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 Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Nelson Knight, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Elizabeth Mitchell Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, and Sara Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Susan Deal. Ms. Deal announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Deal 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.
MAYOR'S YOUTH CITY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
Ms. Deal recognized Ms. Ann Lynch, who is the Youth Deputy Mayor, representing the Mayor's Youth City Government, assigned to attend the Historic Landmark Commission meetings.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the September 16, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 008-98. review and make comments to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the nomination of the "Morrison-Merrill Lumber Company Office and Warehouse" building at 205 North 400 West to the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud said that there was no staff report because the information on the nomination was listed on the registration form, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that the role of the Historic Landmark Commission was to review and make comment for the national register nomination. Ms. Giraud said that the Preservation Planners believed the Morrison-Merrill Lumber Company Office and Warehouse was an eligible building and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission give this nomination a favorable recommendation. As a response to Mr. Parvaz's question, Ms. Giraud said that the nomination includes the entire property, not just the building itself. She added that a property description will be required when the final nomination is submitted to the National Park Service.
Since there were no questions, concerns, or comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission or the public, the Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no discussion.
Mr. Young said that the Historic Landmark Commission agreed with the staff's findings of fact for Case No.008-98 and moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the State Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "Morrison-Merrill Lumber Company Office and Warehouse" building at 205 North 400 West on the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 027-98. by the Utah College of Massage Therapy. requesting alterations to the existing signage on the building at 312 E. South Temple.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Deanne Leatherman and Ms. Kim Thomas with Young Electric Sign Company
Ms. Leatherman offered alternatives to the proposed signage presented in the staff report, such as only refacing the reader board sign and eliminating the proposed large sign on the building. Ms. Leatherman and Ms. Thomas further explained the details of the signage proposal.
Ms. Leatherman circulated a copy of the proposed alteration to the monument sign request, which was included in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that the monument sign would be made out of granite and not be illuminated unless in-ground flood lights were used. Ms. Leatherman said that she understood that the request would have to come before this Commission, if the applicant wanted to light the monument sign. She further articulated the details of the proposed monument sign.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by asking for clarification of the proposed signage on the building. He inquired if the signage would be opaque, flat, non-reflective or have a glossy finish. Ms. Thomas said that the signage would have a semi-gloss finish. She also talked about facing the building sign with aluminum. Mr. Littig expressed his concerns that shrinkage would occur in the vinyl lettering on such a large area as the building sign. Ms. Thomas said that there would be no shrinkage and the vinyl material would hold up better than paint. Mr. Littig asked about the condition of the building underneath the existing sign. Ms. Thomas said that would be determined once the existing signage was removed. She added that there would be mounting holes which the owner would have to repair
There was some discussion regarding the Historic Landmark Commission's Sign Policy, such as the limitation of one building identification sign per building within an historic district or on a Landmark Commission site. Mr. Knight talked about some exceptions to that policy for multiple tenants, such as the signage for Boston Market/Einstein Brothers on South Temple. He said that both a wall-mounted sign and a monument sign were approved for that building site.
• Ms. Mitchell asked which sign would be most effective, the building sign or the monument sign, if the applicant had to choose between the two. Ms. Thomas said she believed the monument sign would be more effective because it would be more visible for vehicular traffic.
Ms. Thomas said that there was another option to the signage issue. She suggested eliminating both the building sign and the monument sign proposals and mounting polished stainless steel letters on the face of the building for identification purposes.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A discussion took place regarding the number of signs which had been proposed by the applicant and where the signage would be located on the site. Ms. Giraud indicated that if the Commission only allowed one sign on the proposed site, the rationale would be due to the language in the signage policy.
Mr. McFarland said that he believed only allowing the monument sign would give the building identification adequate exposure, since the monument sign would be visible from both sides. The discussion continued.
The discussion again turned to the Historic Landmark Commission Signage Policy of limiting one building identification sign per building in historic districts or on a Landmark Commission sites. Mr. Young said that if multiple tenants were to occupy a building, then a directory would be placed inside the building. Ms. Deal reminded the members that occasionally the Commission had allowed two tenants of a building to identify themselves on the exterior, but not with multiple signs, even if there were multiple buildings on a property. Mr. Knight said that the monument request for the LDS Business College was denied by the Commission because the college already had an identification sign on the cornice, even though there are multiple buildings on campus. The dimensions of other monument sign requests were discussed.
