February 7, 1996

SALT LAKE CITY

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

The field trip was cancelled.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Robert Pett, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Burke Cartwright, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, and Dave Svikhart were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and Val John Halford, Planning Supervisor.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.

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 cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Swinton moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 1996, after a small correction. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

NEW CASES

• Case No. 004-96, at 455 E. South Temple, by Zions Bank. represented by Kurt Froerer, requesting to install signage.

Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the use of monument sign would be a low-key, low-profile type of signage, which was included in the recently revised and adopted sign ordinance. Ms. Egleston added that the staff recommended that Zions Bank reduce the length of their proposed monument sign by at least one foot and be remanded back to the Architectural Subcommittee to discuss the proposed position and location on the property, as well as some other changes, if such changes needed to be made.

Mr. Kurt Froerer, representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Froerer stated that the subject building was originally built as a bank, but has been vacant for several years. He continued by saying that the appropriate signage was needed for the building to function as a bank. Mr. Froerer described the proposed signage. He indicated that there would be entrances to the bank building on both South Temple and "E" Street, the entrance to the drive-in bays would be on "E" Street, and the exit would be on South Temple. Current photographs of the building were circulated among the members.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Pett led the discussion by asking if the current drawing reflected the one-foot reduction in size of the monument sign that was proposed in the subcommittee meeting. Mr. Froerer stated that the drawing showed a ten-foot cabinet but said that the applicant would be willing to reduce the size to a nine-foot cabinet and would reduce the height of the sign proportionately. He described the signage as having a dark bronze color with a gold reveal on the base, then ivory or cream would be the background color. There was some discussion regarding the Architectural Subcommittee meeting and the one-foot reduction in size of the monument sign, as well as the other proposed signage. Mr. Pett also pointed out that decisions made by the commission, regarding signage requests, had to comply with the sign ordinance that was recently adopted by the City and the Historical Landmark Commission's signage policy on South Temple.

• Ms. Deal expressed her concerns about the illuminated warning "exit" signage on the building. Mr. Froerer stated that the applicant thought the illuminated 4 x 2-foot exit sign was important on the building as a safety issue, and did not believe that a non-illuminated exit sign on the street was adequate. He added that the liability issue was a factor for the signage and that the illuminated sign would be turned off when the bank closed at 6:00P.M. There was some discussion whether or not this illuminated exit sign met code. Mr. Cooper thought a warning "exit, do not enter" non-illuminated sign at the sidewalk would be sufficient. Mr. Froerer stated that an abundance of caution by more than one sign would be more appropriate. Others agreed with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Pett indicated that there should be a better location to place the "exit" sign rather than have it placed on the building 17 feet off the ground.

• Ms. Swinton pointed out that there were two issues with this request: the directional signage and the monument sign. She then asked Mr. Froerer if he knew what warning or directional signage were on other buildings in the area that had driveways leading to a parking lot in the rear. Mr. Froerer did not know and stated such.

• Mr. Damery asked about the distance from the sidewalk to the subject building. Mr. Froerer said that he thought it was about thirty feet. There was some discussion about the monument sign being placed in some other location rather than at the corner of the property.

• Mr. Cooper said that he had a problem with the concept because of prior cases requesting signage on South Temple in the past. He said that one backlit signage request was on the Morreau Medical Building, however that request was for an upgrade of an existing backlit sign. Mr. Cooper reminded the commission that even though that was an existing sign, there was much confrontation among the members before that upgrade was allowed because of the signage policy on South Temple. He indicated that this request by Zions Bank was for new signage. He expressed his concerns regarding other requests to allow backlit monuments signs on the other proposed developments in the surrounding area.

• Ms. Hatch indicated that Mr. Cooper's argument was a good one and agreed that a wrong precedence should not be set regarding signage. She said that she thought the reason why the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed this request by Zions Bank more favorably was because the building was yet to achieve historic status and thought that it would be reviewed differently than other buildings on South Temple.

