the existing depot. Staff further finds that the size and scale of the proposed signs, and the number of signs proposed are not consistent with the character of the depot. The proposed roof mounted sign exceeds the size allowed in the G-MU Zone and does not meet the requirements of the city zoning ordinance. A strong concern is, if this proposal is within the context of the overall signage plan for the depot. Staff recommends that the Commission refer the application to the Architectural Subcommittee and request that the applicant reduce the overall amount of signage and prepare a comprehensive signage plan for the entire depot. The revised proposal could then return to the full Commission for final action. Staff also recommends that the Commission not make any recommendation to the Board of Adjustment regarding the proposed special exceptions before final action is taken. After the Board of Adjustment takes action on this proposal, any changes should be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee or staff to ensure that the changes are still in keeping with the character of the building."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for staff.
Mr. Littig spoke about some bad signage on South Temple and said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission should have some effect on signage.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if this application included the fence as well. Mr. Knight replied that it was part of this application, and was not included with the renovation plan for the depot.
Ms. Giraud said that staff would be meeting with the architects. She also said that the building and only one foot of property extending out from the building was the Landmark Site and regulated by Salt Lake City. She added that there could be some site work around the building that would not come under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission, as well. Ms. Giraud pointed out that if a structure outside of the one-foot perimeter was physically connected to the Landmark Site, then staff would consider that structure part of the Landmark Site, and would require review by the Commission.
Mr. Payne asked for clarification as to separate motions for the approval of all signage, any of the signage, or a comprehensive sign plan. Mr. Knight reiterated the fact that staff did not believe that the Commission should approve any signage until the owners of the building submitted a comprehensive signage plan. Mr. Knight said that one way the signage has to be evaluated was in terms of the total signage proposed for the building. He added that there is no way to know if the proposed signage is compatible with the building without knowing what the plans are for the total signage package.
Mr. Christensen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should have some responsibility for the interior of the Grand Hall because it was one of the bargaining positions that the Hall was maintained. He expressed his concern over the historic murals in the building. Mr. Knight said that Grand Hall has a "twenty-four-hour access" easement through that space. When Mr. Christensen inquired if the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would have jurisdiction over the Grand Hall, Mr. Knight said that they would if the owners apply for tax credits; both interior and exterior.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich commented that the Grand Hall has a public easement and the owners might not apply for the tax credits. There was some further discussion regarding this issue and other matters relating to this case. Mr. Knight said that staff would obtain an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether the Historic Landmark Commission should review work inside the Grand Hall.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Duncan Paterson of NBBJ Architecture, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he agreed with the staff report and respected the historic nature of the building. Mr. Paterson pointed out that the sign facing the Gateway project on the backside of the building is "fairly large, as illustrated, and we understand that is an issue". He said that as the architects and the graphic designers analyzed the building, it was believed that the signage on the rear had to be seen and understood to be effective. Mr. Paterson pointed out that to put the sign on the addition stair tower, as staff suggested, would not be visible from that area and would be blocked by some of the other buildings in the project.
Mr. Paterson talked about the concern staff had that the signage would “overshadow” the stained glass windows, and he commented that the stained glass windows would be over fifty feet away from where the proposed signage would be located.
Mr. Paterson said that the size of the signs could be reduced substantially. He stated that the subscript "The home of live music" could be eliminated. Mr. Paterson added that it was important that the sign on the rear be located at the height, as proposed, to be visible. However, he noted that it could be reduced to about 250 square feet. Mr. Paterson pointed out that square footage was close to the 189 square feet that staff proposed, and hopefully that would be acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Paterson stated that he believed those two were the only sign issues staff had. He pointed out that the only signs, one would view from across the street, would be the gate entrance logo sign and the blade sign or pole sign that would not be connected to the building the applicant said he believed that both signs would be in character with the building and appropriate to the size and place.
Mr. Paterson said that dining would be provided in the outside courtyard area and the fence could be reduced to five feet, plus an additional foot or so for the piers, ''to comply with the liquor law and ordinances".