The issue of signs in the window was introduced. Ms. Deal said that window signage is limited and is outside of the Commission's jurisdiction to review. She cited several proposals where the owner did not feel that there was enough signage allowed, so signs in the window were used. Ms. Deal said that the applicant could submit an additional or alternative signage proposals in the future. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission could reserve the right to review a signage proposal on a case by-case basis.
Ms. Giraud stated that the signage policy was adopted before monument signs were common. She said that one sign per building was also meant to identify historic buildings, particularly in the downtown area, such as the Kearns or the Judge Buildings. Mr. Young reminded the Commission that when Morris Travel moved into the Judge Building, neon lettering was installed inside the window, because the company was a separate tenant. Ms. Giraud added that the signage policy needed to be revised so the staff, as well as the Commission would have a clearer direction regarding signage issues.
Mr. Gordon said that when the existing building sign was removed, there could be so much unrepairable damage that it would necessitate the owner to submit another proposal for a sign on the building. Mr. Young said that it was likely that there would be some damage and discoloration of the building. Ms. Deal said she believed that the owner would be responsible for patching the mounting holes and any repair work for the damage after the existing sign was removed.
Ms. Deal said that there were two proposals submitted for the monument sign. She added that each design needed to be reviewed. There was a consensus among the members of the Commission to reopen the meeting for clarification purposes. The representatives from YESCO were asked which monument sign proposal did the owner favor. Ms. Thomas said that the owner had not discussed the monument sign options with his representatives. As there were no further questions, Ms. Deal reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment.
After realizing that the site plan was not included in the staff report, Mr. Knight circulated a copy of the submitted site plan, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
There was much discussion regarding the location of the proposed monument sign. Ms. Deal pointed out that the proposed monument sign would be six feet high and located on the corner of the property and expressed her concern that the location would not comply with the traffic requirements. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the height limit for monument signs. Mr. Knight said that the proposal complied with the zoning regulations. Ms. Giraud said that there is a very large park strip in front of the building. She added that the building has a very deep set back on the 300 East corner. Ms. Giraud did not believe the sign would create any traffic hazard. She indicated that traffic safety requirements would be reviewed at the Permits Counter when the owner applied for a permit.
The discussion continued regarding the two monument sign proposals. Mr. Littig suggested to float the top section of the proposed sign on pillars so one could look through the sign rather than it having a solid face. There was further discussion regarding the suggestion. Mr. Littig also talked about a monument sign becoming a hiding place for criminals. There were other suggestions offered to break up the massing. Mr. McFarland also recommended that the applicant landscape with something other than grass that would give more volume around the monument sign.
Mr. Young moved, that based on the staff's findings of fact for Case No.027-98, the following be approved: 1) that the two existing signs on the building be removed, the surfaces of the building be patched and repaired in accordance with acceptable standards; 2) that the monument sign be no larger than six feet by six feet; 3) that the intended granite material and the stainless steel lettering be used on the middle plane on both the two presented monument sign designs; 4) that · there could be a third design submitted at a later time, which would show a decrease in the massing, and visibility through the sign by open spaces and reveals, and 5) suggest that the landscaping around the monument sign be reviewed by the property owner and the planning staff. It was seconded by Mr. McFarland. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 028-98. by Restoration Hardware. represented by Mark Nelson with Impact Signs, requesting new signage at Trolley Square.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that the drawings included in the staff report were different than the original information which had been submitted by Restoration Hardware and approved by staff. Ms. Giraud said that Restoration Hardware's architect first suggested using halo-lit letters on a metal bar that would be anchored into the concrete section on the north and south elevations because she understood the concern about the fragility of the sandblasted brick.
Ms. Giraud gave a brief presentation of the current proposal, which was included in the staff report. She said that the applicant pointed out that the new Pottery Barn in Trolley Square had the type of signage that Restoration Hardware wanted to use. Ms. Giraud questioned Pottery Barn's signage approval, but after checking through the records, discovered that the signage proposal had been reviewed favorably by the Architectural Subcommittee, so the project had been given an administratively approved Certificate of Appropriateness. She said there had not been much discussion recorded from the subcommittee meeting and could not remember the rationale the members used. Some members of the Commission questioned and expressed concerns about the approval.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that the progression of the signage issues in Trolley Square have improved over the years and has made an immense difference in the design and in maintaining the integrity of Trolley Square.
