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 William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Robert Payne, and Mark Wilson were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Gordon 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. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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 December 6, 2000 meeting. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the January 3, 2001 meeting. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 001-01, at 631-633 North West Capitol Street, by Jim Oliver, requesting to construct a new duplex on the existing vacant lot in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
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 the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this case on January 3, 2001. He said that the Commission conceptually approved the request with the exception of the garages. He added that Mr. Oliver met with the Architectural Subcommittee on January 10 and 24, 2001, and the following is a summary of the changes submitted at that meeting:
1. Trellises and entrances on the front (east) elevation: The parking for the duplex has been moved to the back. Mr. Oliver has added a front porch to each of the units, incorporating the trellis design previously proposed.
2. Driveway plan: Barry Walsh of the City Transportation Division reviewed the driveway design. The design meets City Ordinances with respect to slope, setback, drive approaches, and so on. It will be east of the proposed building.
3. Design of the contemporary windows: Mr. Oliver has changed the arrangement of the windows on the sides of the building to a more traditional fenestration pattern. The drawings have been changed to more accurately show the proposed windows and the grid pattern previously proposed has been removed.
4. Replacement of the Palladian window on the front elevation: The Architectural Subcommittee suggested a simple casement window similar to the windows on the side. This change has been made and is shown on the attached plans.
• 5. Landscaping plan: The landscaping plan approved by the Architectural Subcommittee is attached.
6. Additional screening for privacy: In lieu of the single blue spruce proposed for the north side of the property, Mr. Oliver has agreed to plant columnar cedars, or another similarly fast growing conifer to provide additional screening with the neighboring properties to the north.
7. Addition of usable front porches on the east elevation: These have been added and are shown on the attached drawings.
8. Look at other options for parking in the rear: The proposed garage design accompanies the staff report. It will be two two-car garages in the rear with a stucco finish for the primary wall material. The subcommittee thought that a shed roof was appropriate in the case of this building, based upon similar surrounding accessory buildings and historic precedent. A simple metal door with a smooth (not wood grain) finish is proposed for he garage doors.
9. The massing of the structure, especially from the northern-west view, due to the topography of the land: The overall massing of the building has not changed. The Architectural Subcommittee believed that the height of the building was primarily governed by the height requirements of the base zoning. Since the Commission approved a similarly massed new house immediately to the south of this property, the applicant argued that a building of the same massing should be allowed here. The members of the Architectural Subcommittee agreed.
Mr. Nelson offered the following staff findings and recommendation: "Staff finds that the applicant has met the requirements of the previous motion and has made the changes requested by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee. Staff recommends final approval of the design of the garages."
A short discussion followed regarding the change of window pattern.
Mr. Jim Oliver, the applicant was present. He stated that he concurred with the staff report and had no further comments.
Since there were no inquiries, concerns, and comments by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon 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. 001-00, as presented, based on the staff's findings of fact included in the staff reports. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 005-00, at 1027 E. South Temple, by Linda Mezenen, represented by her contractor, Don Adams, requesting an extension of the previous Historic Landmark Commission approval on February 2, 2000, to renovate the existing building and to construct a new building in the area of the existing parking lot. The property is located in the South Temple 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 said that the application was to create a condominium project by constructing a new "U"-shaped building and restoring and incorporating the existing house into the project. Ms. Giraud stated that due to a change in ownership the new applicant Linda Mezenen is requesting a time extension for Case No. 005-00 for approval to renovate
the existing building and construct a five or six unit condominium project on the lot. She
added that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this case on February 2, 2000 and the motion was to table the project for revisions. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the applicant, at that time, did not proceed any further.
Ms. Giraud said that applications are good for one year from the time that an application is filed with the Planning Division. She remarked that Ms. Mezenen's letter was submitted under the calendar requirements. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant's contractor indicated that she is interested in using, or closely following, the plans of the previous applicant, Thomas Boden, that architect, Max Smith, designed.
Ms. Giraud reiterated that the approval sought by the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting, was for a time extension only for the applicant, who will present a full set of plans at a future meeting.
