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 Peter Ashdown, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen. Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen 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. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Littig moved to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2002 meeting. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 030-02, at approximately 505 South 700 East in Trolley Square. by Hard Rock Cafe. represented by Image Sign and Lighting, requesting to remove a portion of the existing theater signage on the water tower and replace it with a new. illuminated "Hard Rock Cafe" logo sign. Trolley Square is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site and is located in the Central City 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. He stated that the applicants propose removing the two existing "Flick" theater signs on the north and south sides of the water tower and replacing them with two new, neon-illuminated "Hard Rock Cafe" signs in roughly the same location. Trolley Square is an individually listed landmark site on the City Register and National Register and is also located in the Central City Historic District. It is zoned CS-Community Shopping.
Mr. Knight gave the following brief history: The Trolley Square mall is housed in car barns and maintenance sheds originally constructed for the Utah Light and Railway Company in 1908. The buildings were converted to a shopping center in the early 1970s.
The water tower is a significant historic feature on the block, and dates from the period of the complex's original construction. The tower was originally a utilitarian structure; decorative railings, the metal pinnacle atop the roof, and iron filigree were added to the tower when Trolley Square was developed. The theater signs have been in place for much of Trolley Square's existence; at least since the mid-1970s.
Mr. Knight presented the following background information: The Commission reviewed and approved the installation of neon on the tower in 1988. The Commission reviewed a similar proposal by Trolley Square to remove all the theater signage and install new signs for Hard Rock Cafe and Pottery Barn in April 1998. The signs proposed would have been similar in size and scale to the current proposal, but were internally illuminated Plexiglas faced letters. The signs would have been mounted on a metal mesh panel. The minutes from this meeting are attached to the staff report. The Commission's discussion focused
on several items, including: 1) The appropriateness of the mesh panel; 2) The illumination of the signs; 3) The size of the signs in relation to the Trolley Square sign at the top of the tower; and 4) The width of the signs and panel in relation to the tower. The Commission tabled the case and asked for revisions to the proposal based on their discussion.
Mr. Knight stated that the Hard Rock Cafe returned to the Commission with the following proposal, which addresses some of the Commission's previous concerns: 1) At this time, only the Flick sign would be removed. The other sign would remain; 2) The Hard Rock Cafe sign would be the same size, in terms of sign area, as the existing Flick sign; 3) The sign cabinet would be painted aluminum and not illuminated; and 4) The lettering would be aluminum open-faced letters, outlined with neon.
Mr. Knight spoke of the comparison of the existing signage on the water tower and the proposed signage: Existing signage - The Flick sign is 6' x 26' or 156 square feet; The Cineplex Odeon sign is 12' x 26' or 312 square feet. Both signs are a total of 468 square feet. Proposed signage- The Hard Rock Cafe sign would be 21' %" x 12' 9" or 155.77 square feet; The Cineplex Odeon would not change. Both signs would be a total of 467.77 square feet.
Mr. Knight referred to 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 in Section 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."
Staff's discussion: The water tower is a unique feature in the city, and the proposal of new signage is problematic from a zoning standpoint. The tower is considered a nonconforming structure because, at 97 feet, it exceeds the maximum allowed height of 45 feet in the CS zone. If considered as a sign, the tower also does not meet height and size requirements. The City Zoning Administrator has agreed to take the proposal as a special exception to the Board of Adjustment, if the Historic Landmark Commission approves the sign, as noted in Section 21A.46.070(V) of the City's zoning ordinance, "The Board of Adjustment may allow modifications to an existing sign of the size, or placement of a new sign in an historic district or on a landmark site if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size, and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure."
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed signs require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Knight pointed out that Section 21A.06.050(M) of the City's zoning ordinance notes, "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 reported that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy {Specifically, Section 5.0 of the Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, Adopted February 1, 1984) that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding. {Please note that the "Committee" referred to in the policy text is the Historic Landmark Commission. The policy document was adopted before 1995, when Landmarks was granted the status of a full fledged City commission):
1. A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee 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: The proposed sign will necessitate the removal of a portion of the existing signage, which is not compatible in design or material with the water tower or the buildings in Trolley Square. The signs would be located in the same location of the existing signs, and would be roughly five feet less in width. The signs would be taller than the existing six-foot high Flick signs.