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Duncan. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by commenting that "House of Blues" would only be one tenant and that there would be two other tenants. Mr. Paterson said that a representative from the Boyer Company [the owners] would address an overall
signage package. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that the blade sign would be
high off the ground, which would make the top higher than the eave of the building's roof. Mr. Paterson said that the loading area would be on the north side of the building and the sign had to be raised to avoid trucks running into it. He noted that the bottom of the sign would be approximately 14 feet off the ground. Mr. Paterson said that the applicant could drop it down to the cornice line, but the goal is to see the sign from down the street. He added that the center part of the building protrudes further than the ends, and is in the area of 100 feet high, so the signage would "feel comfortable and respectful of the building".
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired further about the fenced-in dining courtyard. Mr. Paterson said that House of Blues would be responsible for it and pointed out that the fence would not be physically attached to the building. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich also asked for clarification of the proposed materials for the fence and wall. Mr. Paterson said that the base of the wall would be a similar stone material to the stone on the base of the building; it could be a cut limestone or sandstone. He added that the material would be field brick in the pattern of the building. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked further about the blade sign being raised 4 to 6 inches to avoid the trucks. Mr. Duncan stated that the stage crew could have a 65-foot long truck that would load and unload stage props for a live show. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that there has to be a certain radius for trucks, and a truck could hit the fence and it would not matter how high the sign would be. Mr. Duncan said that was a good point and he believed the sign could be lowered four to six feet, even ten feet. He also said that they would study the radius that trucks need to turn into the loading area.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for Mr. Paterson, he introduced Mr. Skip Stephenson from Boyer Company. Mr. Stephenson stated that he is responsible for the retail leasing for the Gateway project. He said he was not the appropriate person to talk to about a comprehensive sign program but he could speak about the other two tenants. Mr. Stephenson pointed out that the owners renamed the main lobby of the building to the "Grand Hall". He said that the company is "delighted to have the House of Blues interested in it".
Mr. Stephenson spoke of the nine House of Blues across the United States, of which two of them are in Disney projects. He said that he believed that Disney had high commercial standards for its properties for what is allowed and what is promoted. Mr. Stephenson added that to "have House of Blues in Salt Lake City before they open in San Francisco, before they open in Denver, before they open in Phoenix, which are other big western cities, is really a neat deal and we are very thrilled to have them". He noted that the House of Blues would take the entire north wing of the building, with a restaurant on the main level, and a performing hall on the second and third floors, which would hold 1,000 people. Mr. Stephenson said, "Doing that in a hundred year old building with the seismic requirements is really a trick."
Mr. Stephenson said that the south end of the building would be next to the theaters and restaurants so "that would take care of itself because theaters generate enough traffic on their own" and added that the owners were concerned about the north end of the project, so they believe that House of Blues would be lively at night and "the best tenant we could find in the United States".
Mr. Stephenson said that the Grand Hall would not be leased because of the public easement. He talked about the dignity of the space next to the Grand Hall and how it would be good for a signature restaurant, "but until the right tenant is found, the owners will not lease the space". Mr. Stephenson stated that until the tenant is located, the owners would not know about the signage. He noted that the owners know that the Union Pacific shield would not change on the east elevation of the building. He added that the sign program on the west elevation would be available in a few weeks.
Mr. Stephenson said that the House of Blues would be opened for the Olympics on February 4, 2002, [the games open February 8th] if the process can stay on schedule. He stated that the Olympics Medal Plaza, the Olympic Media Center, the Delta Center would be in the area of the depot building. Mr. Stephenson stated, "We just think the Olympic experience for visitors will be greatly enhanced if House of Blues is opened. I frankly think that the dining establishments in the area are going to be overwhelmed and we need to get everything opened that we can." He continued by saying that for a lot of reasons, it is important, for "Salt Lake's day in the sun" to have something like House of Blues open.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Stephenson. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated that the owners should develop a comprehensive signage plan and envision the total signage that would be allowed for the building. She added that the Commission did not want to slow the progress, but the overall sign plan is a big issue. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that companies do it all the time. Mr. Stephenson said that the request is very sensible and explained that he has limited authority to make architectural comments, but he said he would take the suggestion back to the owners. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said the plan should include the percentage of the signage relative to the proportion of the building. He said that he believed the company could do that.