Mr. Littig inquired about the design of the proposed front entrance that was on the original plans. Ms. Giraud said that element and other details would be included on the plans that will be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Simonsen talked about a concern he had with the original plans that were submitted. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission could treat the proposed plans like a new project, have them reviewed by this Commission first, then refer them to the Architectural Subcommittee
Ms. Linda Mezenen, the applicant, as well as her contractor Mr. Don Adams, were present. Ms. Mezenen stated that she concurred with the comments made by staff.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if the applicant was going to use the same architect. Ms. Mezenen said she had been conferring with Mr. Max Smith of MJS Architects, who was the original architect. She said that she was trying to keep the cost down as much as possible, then indicated that she was getting other bids on the architectural work. Ms. Mezenen said that she would like to have additional parking, which was one of the previous concerns of the Historic Landmark Commission. She also said that she was waiting for further input from Mr. Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director. Mr. Parvaz indicated that the original drawings were approved with some revisions. He added that if new drawings were submitted, the Commission would consider them as a new application. There was a short discussion regarding the drawings.
• Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the original drawings that Mr. Smith prepared may be copyrighted, and using another architect may preclude the applicant from using those drawings, in which case, the applicant would have to submit a new design for the project. Ms. Mezenen stated that she was aware of those circumstances.
• Mr. Gordon reiterated that if the applicant continues with Mr. Smith's architectural drawings, it would be a matter of an extension of time, which would probably save the applicant, staff, and the Commission some time. However, he continued by saying that if the applicant selects a new architect, then the proposal would return to the Historic Landmark Commission as a new proposal.
• Mr. Littig briefly spoke about the language of the motion and the fact that the aforementioned details were referred to the Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
• Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon 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 the extension of time for one year for Case No. 005-
00. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 004-01, at 208 South 1300 East, by Marc Moscowitz, of Fantastic Sam's, represented by Mike Mahaffey, requesting a new illuminated flat sign to be mounted on the front facade of the building, which is located in the University Historic District.
Mr. Nelson 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 proprietor, Mr. Marc Moscowitz, of the new Fantastic Sam's hair salon was requesting to construct a new flat sign on an historic house that had been converted to commercial use. He pointed out that the house is part of the strip of community businesses along 1300 East between 200 and 300 South Streets, and is zoned CB Community business, the purpose of which is to "provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods." Mr. Knight said that the house was designed and constructed by local architect David C. Dart in 1908 and its first permanent owner was J. Frank Elam, who purchased the property in 1911. He noted that the house has been used as a business for many years. Mr. Knight said that the University Historic District was designated on November 21, 1991.
Mr. Knight stated that the applicant proposed to mount a 3'-0" x 11'-9" (35.25 square feet) metal cabinet sign that would project up from the front edge of the enclosed front porch. He said that cut out aluminum letters spelling out "Fantastic Sam's" would project four inches from the front of the sign. Mr. Knight said that the letters would be painted red, and outlined with clear red neon. He indicated that the back of the letters would be outlined in purple neon, which would reflect off of the back of the sign, providing a "halo" effect around the red letters. Mr. Knight stated that numerous points of fiber optic lighting would pierce the aluminum panel, making for a star field effect on the front panel.
• Mr. Knight said that Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires that a proposed 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." Signage is specifically addressed:
21A.34.020(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 46, Signs.
Section 21A.06.050(M) notes that "the Historic Landmark Commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning."
Mr. Knight stated that, accordingly, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a policy document on February 1, 1984 that contains specific guidelines for signage in the historic districts. He said that the policy document was adopted before 1995, when Historic Landmark Commission was granted the status of a full-fledged city commission. [Please note that the "Committee" referred to in the policy text is the Historic Landmark Commission.]
Mr. Knight referred to Section 5.0 of the Historic Landmark Commission Policy
Document, which was included in the staff report:
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 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.
Staff's discussion: This former house sits at the end of a strip of commercial buildings along 1300 East Street. 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. The applicant has proposed a similar type of sign to those used on other commercial buildings along this block. Most of the signage was installed before the historic district was created and is not in keeping with the intent of the signage policy.
(A table showing the signage cases that have been reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission or Planning Staff along the commercial strip on 1300 East were included in the staff report.)
Although the building in this case has been used for many years as a business, it still retains its historic, Prairie style, foursquare, residential character. Signage was not initially integrated into the design of this building. A sign that would fit will on the storefronts down the block does not necessarily translate to a sign that relates well to the architecture of this building. The large sign that would project above the porch, would disrupt the roofline of the front porch, which is an important architectural element on early Twentieth Century houses such as this house, and would not complement the building in terms of location and size.