Ms. Diana Kirk was also present and announced that she was Senior Vice President of Zions Bank and Vice Chair of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. She said that they were looking at the illuminated sign as a safety issue and stated that they strongly believed in having it and would have illuminated signage when they needed to have it illuminated. Ms. Kirk suggested that one of the ways to solve this signage issue would be to have the Police Department review it or something like that which was normally done in Planning Commission when an uncomfortable issue arose. Mr. Pett expressed his concerns, again, about setting a poor precedence, if illuminated signs were allowed on buildings on South Temple, regardless of what the Police Department would recommend. He continued by saying that there were other options available for the directional signage. Mr. Pett suggested that rather than having the illuminated sign on the building approximately 17 feet high, that a small non-illuminated sign could be placed lower, at eye level, on one of the piers to one of the drive-in bays. There was much discussion regarding the directional signage.

Mr. Pett 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. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion took place regarding these issues. Samples of both the identification and directional signage which appeared on other banks and buildings in the area were cited by the members. Some commission members questioned the need to have four identification signs for the bank and the visual clutter that would occur if they were allowed. Some suggestions were offered by the commission members that smaller and lower to the ground, low-profile, directional signs, with brass lettering or other types of soft lettering, could be placed so they could be seen by the public, and that the monument sign be reduced in size by one foot and moved closer to the building with ground lighting rather than having a backlit sign. Mr. Cooper said that by making those changes, and if the commission approved it, the commission would be moving in the direction that could be defended when other signage requests were received by other developers of projects on South Temple in the future. Others agreed. It was pointed out that the recent monument sign request by the historic LDS Business College property was denied because of an identification sign that was already on the building.

There was a short discussion regarding the traffic flow on the corner of South Temple and "E" Street and the routing of the traffic into the bank's drive-in bays, as well as the parking lot.

The discussion turned to the wording of the motion that would be rendered by the commission.

Mr. Cooper moved to table Case No. 004-96, pending further design alterations by the applicant, with the following recommendations: 1) that the monument sign be reduced in size, pulled back from the corner, and be ground lit rather than backlit; 2) that the directional sign on South Temple be removed and the "do not enter" sign on the building be reduced in size and located at a lower level and without advertisement for the business; and 3) that the entrance sign on "E" Street be reduced in size and without advertisement for the business. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton.

Mr. Pett questioned whether or not the request should be tabled, denied, or approved with conditions. A lengthy discussion took place with the consensus of the members that it was necessary that the commission review it again to be certain that the applicant complied with the conditions in the motion. Mr. Cooper said that although he confronted the issues at hand, the motion would stand and Ms. Swinton indicated that her second stood.

Ms. Kirk expressed her disappointment and said that if there was no way to get the signage request approved at this meeting, that the project might as well be abandoned, due to the time crunch they faced. She then asked why some compromise could not be made at this time. She commented that she was confused with the subcommittee process. Ms. Kirk indicated that this was really damaging to the business. Mr. Cooper said in response to that, that this application was reviewed no differently that anyone else’s request that came before this commission. Ms. Hatch said that it was made very clear in the subcommittee meeting that the Architectural Subcommittee was only a small group of architects who were available to offer suggestions and that by no means were the suggestions binding, because the commission, as a whole, made the final decision. Ms. Kirk said that was unfortunate, because they tried to abide by the suggestions that were offered by the subcommittee. Ms. Deal stated that the drawings reviewed at this meeting were exactly the same as the ones reviewed at the subcommittee meeting. Mr. Froerer asked if they could discuss other options at this time. Mr. Pett said that the motion was to table the application, and the conditions of the motion would be reviewed by the commission at a later date.

DESIGNATIONS

Review of the National Register nomination for the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the nomination, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that the owners of the properties within the locally designated Central City Historic District has not been eligible for state or federal tax credits because the district had not been placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Ms. Miller indicated that before she was employed by the City as a Preservation Planner, she was hired by the City, as a consultant, to do the reconnaissance survey of the Central City Historic District and presented the data, along with a slide presentation, to the neighborhood community council. She said that she recalled that most of the property owners were in favor of this recommendation. Ms. Miller explained the process of the nomination, and urged the commission to forward a favorable recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding this nomination.

Ms. Miller displayed a map of the area pointing out the boundaries of the district and the commercial sections, such as the property on which the Fred Meyer Store was constructed. She pointed out that the district boundaries which would be nominated to the National Register, were not the same as the boundaries which had been designated by the City as the Central City Historic District. Ms. Miller continued by saying that the pockets of commercial properties, such as those along 400 South, could not be included in the National Register district due to the age of the buildings.