There was much confusion with the entire signage package that had been proposed and the drawings which had been submitted. Ms. Giraud displayed the full set of architectural drawings. The discussion continued focusing on the changes in the proposal. The attachment details of the bar-mounted versus the pin-mounted signage were discussed.
Mr. Payne inquired about damaging the integrity of the building by anchoring the letters to the brick exterior. Ms. Deal pointed out that the building facades are extremely fragile and the mortar is something other than graded sand.
Mr. Young explained that attaching the letters of the signage into the mortar would be a better option than drilling into the brick facades. He said that the attachments would have to be sealed with an epoxy resin-type material so there would be no water penetration. Mr. Young also inquired about the reading level of the exterior signage. He said that there could be as much as a quarter inch deviation in the mortar level. He added that he would not want the attachments going into the brick to make the letters even. Other members expressed his/her concern about the installation of the lettering on the building.
Mr. Gordon addressed the light fixtures that would project out and anchored into the concrete cap, for the indirect lighting proposal. Ms. Giraud said that she preferred the halo-lit lettering. Mr. Knight said that he believed that the applicants also preferred the halo-lit lighting rather than the indirect lighting.
Mr. Mark Nelson with Impact Signs, representing the applicant, Restoration Hardware, was present. He said that Impact Signs was hired by Restoration Hardware to install the signage. Mr. Nelson said he agreed with Mr. Young that the best way to attach the lettering on the building facade would be drilling into the mortar, then sealing the attachments with a silicone epoxy.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the connecting wires for a halo-lit lighting system. Mr. Nelson explained that a transformer could be placed behind the parapet walls and, if the Commission would not allow the water-tight connectors going through the brick, they could go over the parapet walls for the halo type lighting. He said that the wires could be run through an aluminum square tube so no wire would be visible. Mr. Nelson said that Impact Signs installed the signage for the Pottery Barn and the attachments went into the mortar, but the wires fully penetrated the brick facade.
• Mr. Young said that the exposed element could be painted to match the exterior color. He asked if there was a way to spread the load from the weight of the sign behind the brick. Mr. Nelson indicated that the aluminum letters were very light. Mr. Nelson said that he believed that a bar-mounted sign would not look as good as the pin-mounted. He explained that the individual letters had an adjustable pin in the back so the letters would be applied in a straight pattern. Mr. Nelson said that the letters could also be adhered to the vertical joints if necessary. Mr. Nelson added that there would be less potential of wind damage on the individually pin-mounted letters than on a bar-mounted sign where the letters would be hooked together.
• Mr. Parvaz commented that the mortar joints on the building facade were very narrow and asked if the attachments would be galvanized or stainless steel. Mr. Nelson said that the attachments would be stainless steel so they would not rust. He said that the average attachment would be about three-quarters inches wide and the letters would be one inch to one-and-a-half inches out from the building.
Ms. Deal stated that she would like to see the data from the Architectural Subcommittee meeting which allowed the approval and the permit issued to drill through the brick when the signage for the Pottery Barn was installed. She said that she believed the full Commission would not have approved that kind of attachment, knowing how fragile the brick is.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The issue of the approval of the Pottery Barn signage was once again discussed. Ms. Giraud reminded the members that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the sign "Allis One" which would have been mounted into the exterior brick for the Hardrock Cafe, but the applicants changed their minds and decided not to do that. Ms. Deal said that the Commission has the option of reviewing each proposal on a case-by case basis.
The discussion turned to the staff's recommendation, which was included in the staff report. Ms. Deal read the following:
"With the exception of the acrylic transom signs, the two colors proposed for the window signs, and the issue of harming the bricks with the pin-mounted signs, staff finds that the types of signs proposed are in keeping with the architecture of Trolley Square. Staff finds, however, that the proposed signage for the south elevation is excessive and presents a disparate palette that clashes with the overall historic character of Trolley Square when considered. Staff recommends the following:
• That the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed signage for the north elevation, but require the applicant to use bar-mounted letters, such as those that were originally proposed by the project architect and approved by staff, to minimize the number of holes to be drilled in the wall;
• That Historic Landmark Commission deny the acrylic letters in the transoms of the south elevation, and require the applicant to instead use painted signage similar to the signs on the display windows;
• That Historic Landmark Commission allow one pin-mounted sign that states the house of operation, or deny this sign and require the applicant to paint the hours on the glass of the entranceway;
• That the silk-screened window art (pictures of tools) be approved;
• That "Restoration Hardware" painted at the bottom of the display windows be allowed, but painted black; and
• That Historic Landmark Commission allow a combination of the proposed signage on the south wall, but not all of the proposed signage. For example, approve the awnings and window signs, but not the pin-mounted sign; or approve the pin-mounted sign, if the Commission members believe that it does not harm the exterior brick, but not the signage in the transoms. Staff believes that such a combination would be a good compromise between the excessive amount of signage as proposed and the tenant's need to attract shoppers to the store."