The flat, non-illuminated sign that was installed between the entrance doors and the roof eaves on this building when it was Waking Owl Books was more in keeping with the historic residential character of the building.
The applicant supplied both day and night renderings of the proposed signage. The applicant had also studied the amount of illumination proposed in relation to the other buildings on the block. Based on the information supplied, staff is satisfied that the proposed illumination is acceptable.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs would complement the building in terms of illumination, style, and color, but not complement the building in terms of location and size and thus, would have a negative impact on the surrounding buildings and 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. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission has approved similarly illuminated signs in commercial areas such as this block and at Trolley Square.
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.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: 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.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact, staff recommends denial of this application, because the size and location of the sign make it inconsistent with the historic character of this building and the University Historic District. The Historic Landmark Commission may wish to provide further direction to the applicant on acceptable sizes, location, and styles of signage for this building."
Mr. Knight said that in his earlier conversations with the applicant, he tried to steer him toward a smaller, less impacting sign, along the frieze on the front porch, right below the eave. He said that the applicant also talked about moving the sign back against the east wall of the building. Mr. Knight added that proportionately the signage would still not be in character. He also said that if there were any subletting, additional signage would have to be requested.
There was a short discussion regarding an allowable size of the proposed signage.
Mr. Mike Mahaffey, who was representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he was the contractor and Mr. Moscowitz had asked his company to remodel the interior of the building for the Fantastic Sam's Hair Salon. Mr. Mahaffey said that over the past years, his company had done work for other businesses in the same building. Mr. Mahaffey made the point that when he applied for the building permit in August of 2000, he talked to Mr. Knight and informed him that Fantastic Sam's was a well-controlled franchise business. He said that he was not told that there was only one appropriate place for a sign. He added that by observing other signage in the neighborhood, the applicant believed that signage would not be an issue. Mr. Mahaffey circulated photographs of some of the other signs in the area and he pointed out that most of them exceeded the allowable size.
Mr. Mahaffey proceeded by saying that when Mr. Moscowitz applied for the signage permit, he was surprised when staff denied the sign. He indicated that the sign was Fantastic Sam's trademark and the applicant had no control over the signage. Mr. Mahaffey said that Mr. Knight should have informed him more specifically about the appropriate size and location of the signage on the building.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring about the thickness of the panel that would contain the sign and how would it be attached to the building. Mr. Knight said that the panel would be about four inches thick, plus the letters would protrude. He also said that the panel would be supported on an angle, which
was not allowed in the zoning ordinance, and would have to be braced internally.
When Mr. Parvaz inquired further about the trademark, Mr. Mahaffey said that the text, font, color, and shape were all trademarks and were regulated by the franchiser. Mr. Mahaffey said that the applicant had modified the signage because they usually are 48 square feet with plastic illuminated lettering.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated the she had no problem with the color or the shape but questioned the size of the proposed signage. Mr. Mahaffey said the home office of Fantastic Sam's regulates the prescribed size and shape of the signage. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she understood that and compared this historic building with buildings in a huge mall where the large sign would be acceptable. Mr. Mahaffey said that he believed that the signage could be reduced somewhat in size, and indicated that he had a letter from Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO) stating the accepted size for a sign for visibility from certain distances. He said that the sign could not be seen from the sidewalk if it was placed on the east wall. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich talked about how appropriate the sign was when Waking Owl was located in the building and that it was very visible from across the street. Mr. Mahaffey again talked about the signage in the neighborhood and the fact that some buildings have multiple signs. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the applicant had to bring the building up to code during the remodeling process and it is the same way with signage; the signage also has to be brought up to code. She indicated that the "golden arches" of a MacDonald's would not be allowed under the current zoning ordinance in an historic district. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated that the Architectural Subcommittee could assist the applicant with the modifications.
• Mr. Littig made the point that most of the signs that Mr. Mahaffey mentioned were placed on the buildings prior to 1991 when the area was designated as an
historic district. He stated that the only signage that had been reviewed since then, were pointed out very well in Mr. Knight's staff report. Mr. Littig reiterated the point that any new signage would have to comply with the revised zoning ordinance. He remarked that the type of signage that was proposed would be "a little more 'Las Vegas' oriented then this 'walk in' and 'walk by' neighborhood". Mr. Littig said that he believed with modification that the Fantastic Sam's sign would fit on the frieze, under the eaves of the porch, which would save the applicant a lot of money.