• Mr. Parvaz indicated that the decision made by this Commission would depend on the other proposed signage.
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicants and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Littig apologized for not being more of an advocate for the shield and the sign on the west elevation of the building. He said, "Salt Lake City has a great train station and I think with the signage proposal that has been presented would make the train station The House of Blues." He said, "We need to get this building back and I'm pretty much insulted by this package". Mr. Littig spoke of Cafe Pierpont that does not have a fence around its outdoor dining area, and further "he did not buy a six-foot fence on the outside". He addressed some of the details of the proposed signage, which he believes is an "over-kill". Mr. Littig stated that no one would have a problem knowing where the Union Pacific Depot is located and finding the House of Blues with "reasonable signs". He said that the removal of the sign and shield from the west side of a building, which is very important to the city, was a loss to the city, and apologized again for not fighting harder to maintain that character-defining feature. Mr. Littig added that it did not matter that they were only thirty years old, and not fifty; now they are gone. He said that the House of Blues would have to find a way to let people knowwhere they are without all the signage, and "not make the Union Pacific Station after the fact".
Mr. Littig stated that representatives of the architectural firm, during the time the renovation was approved, told the Commission that a sign could not be put on the roof on the west side of the building because it would have to mounted through the roof and be structurally unsafe. Mr. Littig said he also believed that the House of Blues sign could be attached to one of the additions that would be constructed in the back and not on the roof.
The members of the Historic Landmark Commission confronted the issue at hand and had a discussion about the removal of the shield and sign on the west side and what transacted at the meetings where the renovation was approved.
The discussion again turned to the present signage proposal. Mr. Simonsen stated that he did not believe the Commission was prepared to take any action on this request at this meeting. He added that an overall signage package which would show where, size, and how the potential sign would be placed on the west side of the building. Mr. Simonsen said he would like to see the balance and proportion of the potential signage on the south end of the building.
The members of the Commission discussed and explored the idea of continuing the House of Blues at the next meeting, because it was not known how long it would take the Boyer Company to come up with a comprehensive signage package.
The discussion turned to the possibility of a Board of Adjustment review for the pole signs. Ms. Giraud said that the administrator would not put the case on the agenda before the Historic Landmark Commission votes one way or the other.
Ms. Coffey talked about the idea of a blade sign, which is not allowed except for the protection of a historic structure. She added that the Board of Adjustment is the only body that could make an exception to that.
Mr. Simonsen said he considered the signage more of a pole sign, rather than a blade sign, because it would not be attached to the building, and would be a better solution.
Motion regarding the signage proposal:
Mr. Simonsen moved to continue Case No. 018-01 at the next available Historic Landmark Commission meeting and that the Commission should be presented with an overall signage package, showing balance and proportion, so that the appropriateness of the proposed signage could be evaluated with regard to all the proposed signage for the building. Further, if the applicant desires to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to look at the size and scale of some of the signs, particularly the tall pole signs, and the signage on the west elevation, including the rear wall sign, for an interim review, it could be scheduled by staff. Further, the applicant is to return to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion regarding the public easement:
Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission request an opinion from the City Attorney's Office regarding the easement and whether or not it is regarded as a public way, or whether or not it is still interior and not part of the Commission's purview. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Mr. Wilson excused himself and left the meeting at 6:35P.M.; Mr. Simonsen excused himself and followed at 6:38P.M.}
The Historic Landmark Commission took a five minutes break before the next case was reviewed. Mr. Parvaz recalled the meeting to order at 6:50P.M.