The proposed neon illumination and style of the signs are similar to other signs the Commission has recently approved at the Union Pacific Depot. The metal cabinet proposed would be 1'-6" thick. The lettering style and colors are in keeping with the Hard Rock logo.
The Commission's concerns with Hard Rock's proposal in 1998 are also applicable here. The Hard Rock sign would be larger than the existing 'Trolley Square" Sign at the top of the tower. The sign projects out from the legs of the tower on both sides. Both of these concerns could be alleviated somewhat if the sign were reduced in size.
It is Staffs opinion that the tower itself, not the signage on the tower, should be preeminent architecturally and should not be overshadowed by a large tenant sign.
Staffs findings of fact: The proposed signs would be an improvement over the existing signs. The proposed signs complement the building in terms of location, illumination, materials, style, and color, but not in terms of size. Tenant signage should remain subordinate to the existing Trolley Square sign.
2. 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.
Staff's discussion: The existing signage and neon on the water tower is not in keeping with the intent of the policy. There is, however, a long precedent for bright, attention getting signs on the tower, going back to the creation of the shopping center. The neon illumination proposed is in keeping with previous approvals for the water tower, other buildings in Trolley Square, and other commercial sites in the historic district.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signage is in keeping with the character of the water tower and atmosphere of the surrounding environment. Indirect neon lighting is proposed, which has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on similar commercial buildings.
3. 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: A major concern of Staff is the lack of a comprehensive plan for signage on the tower, and the fact that the existing Cineplex Odeon theater sign would be retained indefinitely. If Trolley Square's management envisions additional signage on the building at a future date, as the retention of the existing sign seems to indicate, they should supply a plan that shows potential additional signage on the tower. A signage master plan for the tower would be desirable in order to provide for consistent reviews of any future signage proposals, and to assist potential tenants in determining the restrictions and expectations of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Staff does not believe that the “one sign per building” portion of the sign policy is applicable in this case, because of the large-scale retail nature of Trolley Square and the uniqueness of the tower. Staff suggests that perhaps a better standard in evaluating this proposal and the comprehensive signage plan for the tower is to limit signage to the existing 'Trolley Square" sign and one or two anchor tenants. This is similar to the situation that existed before the theaters closed. New anchors, such as Hard Rock, could expect to have signage on the tower, but any sign scheme that provided space for many of Trolley Square's merchants could become visually intrusive and detract from the historic character of the water tower and the adjacent buildings.
Staff's finding of fact: The owner should provide a comprehensive signage plan for the tower before approval of this application and any further applications for signage on the tower.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Overall, staff finds that the design and materials for the proposed signs are consistent with the character of the existing water tower and surrounding buildings in the landmark site and district. Staff further finds that the size and scale of the proposed signs are not consistent with the character of the water tower, because the new signage should be subordinate in design to the tower and the existing Trolley Square signage. A strong concern is this proposal within the context of the overall signage plan for the tower. Staff recommends that the commission refer the application to the Architectural Subcommittee and request that the applicant reduce the size of signage and that the owner prepare a comprehensive signage plan for the water tower that includes the future disposition of the remaining theater sign. The revised proposal could then return to the full Commission for final action. Staff also recommends that the Commission not make any recommendation to the Board of Adjustment regarding the proposed special exceptions before final action is taken. After the Board of Adjustment takes action on this proposal, any changes should be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee or staff to ensure that the changes are still in keeping with the character of the building."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the material proposed for the circle in the logo of the Hard Rock Cafe. Mr. Knight said that both the face of the cabinet and the circle would be a painted flat sheet of metal and not illuminated. He added that the neon letters would fit into a channel about three inches wide. Mr. Ashdown asked if the owners of Trolley Square would be limited for future signs by removing the Cineplex sign, which is very unsightly. Mr. Knight said that he would have to confer with the City's Zoning Administrator about the non-conforming status of the sign and if the rights would be lost if the sign was removed. He added that the proposal called for a non-conforming sign replacing another non-conforming sign.