• Mr. Knight said that he wanted to clarify that there may have been some miscommunication, but he did not try to mislead Mr. Mahaffey about the signage issue. He talked about Mr. Mahaffey's initial visit where he questioned some of the windows, but told him that the signage would be reviewed at a later date, because no proposal for signage had been submitted at that time. Mr. Knight continued by saying that when the applicant came in with the signage proposal, he indicated that he had been working on a scaled-down version of the signage. Mr. Mahaffey said that he did not feel that Mr. Knight mislead the applicant, but Mr. Moscowitz was upset and concerned that he had so much invested into the project and was under the impression that the signage would be approved, especially with the amount of signage on the other buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Knight stated that staff has discovered that national franchisers were willing to make some compromises in order to have the store/shop in a certain location, especially if the location is in an historic district.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired if a monument sign would be allowed and Mr. Knight said that a monument sign would be allowed. Mr. Gordon noted that the site was not large enough for a monument sign and it would not be seen when cars were parked on the street. In a discussion, it was noted that there was a maximum height allowed for monument signs.
• Ms. Giraud remarked that she certainly wanted the business to be successful and believed that an appropriate sign could be produced. She suggested that if the sign did not project up, it would be less disruptive to the square design of the building. Ms. Giraud further suggested that a sign could be hung under the frieze.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the structural work had been completed and if the salon had opened for business. Mr. Mahaffey said that all the work had been done and the fixtures were ready to be installed. He said that the applicant should be ready to open within the month.
In conclusion, Mr. Mahaffey said that Mr. Moscowitz would resubmit another proposal and inquired further about some of the suggestions that were made at this meeting.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that Case No.004-01 be tabled and referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for revisions and return to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Young seconded the motion.
There was some discussion regarding the approval of the application. Mr. Littig recommended that the applicant have a representative of the sign company attend so that the members of the subcommittee could have a better explanation of the proposed materials and attachment method. Mr. Simonsen amended the motion.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that Case No.004-01 be tabled and referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for revisions and final approval. Mr. Young's second still stood. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 005-01, at 460 South 1000 East. by Anniversary Inn, represented by Tara Hunter of Anniversary Inn, and Kim Thomas of Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), requesting signage on the east facade of the building. The building is the former Salt Lake Brewing Company Office and Bottling Works, and 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. He stated that the Anniversary Inn was requesting a new flat sign on the east wall of a building located in the historic Salt Lake Brewing Co. office and bottling works at 460 S. 1000 East. Mr. Knight noted that the Salt Lake Brewing Co. is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Mr. Knight stated that the property is zoned CN – Neighborhood Commercial, the purpose of which is "to provide small scale commercial uses that can be located in residential neighborhoods without having significant impact upon residential uses."
Mr. Knight said that the building was constructed in 1906 to house the bottling works and office functions of the Salt Lake Brewing Company. He said that at the time of the building's construction, beer production at the brewery had reached almost one million barrels annually and had a major impact on the local economy. Mr. Knight added that all of the buildings in the complex, except the subject structure, had been demolished by 1960. He pointed out that the subject building had housed a variety of businesses. Mr. Knight stated that the three-story parking lot, located on the property next to the building, was constructed before the building was listed as a City Landmark Site, which was in June of 1995. He commented that one of the conditions of listing the building on the City Register was that the two billboards mounted on the roof of the building had to be removed.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that in April 1995, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use for a bed and breakfast in the building and Anniversary Inn opened shortly thereafter. He said that according to the company website, there are 36 rooms decorated in a variety of themes.
Mr. Knight stated that the proposed sign would measure 7'-0" x 30'-0" (210 square feet), although this figure is for a rectangular sign. He said that the actual sign would be irregularly shaped, so the area of the sign would be less than 210 square feet. He added that the proposed scroll motif would have the words ''The Anniversary Inn", which is the company's logo. Mr. Knight said that the sign would be carved out of a high density polyurethane foam material, and coated with gloss paint. He noted that the proposed colors would be white for the background and black for the letters and shading, as shown on the plans that were attached to the staff report. He said that the sign would be indirectly illuminated with three gooseneck lamps and mounted on the face of the mansard roof on the east side of the building. Mr. Knight pointed out that the roof was an incompatible alteration that dates from a late 1960's renovation of the building.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a proposed 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." He said that signage is specifically addressed in the following manner:
21A.34.020(G)(11) states that "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 46, Signs".