The following points of interest were presented by members of the Historic Landmark Commission
1. Pin-mounted signage: The "Restoration Hardware" signage on the north and south elevations would be allowed. The letters would be individually pin-mounted into the mortar joints and sealed. The Letters would not be pin-mounted into the brick facade, due to the fragility of the brick, or the concrete section of the facade because the mortar joints would be easier to patch than concrete, if the signage would be removed.
2. Lighting: Because the Commission had allowed it previously within the district, back-lit "Halo" type lighting would be allowed for this application. A maximum of one-half inch conduit would be surface-mounted over the top of the parapet, not through the brick, and disguised by painting the conduit to match the color of the facade.
3. Transom signage: The signage in the transoms should be painted rather than using the requested acrylic lettering.
4. Signage for the hours of operation: The hours of operation should be painted on the glass in or near the entranceway, and not pin-mounted on the exterior of the building. There was a question whether or not the glass was original, which was not determined.
5. Window art: The silk-screened window art depicting tools would be allowed.
6. Lettering at the bottom of the display windows: The words "Restoration Hardware" could be painted at the bottom of the display windows. The request was for a custom white gold leaf finish. There was some discussion what a custom white gold leaf finish would look like. There were no samples submitted.
Ms. Deal suggested that the applicant's representative, Mr. Nelson, clarify what a custom white gold leaf finish would be. It was a consensus of the Commission members that the meeting should be reopened to the public. Mr. Nelson said that he did not know if his company would do that lettering, or if the owners would bring in their own people to do that. Mr. Young asked if the applicant was familiar with the terminology and could inform the Commission on what custom white gold leaf was. Mr. Nelson said there were two different white gold leaf; one was yellow gold leaf and the other was white gold leaf. Ms. Deal asked if it would be a natural metal product and Mr. Nelson said that it would be real gold, and not vinyl metallic lettering. Ms. Deal reclosed the meeting to the public. The material for the lettering at the bottom of the display windows could be a custom white gold leaf finish, gold leaf, or black, but not metallic vinyl lettering.
• 7. Awning signage: The proposal was for five awning signs. There was some discussion regarding the transom signage and if they would be hidden by the awnings. Ms. Giraud believed that they could be. Some members of the Commission expressed great concern about the amount of the signage requested. Some members stated that he/she believed that awning signage would be an important item. Other signage requests in Trolley Square were discussed, in comparison with the current proposal. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the awnings would be black and made out of a non-illuminating material. She added that they would be flat and not curved. The awnings would be allowed. The words
"Restoration Hardware" would be allowed on the awnings above the entryways. The other awnings would have no text. The bays without awnings would have the transom signage.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the overall signage proposal for the application.
Mr. Gordon moved to approve the application for Case No. 028-98, based on the staff's findings of fact and the staff's recommendation, as follows: 1) halo-lit signage will be allowed to be pin-mounted into the mortar with a one-half inch maximum conduit, surface mounted and painted to match the building behind the sign, on both the north and south elevations; 2) the use of acrylic lettering be denied on the transoms and allow the applicant to use painted signage, which could be white gold leaf; 3) no pin-mounted signs will be allowed which shows the hours of operation and allow the applicant to paint the hours of operation on the glass in the entryway; 4) silk-screen window art on the glass will be allowed;
5) the words "Restoration Hardware" will be allowed on the bottom of the display windows, painted in white gold leaf, if the applicant desires; and 6) awnings will be allowed, on the south elevation, but only the awnings over the entranceways will be allowed to have any text. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Tl1e discussion on housing issues in the Central City Historic District was postponed. ·
Adjournment of the meeting.
• As there was no other business, Ms. Deal 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 5:45P.M.