There was some discussion about the 1988 proposal by Hard Rock Cafe. Mr. Knight said, "It has been simmering". Ms. Giraud agreed that there has been intermittent communication since 1998. Mr. Simonsen expressed some concern if there was anything in the Commission's proposed signage policy that would impact this application. Mr. Knight said that Trolley Square was not addressed in the proposed signage policy, because Trolley Square has its own signage policy.
Mr. Littig stated that he would not want to see signage for the main tenant (Hard Rock Cafe) and the theatre marquee filled up with the names of other tenants. Mr. Knight concurred with Mr. Littig's comment and said that no one wants Trolley Square to turn into 'Trolley Square at the Hard Rock Cafe". Mr. Littig stated that the water tower at Trolley Square is a landmark structure and gives one direction as to where they are.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Edmond Bordelon, Director of Facilities of the Hard Rock Cafe, Mr. Guy Cox, Vice President of Southwest Signs, and Mr. Dave Gerraud, President of Image Signs, Salt Lake City, were present, representing the applicant. Mr. Bordelon stated that most of their cafes are in existing historic buildings where they have worked with local communities and historic commissions. He added that the business tends to revitalize historic areas of a city. He pointed out projects on which he was working.
Mr. Bordelon stated that the economy has created a huge drop in sales at the cafe and the owners are looking at ways to attract more people and they think the new signage would be beneficial.
Mr. Bordelon talked about the signage master plan for the water tower. He said that the landlord signed off on this proposal and that master plan called for signage for three tenants: Hard Rock Cafe, Pottery Barn, and the theatre. Mr. Bordelon stated that he would attempt to obtain a more formalized signage policy for the water tower.
Mr. Cox used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He also circulated copies of simulated photographs showing two signage proposals. Mr. Cox said that the square footage of the proposed sign would be the same as the sign that would be removed. Mr. Cox referred to changes in the signage proposal from the 1988 version. He added that the screen mesh would be eliminated. Mr. Cox stated that framework would have to be constructed that would connect from tower post to tower post, on which the signage would be attached, so there would be exposed metal framing. He believed that the sign would be "lost" because the space is wider going down the sloping tower posts. Mr. Cox proposed a wider sign that could be attached to the legs of the tower.
Mr. Cox pointed to the simulated photographs of how the proposed signage would look at night. He said that the sign would only have one row of neon lights around the outer edge of the circle, so there would not be a "big glowing yellow glob" on the water tower. Mr. Cox believed that the water tower itself would be the "eye-catcher" with its vertical animated neon lighting encircling the cabinet of the water tank itself, and not the Hard Rock sign.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring about the simulated photographs. Mr. Cox said that the photographs depicted the proposed signage versus matching the square footage of the existing sign. He said that the smaller sign would be scaled down too much and would not be very visible, except for the exposed framework. He added that the larger sign would hide the mounting framework. Mr. Littig asked that he might be the only person on the Commission who believes that counting numbers and measuring square footage does not "carry a lot of weight" because the aesthetics of signs is the important issue. Mr. Littig referred to the large arched historic Trolley Square signage over the entranceway on 500 South, which has the traditional framework. He also pointed out many of the building mounted signs that have exposed framework, so it is not unusual to have exposed framework. Mr. Cox stated that the arched sign to which Mr. Littig was referring has individual letters mounted on the frame so the majority of the attachment is behind the letters. Mr. Littig inquired about other ways of connecting and attaching the sign to the water tower because the structure is comprised of many beams, with many potential attachment points. Mr. Cox talked about the additional structure on which the current signage is attached. He said that it was designed for a rectangular shaped box, which would be removed. Mr. Cox added that there would have to be a custom made box to fit the odd shape of the Hard Rock Cafe logo. Mr. Littig suggested pulling in the proposed signs towards the tower, rather than have them project so far out. Mr. Cox said that he agreed with that suggestion. Mr. Gerraud said that the sign would be more structurally sound the closer it would be to the frame. Mr. Cox said that there is no reason to protrude that far away from the tower structure. Mr. Littig talked about the graphics of the proposed sign and said that the circle in the logo would be very visually effective. He recommended keeping the signage within the tower posts and not protruding it out on either side. Mr. Cox concurred that the theatre sign is not very attractive and he spoke of the landlord's desire to upgrade the signage, starting with the Hard Rock Cafe. He said that there were issues with the grandfather clause and he did not want to jeopardize this proposal by requesting that the marquee be removed. Mr. Cox continued to describe the details of the proposed signage.