Section 21A.06.050(M) notes that "the Historic Landmark Commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning".
Mr. Knight stated that, accordingly, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a policy document that contains specific guidelines for signage in the historic districts. He said that staff referred to Section 5.0 of the Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, which was adopted February 1, 1984, in making the findings. Mr. Knight said that the policy document was adopted before 1995, when the Historic Landmark Commission was granted the status of a full-fledged City Commission. [Please note that the "Committee" referred to in the policy text is the Historic Landmark Commission.]
Mr. Knight referred to Section 5.0 of the Historic Landmark Commission Policy
Document, which was included in the staff report:
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 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.
Staffs discussion: The proposed sign would be mounted in the center of the east facadeof the building. This sign is much larger than other signs that the Commission has approved. The east façade is 177 feet long, so it would lessen the impact of the size of the sign. Overall, staff believed that the sign would be too large and would have a negative impact on the character of this building and the surrounding neighborhood. The Historic Landmark Commission has not reviewed the proposed material or the three-dimensional effect for use in historic districts.
Staff asked YESCO to bring a sample of the material to the meeting. The illumination proposed would be acceptable.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs would complement the building in terms of location, illumination, style, and color, but not in terms of size and thus, would have a negative impact on the surrounding buildings and 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. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The design of the proposed signage is in keeping with the intent of this section, but the size of the sign is not. The indirect illumination with gooseneck lamps is appropriate for a Landmark Site.
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.
Staff’s discussion: Currently, the Anniversary Inn has signage mounted on a wood gazebo at the building entrance off 500 South. The Historic Landmark Commission has generally held bed and breakfast establishments and other commercial uses in historic buildings to a single small sign unobtrusively placed on the building. However, such uses are usually smaller in scale than the Anniversary Inn (less than eight rooms, versus the 36 rooms in this case), and are located in residential neighborhoods. This building is located in a commercial zone, but it is surrounded by residential structures. In addition, the building is located on a corner so it has frontage on two streets, 1000 East and 500 South Streets. Exceptions to the "one sign, one building" policy have been granted in cases of multiple retail spaces in a single building, such as with the Boston Market/Einstein's Bagels building at 475-479 South Temple. However, the Commission has, in the majority of its cases, held to this policy, even in commercial zones where the city would ordinarily allow more signage on nonlandmark buildings.
Diamond Lil's/Old Salt City Jail restaurant also occupies a portion of this building. Their signage includes an indirectly illuminated metal cabinet sign on the north wall of the building and a directional sign at the driveway on 500 South Street. The signs are not visible from the east side of the building, where the Anniversary Inn sign would be located.
Staff's findings of fact: Allowing additional signage for the Anniversary Inn would be in conflict with the adopted signage policy. However, since the time that policy was adopted in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission, Architectural Subcommittee, and Planning Staff have made exceptions to the policy in cases of buildings with multiple retail tenants.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "The Historic Landmark Commission should determine if additional signage is fair and appropriate, or if this application should be held to the same standards of signage that the commission has adhered to on other bed and breakfasts and commercial uses in historic buildings. Staff recommends that the Commission should maintain the existing standards, and deny the proposed additional signage. If the Commission determines that additional signage is justified, then staff recommends approval of a much smaller sign than what was proposed."
Mr. Parvaz said that the Anniversary Inn already had two signs. Mr. Knight said that the proposal would be an additional sign.
Mr. Littig asked about the size limit for signage for a bed and breakfast. Mr. Knight said that it is based on one square foot per one linear foot of frontage in a CS zone. Mr. Knight also said that he did not think the kinds of signs that have been approved were much larger than 20 square feet. Mr. Littig remarked that "is a pretty good size".