Mr. Roger Roper, Director of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), was present. He indicated that the 20 percent state and federal tax credits are only applicable to properties with designation. He indicated that the proposed gerrymandered boundaries were not uncommon in historic districts. Mr. Roper said that SHPO encouraged boundaries to be as clean as possible, but would rather have swaths of non-historic properties be excluded.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Hatch led the discussion by inquiring about the boundaries of the Central Historic District which would be on the National Register, and noted that on Block 39, half the block would be excluded. Ms. Miller said that Block 39 was divided by two different zoning· districts, residential and commercial. Ms. Hatch stated that she thought it was essential that this nomination be forwarded because it would give the property owners an opportunity to access money at a 20 percent savings for repair or restoration incentives, which would help when the owner applied for a bank loan. There was some discussion regarding the state and federal1 tax credits.

• Mr. Pett asked for clarification as to the presentation made by Ms. Miller at the community council meeting. Ms. Miller indicated that the idea of putting the 'district on the National Register was presented but the map depicting the exact boundaries had not been presented to the community council. Mr. Pett stated that he realized that the community council's approval was not a criteria for SHPO's review, but thought it would be prudent that the boundaries of the district for the nomination be reviewed by the community council. Ms. Miller noted that the final presentation was already on the community council's March agenda.

• Ms. Swinton inquired further into the separation of the boundaries on the City register as an historic district and the boundaries which would be nominated to the National Register and asked if that would cause friction with the property owners in the reconfigured district. She pointed out that the new fire station, that was constructed last year, was still in the historic district, but would not be included in the boundaries of the district nominated to the National Register. Ms. Swinton indicated that the City's Fire Department might question why the fire station was reviewed by this commission. She inquired if the boundaries were in the same configuration, could the district still be nominated to the National Register. Mr. Roper indicated that he did not think that it would qualify for the nomination. Ms. Swinton expressed her concerns that the owners of the properties, which were excluded, would complain and ask why their property was excluded when and if they applied for tax credits. Ms. Miller assured Ms. Swinton that the excluded properties were all new buildings, thus, not eligible to apply for rehabilitation tax credits.

The discussion turned to the possibility of dividing the Central City Historic District, excluding the 400 South commercial district, which had been introduced before. It was suggested that perhaps the time had come to look further into this possibility. It was pointed out that there were some very nice historic properties both north and south of 400 South. Ms. Deal remarked that the district could be in two separate sections joined by a street which had no contributing structures on it. Mr. Roper stated that it was not SHPO's role to force the City to change the boundaries one way or another, but only to try to accommodate the designation criteria. The discussion continued regarding these issues.

When Mr. Pett inquired further into the nomination process, Mr. Roper said that the review of nominations to the National Register was one of the commission's responsibilities, since the City was a Certified Local Government. Ms. Miller indicated that an additional review would be required by the Board of State History. She said that if that review was favorable, a letter with the accompanying information would be sent to the National Park Service for their consideration for the National Register of Historical Places. Mr. Roper said that if the commission, after a thorough examination of the properties to be excluded from the boundaries, would desire to change the boundaries, it could be considered up until the time the letter was sent to the national office. Mr. Pett suggested that the commission members drive the boundaries of the area and if any member recognized the need to recommend changes, to do so at an Historic Landmark Commission meeting in the near future. Mr. Roper reminded the commission that SHPO was in the third year of the state tax credit program and recommended that it would be to the advantage of the property owners to forward the favorable nomination as soon as possible. When asked, Mr. Roper indicated that when the nomination was accepted by the National Park Service, the property owners would be notified by SHPO when tax credits could be applied for.

Executive Session

The discussion continued regarding the issues at hand.

Ms. Williams moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the nomination of the Central City Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

Mr. Roper complimented the staff for the leveraging of effort, from both students and staff involvement. He further said that he appreciated the City taking the lead in National Register designations such as this.

Review the designation of the Veterans Administrations Hospital Building at 401 E. Twelfth Avenue to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.

Ms. Miller presented background information on this historic building. She said that she was introduced to a student at the University of Utah, in the Preservation Program who was considering writing the nomination of the Veterans Administration Hospital for a National Register class. After consulting with the student, Ms. Miller was encouraged to approach the owners of the property and inform them of the advantages of including this historic property on the City Register of Cultural Resources.