• Mr. Ashdown asked additional questions about the attachment of the signage on the water tower. He drew attention to the height of the letter "A" in the word "Hard" and inquired if the attachment would extend across to the letter "C" in the word "Rock". Mr. Ashdown also asked about a smaller version of the sign and thought that the lettering of a smaller sign could fit between the legs of the tower. Mr. Cox explained that the sign would be made in two pieces and bolted together. He said that the sign would have to be engineered to fit into the space. Mr. Ashdown asked about the diameter of the circle in the logo. Mr. Cox said that the diameter would be 12' 9-3/8".
The discussion continued relating to the size and attachment of the proposed signage and the comparison to the lighting and the Trolley Square signage on the water tower.
Mr. Simonsen thanked the representatives for investing in an historic district. He said, 'We know that Hard Rock Cafe is a valuable tenant and we are happy you want to keep Trolley Square viable."
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the request to place a Hard Rock Café logo sign on the water tower. She stated that "when 700 East was widened, tree lined medians removed, parking strips narrowed, the City declared there would be no commercial signage on 700 East and the street would retain its residential quality and atmosphere". Ms. Jex further said that the commitment had already been violated, and now "enough is enough".
Mr. Simonsen was concerned about a City policy that Ms. Jex mentioned in her letter and when he learned that the letter was forthcoming, approached Staff about such a policy. He said Staff verified that there is no City policy regarding limitations on commercial signage on 700 East. He noted that Mr. Ashdown also had inquired about Ms. Jex's letter earlier in the meeting and Mr. Knight said that he understood that the street was widened 30-40 years ago. Mr. Knight concurred that there was no documentation that he could find of such guarantees by the City or the State. Mr. Simonsen said that there is clear precedent for signage all the way along 700 East.
Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Littig referred to the photographs, and said that it looked as if the signage would extend three feet out from the legs of the tower. He said he believed the sign would look better if it stayed within the framework of the tower.
Mr. Simonsen said that he thought the existing signs that extend beyond the framework are characteristically scaled right for the tower, and to try to get that proposed sign within the tower framework would be ill proportioned.
Mr. Ashdown stated that he thought the ideal size would be somewhere in between. Referring to the current signs, he pointed out that the Eiffel Tower and other landmark towers in the world do not have big block signs that extend beyond their borders. He also said that the signage on the Eiffel Tower conforms to the slope of the tower. Mr. Ashdown said that the theatre sign should be removed. Other members agreed.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the tower at Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco has signs that hang off of it. He said that it is probably the most noticeable precedent historic tower that uses signage. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern that the Commission would be limiting signage for strong tenants on commercial properties and lose the viability of keeping those tenants there. He mentioned that when downtown Salt Lake City was in its "heyday" the area was filled with large and small signs calling attention to downtown. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that downtown has become "sterilized" and "lacks luster". He said that limiting signage has not been a positive experience. He remarked that design is an important element and tasteful signs should continue to be encouraged. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed the proposed signage was a "tasteful" sign that would easily identify the Hard Rock Cafe. He added that it certainly would be an improvement over what is currently in place.