Ms. Miller clarified that Mr. Knight indicated that two signs have been approved when two facades of the building were visible or prominent. Mr. Knight said that most of the multiple signs on buildings have been in cases with more than one tenant. Ms. Miller commented that the customers would have to know where the entrance is to the building. Mr. Knight said that more directional signage had been allowed, as long as they did not have a big impact. Ms. Coffey said that the directional sign can be 8 square feet but the Commission has required smaller signs. There was some further discussion regarding the existing signage on the property.
Ms. Giraud said that monument signs have "opened the door" for new signage because they do not clutter the building or the streetscape.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about the proposed lighting and believed there was not enough information regarding the gooseneck lamps. He said that the compatibility and character of the lighting fixture were important issues. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she agreed and that the color of the lighting was important. Mr. Simonsen said he did not seem to think that Mr. Knight said that the illumination method was acceptable in the staff’s findings of fact. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not understand if just any kind of indirect lighting was acceptable. He added that the specific lamp fixture would need to be approved as part of the signage application. Mr. Knight said that was his intent.
Mr. Littig talked further about the directional signage and inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission was supposed to subtract the total square footage of all the signs from the 20 square feet allowed. Mr. Knight says that directional signs have different functions.
• Ms. Tara Hunter, the applicant, as well as her representative, Ms. Kim Thomas of Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO), were present. Ms. Thomas displayed a sample of the signage that the applicant wanted to use. Ms. Hunter said that her company purchased the Anniversary Inn property a couple of years ago. She said that her company has been doing some extensive remodeling on the building.
Ms. Hunter talked about the Salt City Jail neon sign on the end of the building and said that was not what she would have chosen for the signage. She said that she did not want big signs with fluorescent lighting. Ms. Hunter said that she wanted signage that was more aesthetically pleasing for the building. She circulated photographs of this building, as well as other bed and breakfast properties that her company owns.
Ms. Hunter said that the housing on the gooseneck lamps would be the same color as the exterior brick, which are earth tone grays and tans. She talked about the signage that used to be on the site.
Ms. Hunter stated that the scroll motif on the proposed signage with the words "The Anniversary Inn" is the logo for the company. Ms. Hunter offered to take down the signage on the gazebo, if necessary. She said that she would like to be able to remove the neon-lit signage on the wall. She said that she was sensitive to the people who live around the property. She said that the proposed signage would be approximately the same size as two windows on the east elevation.
Ms. Hunter said that the main reason why her company wants the sign on the roof is because east-west light rail is being constructed along 400 South going to 500 South Streets, following the "S" curve to the University of Utah. She said that she has been in communication with UTA (Utah Transit Authority) and the wall on the “s” curve, that is directly east of the building, will be build up 10 feet and trees planted every 30 feet which would block the view of the signage if it is placed on the lower wall of the building. Mr. Knight said that he understood that the wall could be elevated to 17 feet. She said that it would be "frustrating" for customers to drive down 500 South and "not even know that they were there."
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Miller led the discussion by asking if the applicant knew when that 10-foot wall would be constructed on the "S" curve. Ms. Hunter said that she did not know for certain but the UTA people said they would inform her when the determination was made. She believed that in another three months they would have a better knowledge of the time frame. Ms. Coffey said that the light rail should be in use by November of 2001.
• Mr. Littig pointed out that a bed and breakfast is not a hotel. He said that the size of the signage proposal is about 10 times larger than the signage on any other bed and breakfast. He said that 90% of the proposed signage would say "Anniversary" and suggested that the applicant emphasize "Inn" and play down the word "Anniversary", then use the logo on a smaller directional sign. Ms. Hunter said that most bed and breakfast business were in restored historic homes and not in large warehouse buildings and asked for special consideration for signage for that reason. Ms. Hunter inquired about the large illuminated sign that was just installed on Trolley Corners. Mr. Littig said that Trolley Corners was neither a landmark site nor in an historic district, and not under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Coffey questioned the reasoning for the applicant asking for a review of the signage at this time rather than waiting until the construction was completed. Ms. Hunter said that they wanted to install the signage now, so the building would be recognized during the construction; they wanted to be prepared.
• Ms. Giraud inquired further about the material of the proposed signage. Ms. Thomas said that the material is used on many buildings as a decorative element. She said that it is a foam material so the letters and details could be easily carved into the material and then polyurethane was sprayed on. Mr. Littig inquired if there were different kinds of coating. Ms. Thomas said the polyurethane was the only coating used for its durability.