Case No. 019-01, at 340 South 600 East by Overland Development Corporation, requesting to review the application for economic hardship regarding the Juel Apartment Building, and consider who the Historic Landmark Commission will appoint to the Economic Review Panel for this case. The Juel Apartment Building is located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud referred to her memo on July 27, 2001, where it stated that she only had one nominee to serve as the Historic Landmark Commission's representative on the Economic Review Panel, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that Mr. Doug Stephens is an accountant by profession; he has worked in public accounting, for private real estate development firms, and as a small business consultant. Recently, he has worked as a private accountant and contractor for real estate investors of historic buildings. He is currently renovating five structures on Linden Avenue in the Bryant neighborhood, and has renovated several homes in Park City. He is the chairperson of the Revolving Loan Fund Committee of the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Mr. Doug Stephens as its representative on the Economic Review Panel when the economic hardship would be reviewed for the Juel Apartments.
Mr. Parvaz said he believed it was necessary to meet with Mr. Stephens so the Commissioners had an opportunity to counsel him regarding the concerns of the Commission and his position on the Economic Review Panel. He said that the person representing the applicant has many opportunities to meet together. A lengthy discussion followed how this could be accomplished. Not all Commissioners had the interest to do so, but Mr. Parvaz, as the Chairperson, was insistent that he, at least had a personal meeting with Mr. Stephens. Mr. Parvaz said that he was uncomfortable that the Commission would hand so much responsibility to a person without an interview.
Ms. Coffey stated that she thought it was a good idea and suggested that the proposed representative attend the Commission meeting where this discussion would take place, so all the Commissioners would have an opportunity to meet the nominee before a vote was taken. She believed that would be a workable solution. Mr. Parvaz said that was a fair issue.
Mr. Littig said that he felt the meeting should be more casual. He said rather than have a nominee wait and have to listen to the entire meeting, he thought it would be better to have a meeting set up then poll the Commissioners to find out who was interested and available to meet with the nominee.
Ms. Giraud reiterated that the Commission did not have to approve a person that staff nominates. She added that she would welcome any suggestions of persons who would be willing to serve on an Economic Review Panel.
The discussion continued. Ms. Coffey suggested that the nominee be invited to an Architectural Subcommittee meeting to meet with the Commissioners.
Restated motion:
Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Mr. Doug Stephens as its representative on the Economic Review Panel when the economic hardship would be reviewed for the Juel Apartments. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson, were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Giraud said that she was also concerned about the purchase price used in the IRR Analysis. She said that the applicant used a price of $2,067,242. Ms. Giraud stated that the total price paid for all the land and buildings (now combined into two parcels) for the proposed multi-family development was $5,300,000. She claimed that the applicant is using a figure for the Juel that is almost half the total cost of the two parcels to compute an IRR of (14.81) percent on a cash basis, and (13.31) percent on a debt basis. Ms. Giraud added that the applicant stated on the Economic Hardship Worksheet that the market value of the property, in its current condition, is $807,500. She noted that no appraisal was provided for the Juel Apartments, and the assessed value from the following two years is not provided. She added that she assumed that was because the parcels were assembled.
Ms. Giraud offered the following recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission require the applicant to provide documentation as to the current worth of the Juel Apartments on a parcel size consistent with its use as an apartment building, not as part of an assembled package of land, and that this figure then be used to compute the return, or lack of return, that a developer could attain if the Juel Apartments were renovated."
Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant, Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Corporation, to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Holman said that he was a M.A.I. candidate, but not a "full-fledged" M.A.I. He stated that there were different ways to determine the value of the land. He explained the way he developed the land cost, which he believed was a fair way, in the following manner: "We took the total number of units that exist on the site right now, which is sixty, if you counted every apartment as one and counted every single family home as one, you come out on the entire 4.58 acres, sixty units. Twenty-four of those sixty units are in the Juel, so 40 percent of all the units are represented in that parcel of land. So, we took 40 percent of the price we paid for the property and allocated that to the parcel. It was a simple math issue. There are other ways that we could have done it obviously you would take the land cost for an apartment building that had several units is going to be significantly more than a parcel of land that has a single family home on it. Based on this evaluation, a single family home lot would be valued at about $88,000, which seems to be reasonable in terms of the way we approached it.