Mr. Littig said that there are also areas in downtown where the signs are “killing the location". He pointed out the area of State Street between 300 and 400 South. Mr. Littig said that Trolley Square has the advantage of no competition for signage and that the smaller sign would be seen in the daylight and at night without a lot of "clutter''. He admitted that he had a problem with elevated signs anywhere, and that was a personal thing. The discussion continued.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was a general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Gordon inquired if the signage could easily be removed off the tower. Mr. Cox said that the framework would be welded onto the structure and not easily removed. He added that the frame would be custom fitted to the Hard Rock sign. Mr. Cox spoke of the landlord wanting the signage high enough on the tower to accommodate three possible signs. Mr. Gordon said that the sign would look as if it was "floating" up there.
Mr. Bordelon stated that another reason the landlord wants the Hard Rock Cafe sign to be very visible is that "we have one of the most recognized logos on the planet". He also talked about the height of the trees on 700 East, which would screen lower signage on the tower from view. The discussion continued with the representatives restating their reasons for the size and location of the proposed signage.
Mr. Gordon stated that it sounded as if the larger sign could be attached to the tower poles a little easier than the smaller one.
There was some discussion about placing the signage without having to make a permanent weld connection.
Mr. Littig suggested that the larger sign could be moved further down on the tower so it would fit with the framework. He said he realized that visibility might be a factor.
Mr. Ashdown said that he thought that was a good compromise. He said he noticed on the field trip that the large box sign is still "painfully" visible.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the water tower is the historic element on the Trolley Square site. He said that even though there is a precedent for the larger sign, he thought the smaller sign would work better.
Motion:
Based on Staff's finding of fact and recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to approve the proposed signage for Case No. 030-02, for the Hard Rock Cafe at Trolley Square, subject to the following conditions: 1) The sign is to stay within the width of the framework of the water tower; and 2) The sign is not to exceed the height of the current theater sign. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Subsequent motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved that future signage proposals for the water tower be accompanied with a water tower master plan that would address the issue of the existing Cineplex sign. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Knight suggested that a motion be made regarding the Board of Adjustment review. Motion for the Board of Adjustment:
Mr. Littig moved to send a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception for the Hard Rock Cafe sign at Trolley Square as long as it meets the requirements, as outlined by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A review of the draft Central Community Master Plan.
Mr. Simonsen introduced Mr. Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, and Ms. Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, from the City's Planning Division, who would be giving the Staff presentation.
Mr. Joyce stated that the Central Community Master Plan has been in the process for many years. He said that it would replace the 1974 Community Development Master Plan. The northern boundary covered by the Central Community Master Plan jogs from North Temple to South Temple; the eastern boundary jogs from University Street to 1300 East; the southern boundary jogs from 1700 South along 700 East to 2100 South; and the western boundary follows Interstate 15. A copy of the master plan was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Joyce said that a citizen committee was formed and the City spent years gathering information through the public process. He recognized Vicki Mickelsen, a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, who was an influential person on the committee.
Mr. Joyce pointed out that the Central Community Master Plan would support neighborhood plans already adopted. He said that the plan would set a general policy for future land use and zoning densities.
Mr. Joyce gave a brief overview of the master plan. He stated that the zoning for the city should be consistent with the master plan, but in some cases it is not. He added that Staff is developing a conflict map. Mr. Joyce said that one of the implementation strategies of the small area master plans.
Mr. Joyce referred to the Historic Preservation section of the master plan. He explained that the master plan ensures the compatibility of new construction with historic structures. A map is included that identifies the historic sites and the expanding National Register historic districts. Mr. Joyce stated that as a guiding policy for the future, there would also be implementation measures, such as resolving the zoning conflicts. He indicated zoning regulations would be reviewed to ensure they do not promote demolition of significant contributing structures. Mr. Joyce pointed out that new zoning districts would be reviewed which would increase density and not building height. He stated that those are really targeted to fit into more developed areas or historic areas. Mr. Joyce clarified that all the work would have to happen as a follow-up to the master plan.