Ms. Miller indicated that after offering this information to the principal owner, Mr. Pat Gavura of Park City Construction Company, he agreed to this recommendation and asked Ms. Miller to pursue with the process.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Pett led the discussion by suggesting that the owner of the property be present while this nomination request was reviewed by the commission. Ms. Miller indicated that the owner had been invited but was not able to attend.

• Ms. Egleston read the following portion of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 17-1.3 (a), Procedure for Establishment of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or landmark Site: "An application for a map amendment to establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site shall be prepared by the Historic Landmark Commission and submitted to Planning Commission. Any individual or organization can request that the Historic Landmark Commission consider preparing an application of a Landmark Site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District."

• Mr. Cooper said that it was his understanding that Park City Construction no longer had the controlling interest. Ms. Miller noted that a recent change must have taken place of which she was not informed. Mr. Cooper suggested that the commission request a letter of affidavit from the controlling interest owner before the commission consider this request.

Mr. Pett 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:

• Mr. Wally Wright, stated that he was present in behalf of Ms. Karen Wright, who owned an interest in the Veterans Administration Hospital. He said that he was attending mainly to gather information. Mr. Wright indicated that the owners probably would desire to have this property on the City register for the protection of the historic building, but did not think the owners were quite ready for this process, concurring that there had been a change in the controlling interest of the property. Mr. Wright indicated that he thought the building was very significant and, personally, he would like to see it protected as a landmark site. Mr. Wright described the development as he understood it. He indicated that he liked the project very much and expressed his desire to retain the Veterans Administration Hospital.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A short discussion followed.

Mr. Cooper moved to table this project until such a time that the owners request another review. It was seconded by Mr. Damery. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

Mr. Cooper requested that the minutes reflect Ms. Miller's pro-activity on this project and the fact that, with the aid of a student's research, she actively pursued the protection of an historic site by approaching the ownership of the property to include the property to the list of Salt Lake City Cultural Resources. He said that the City needed more activity such as this and praised Ms. Miller for her action.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Egleston made the fol1owing presentation by outlining the major issues of the Certified Local Government (CLG) proposal for 1996-1997, copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the items listed on the proposal were not necessarily listed as to the importance, that it was only a general listing. Ms. Egleston said that the grant was due February 16, 1996, so she had to submit the paperwork immediately.

Ms. Egleston also made the following suggestions for the grant money that was not listed on the document: 1) to hire students to photograph each property in the historic districts, for publication and review purposes; 2) to hire a consultant to review the possibilities of expanding the Central City Historic District, as well as 3) the review of other historic districts.

There was some discussion regarding areas of the City where redevelopment was taking place and the possibility of preserving some of the other historic sections of the City.

The commission members also suggested having a workshop where the focus would be on new construction materials.

• Mr. Pett reported that the Planning Director, asked if the Historic Landmark Commission could meet in two weeks, rather than in thirty days at the regularly scheduled meeting to reconsider Case No. 004-96 so that the applicant would not have to wait a month to resolve the signage issues at this site. Upon consultation with the commission members, it was determined that rather than give this case preferential treatment by holding an unscheduled meeting, the commission members chose to revoke the previous motion to table this case and reopen it for further discussion. Mr. Pett stated that due to the criteria that was proposed in the earlier motion, the motion could be revoked and a new motion be made to recommend that the signage request not be tabled but be allowed to be reviewed by the subcommittee again and approved by staff, as long as it reflected the same criteria. This promoted further discussion regarding the signage issues. Ms. Egleston said that she thought the staff could follow the specifics that were outlined in the first motion. Mr. Pett asked that Mr. Cooper attend the subcommittee meeting as assurance that the intent of the original conditions be met, if possible. Mr. Cooper revoked his original motion.

Mr. Cooper moved to grant conceptual approval for Case No. 004-96 and allow the proposal to be reviewed once more by the Architectural Subcommittee, and that final approval be given by staff. It was seconded, under protest, by Ms. Swinton. Under protest, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

The commission requested that the minutes reflect that this revocation was under protest, and invited the Planning Director to meet with them to discuss these turn of events.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:50P.M.