• Mr. Young said that the coating keeps the ultra violet rays from breaking down the Styrofoam. He said by looking at the photographs, it was difficult to tell where the front door is to the bed and breakfast. He said if the signage is placed where the applicant desired, he would mistakenly think that was the front entrance. He suggested locating the sign in the area where they could drive up to the front entrance. There was some discussion regarding another location for the signage. Mr. Young inquired if YESCO had tested the polyurethane coating to find out how long it last. Ms. Thomas said that she believed they have but did not know the length of time. Mr. Young said that if the coating wears off quickly, then the sign would start crumbling. Ms. Thomas said that VESCO has been using the product for about eight years and has had no problems with it. Ms. Thomas said that this is the same product that was used on the scrollwork on the Capitol Theater. Mr. Young asked if the proposed signage would be in one solid piece. Ms. Thomas said that it would be one solid piece backed with plywood.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Anniversary Inn property extended to the road on 500 South. Ms. Hunter said that it did not. Mr. Parvaz said that if that was the case, they could not put the signage close to the road.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Kathy Scott, who resides at 941 East 500 South, said that she is an adjacent neighbor to the Anniversary Inn. She stated that signage was discussed when the applicants presented this property to the Planning Commission as a Landmark Site. She said that the owners, at that time, were going to remove some signage from the building. Ms. Scott pointed out that it was important that the building, as a Landmark, be architecturally preserved and no large signs be allowed on the building. She indicated that as a bed and breakfast, it did not need large signs because most of the business is done by reservation. Ms. Scott stated that the only signage needed would be "locator" signs at the entrance to the parking lot. She said that her concern is that it seems a bit "ostentatious" to have a sign, no matter how tasteful, that exceeds the SRO (Single Room Occupancy) signage in size. She talked about a petition that was signed by residents of the neighboring, Wilshire Condominiums, who opposed the signage proposed by the applicant, (a copy of which was filed with the minutes). [Please note that the petition was received in the Planning Office a few days after this meeting.]
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that this is one of those sites with a "curse". She added that it started out with a billboard on its roof. Ms. Cromer stated that one of the conditions of approval, as a bed and breakfast, was the removal of that billboard. She pointed out that there had been many applications for signage at this site. Ms. Cromer also said that she was most concerned about the wall that will be constructed on the "S" curve on 500 South. She said that she was still "furious" about the Environmental Impact Statement that completely ignored the historic structures in the University Historic District. Ms. Cromer suggested that the Commission table this request and refer it to the Architectural Subcommittee where the applicant can get a better idea of what might be allowed. She said that it would be premature to try to figure out the location or size of the signage at this time. She concluded by saying that this has been an "unsympathetic way" to introduce mass transit to the University.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that it seems like a waste to spend money on any sort of sign at this time right now before the applicant has a firm idea of the height of the wall that would be constructed on 500 South.
Mr. Littig said that he believed it would be very important for "us now and in the future to control and keep businesses that are bed and breakfasts, as bed and breakfasts". He added that he was not an advocate of bed and breakfasts in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Littig said that the signage should stay as "low key" as possible.
Mr. Simonsen talked about the height of the proposed signage. He said that it appears to be more of a billboard-look than a sign indicating a bed and breakfast and totally inappropriate. Mr. Simonsen said that the sign would be larger than any architectural feature on the building. He said that he was not opposed to some kind of marker or directional sign on 500 South Street.
Ms. Giraud said that she was opposed to signage on the former office building and emphasized not to lead the applicant to have a sign on that portion of the site.
Mr. Knight said that it is hard to see on the copy of the photograph, but one can read Salt Lake Brewing Company on the frieze.
Ms. Rowland suggested marketing the bed and breakfast as being housed in the old Salt Lake Brewing Company building so the building, as a Landmark, would be recognized.
There was some further discussion regarding the removal of other signage on the site. It was decided to reopen the meeting to make some further inquiries of the applicant. Mr. Gordon reopened this portion of the meeting to the public.
Mr. Gordon inquired if the applicant planned to remove the gazebo. Ms. Hunter said that she would like to have some further direction there because people coming up 500 South would need to know the location of the parking and the covered garage.
Mr. Gordon re-closed the public portion of the meeting and the Commission returned to the executive session.