"The other approach you can take is the price per square foot for the land and the value of this land is going to be more than the value of a single family home so you would have to allocate based on that some percentage the price of the land for the apartments would weigh heavier than the price of a single family home. In any way you come up with it, you are going to get a value somewhere close because of the price we paid for the land."
Mr. Holman said that he could do some different evaluations if that would help, or go through the process of spending $5,000 to come up with the same evaluation. He said his preference was not to spend another $5,000 to get to this point.
The following was the interaction between the applicant and the Commissioners:
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Juel Apartment property was ever sold separately and Mr. Holman said that the previous owner had assembled all the parcels, so when he purchased the property, he paid one price for the entire 4.58 acres. He added that the overall price was $5,445,000. Mr. Holman said that the previous owner had an appraisal for $5,500,000. Ms. Mickelsen said that she was having trouble with why the Juel Apartments property could not be evaluated separately from the rest of the property. Mr. Holman said that he could. This discussion continued as Mr. Holman answered Ms. Mickelsen's questions.
Mr. Christensen said he had a problem because Mr. Holman did not view the parcel of land as several historic properties. He said that Mr. Holman looked at a large parcel of empty land that he planned to develop. Mr. Christensen said that it appeared to him that Mr. Holman should take the entire square footage of the property and take out the square footage of the Juel Apartments parcel. Mr. Holman said that he could do that but believed he would come up with a figure close to what he had already proposed.
Mr. Holman said that an appraiser looks at a piece of property as though it had no buildings on it, and considers what the highest and best use for the property would be. He further said that the second step of the appraisal is considered with the buildings on site. Mr. Holman said then the appraiser has to consider how much does the building contribute to the overall value and how much does the land contribute to the overall value. He added that is one of the three tests that an appraiser uses to establish value. Mr. Holman stated that the other two tests are sales comparison and income.
Mr. Payne stated that the economic hardship review process is somewhat of an adversarial pursuit in which the applicants side would present their view of what the value should be, and the Commission's expert would present his/her view of what the value should be, and we cannot require him/her to use a particular kind of evaluation. He said that ultimately it would be up to the decision-maker. Ms. Giraud disagreed because the representative could be counseled about the evaluation of land value. This discussion continued.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the renovation costs of the property. Mr. Holman said that cost would be over $1,000,000. Mr. Parvaz expressed some of his concerns about the property. He said he was very concerned about the applicant requesting the historic building to be demolished rather than renovating it and saving the historic building.
There was much discussion regarding some of the numbers in the economic hardship proposal. Mr. Holman said that he would be happy to stay after the meeting and explain to Mr. Parvaz how he arrived at the figures he did.
Ms. Coffey suggested that this was a discussion for the Economic Review Panel. She said that perhaps the Commission could require the applicant to obtain a current appraisal. Mr. Holman said that if the applicant was required to obtain a current appraisal, then the Historic Landmark Commission should also be required to obtain a current appraisal. Ms. Coffey said that she did not believe that it was the job of the Historic Landmark Commission to come up with an appraisal. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission could defer the decision to the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Protasevich referred to the letter from Overland Development that was included in the economic hardship data, and read the following: "The 1997 Uniform Building Code states that all structurally unsafe buildings shall be declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance " Mr. Protasevich inquired about the source of that information. Mr. Holman said that he did not bring it with him, but it was a direct quote out of the codebook. Mr. Holman said that if he renovated this building, it would have to meet codes. Mr. Protasevich said that there were some exceptions and questioned the wording in the letter. Mr. Holman said that if a building is unsafe then an owner would have to comply with the Dangerous Buildings Codes and added that perhaps the letter should have been reworded.
In conclusion, Mr. Parvaz talked again about the "semiformal" meeting he would like to have with Mr. Stephens. Ms. Giraud assured him that she would try to set up a meeting and inform him when it would be.
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:40P.M.