There was some additional discussion regarding the future elevation changes and the height of the proposed concrete wall that will be constructed for light rail.
Ms. Miller said that it seemed like the Historic Landmark Commission needed to give the applicant some idea whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission will allow the proposed sign on the facade of the building and what kind of restrictions the applicant could expect.
Mr. Simonsen said that for the business to be successful, there would have to be a fair amount of exposure and said that he, personally, did not have a problem with locating the sign where it would be visible to people traveling on 500 South. However, he said that he had a problem with the size and material.
The discussion continued.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved that Case No.005-01 be tabled and referred to the Architectural Subcommittee with the guidelines that the size of the sign be reduced. It is to remain on the southern portion of the building along that side or be moved to the main entrance side, if it is possible to be placed it in that location. After the subcommittee works out all the details, the case is to return to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion.
Ms. Miller talked about under certain circumstances, a design for signage could be considered for that north building.
Mr. Young said that he would prefer to have it placed lower. He mentioned that some of these issues could be worked out in the subcommittee.
Mr. Gordon asked if proposals for signage on both the south building and the north building would require two separate applications. Mr. Knight said they would be considered separately.
The possible location of the proposed signage continued to be discussed.
Repeated final motion:
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 005-01 be tabled referred to the Architectural Subcommittee with the guidelines that the size of the sign be reduced. It is to remain on the southern portion of the building along that side or be moved to the main entrance side, if it is possible to be placed it in that location. After the subcommittee works out all the details, the case is to return to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Case No. 006-01, a request for comments regarding the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places of a boundary addition to the Central City Historic District, encompassed by South Temple, Fourth (400) South, Seventh (700) East, and Eleventh (1100) East Streets.
Ms. Giraud gave an overview of the nomination, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She pointed out that by attaching this area to an already established National Register district, there was a greater possibility of its nomination than creating its own district. She said that the desire of the City was to make tax credits available to property owners in the boundary of that district.
Ms. Giraud stated that the boundary addition to the Central City Historic District encompasses a sixteen-block area directly east of the original district, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. She said that the district is referred to in this nomination as the "Bryant Neighborhood", in reference to a junior high school that was established in the neighborhood in 1894, although the original building was replace with another structure in 1980. Ms. Giraud said that the boundary addition consists of 653 buildings, 71 percent of which contribute to the character of the historic district. She indicated that it is a neighborhood that is primarily residential with buildings similar in scale to those found both in the Central City and University Historic Districts. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the area was first developed in layers.
Ms. Giraud presented a slide program of some of the buildings in the boundary addition. She pointed out the many homes where renowned families resided, such as the "Frederick Meyer” house, the "James Freeze" house, the "Thomas B. Child" house, as well as others.
After Mr. Parvaz inquired, Ms. Giraud said that the Salt Lake Regional Hospital (formerly known as the Holy Cross Hospital) property would not be part of this boundary addition. She mentioned that the Holy Cross Hospital Chapel at 1045 East South Temple is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Members of the Commission made comments throughout the presentation.
At the conclusion of the slide presentation, Ms. Giraud recommended that the Commission make a favorable recommendation to include the boundary addition to the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that she only had a few comments because she did not want to delay this nomination any further. Ms. Cromer added that this has been an "uphill battle". She spoke of some of the circumstances that surrounded this nomination. Ms. Cromer also urged the Commission to make a favorable recommendation for the nomination.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
A short discussion took place regarding issues relating to this matter.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the area known as the "Bryant Neighborhood" as a boundary addition to the Central City Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Parvaz commended Ms. Giraud for all the work she had done in preparing this
National Register nomination.
Utah's Community Revitalization Bill.
Ms. Giraud circulated information on H.B. 286 which is Utah's Community Revitalization Bill, a copy was filed with the minutes. She said that the legislation that would provide tax credits to stimulate economic vitality in older commercial buildings, commercial districts, and small towns by fixing up dilapidated and under-used buildings. She suggested that the members of the Commission contact their Utah State Legislators to encourage passage of this bill.
Historic Landmark Commission meeting for February 21, 2001.
Ms. Giraud announced that instead of a regular Commission meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, there will be a luncheon meeting where the members would vote on new officers for the coming year and discuss many issues that pertain to the Historic Landmark Commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M.