Zoning conflicts: Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission has faced some challenges with respect to underlying zoning where there are historic overlay zones. He indicated that the challenge is demolition and when the underlying zoning is not compatible with the preservation with historic structures. Mr. Simonsen reported that the most notable case with which the Commission is still challenged, is the Vernier Court project. He said that the property was zoned RMF-35 and asked if the master plan called for a change in zoning. Mr. Joyce indicted that it would still be the same.
Mr. Simonsen said the Commission asked Staff to help identify potential areas in historic districts where the underlying zoning may be significantly different than the existing historic land use patterns and where the possibility of down zoning or rezoning existed. He said that the Commission wants some assurance from Staff that there is flexibility built into the master plan to recognize where historic preservation has conflicts with the base zoning and the likelihood of making zoning changes. Mr. Joyce said the plan would allow for that. He stated that one of the things in the master plan that identifies one of the real issues is the new TOD Transit Orientated Development land use designations and its impact on historic districts. Mr. Joyce noted that they do not override historic district overlays and that would be true of any of the other base zoning designations. He pointed out that land use designations could have several zoning designations that fit the general character. Mr. Joyce noted that when evaluation of these target areas begin, there could be lower density zones or even higher density that would affect the mass and the height to keep it more compatible. He said that the master plan would have the built-in flexibility to be amended if necessary.
Ms. Giraud gave as an example the Historic Preservation Policies section HP-1.3, "Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or properties." She clarified that once a study was completed which showed the compatibility or lack of compatibility with zoning and contributing structures the review would be driven by this one section. Mr. Joyce said the policy would actually support that activity if the review disclosed a conflict and recommended a change in zoning in the land use master plan. He added that a zoning conflict would have to be resolved through the process by going to the Planning Commission and the City Council to get a final consensus of what the appropriate land use and zoning would be. Mr. Joyce noted that there would be no immediate zoning changes with the adoption of the plan. He said that the next step would be to look at the zoning in the historic districts and work hand-in-hand with the Preservation Staff, who has already begun the evaluation process.
Ms. Giraud referred to the first paragraph under Transit Orientated Development Designations, "In all designations, where conflicts between the transit oriented district and the historic district overlay regulations occur, the historic overlay requirements govern."
Mr. Ashdown asked if a density map has been prepared. Mr. Simonsen said he believed that Staff is working on that project. Ms. Giraud concurred that Staff should have the map and the density study completed by the end of October. Mr. Simonsen said he did not want that density study to hold up the process for the community master plan.
Mr. Joyce pointed out the area north of Liberty Park at 800 and 900 South where the master plan recommends lower density and would require a zoning change. Mr. Simonsen suggested looking at other areas of the city. He said that there was a recent down zoning in the Sugar House area that focused on conservation in the neighborhoods. Mr. Simonsen said that perhaps the long term strategy not be on local districts. Ms. Giraud also recommended looking at the Central City Historic District.
Contributing status of an historic building: Mr. Littig spoke of the challenge of an owner of an historic property who debated the definition of a contributing structure. He referred to the demolition of Bill and Nada's Cafe and the duplex on the adjacent property. Mr. Littig said the owners argued that there were no other historic properties on the block. He stated that the Commission needed help in redefining and protecting these pockets of historic buildings. Mr. Joyce said that he did not know how contributing could be defined to save the loss of those buildings. He reiterated that the master plan would be flexible.
Ms. Coffey said that definition issues should be clarified in the H Historic Overlay section of the zoning ordinance and the master plan would support that.
Ms. Giraud stated that the definition of contributing and non-contributing echoed the criteria written by the Parks Service for a National Register designation. She added that the reconnaissance survey determines the contributing or non-contributing status of a building, but the zoning and the land use policies would be covered in the master plan.
Economic hardship determination: Mr. Simonsen stated that the historic overlay districts take precedence, but they do not govern economies because economies are usually governed by underlying zoning. He spoke of some recent demolitions of historic structures where economic hardship was determined based on the value of the property, which unfortunately is not governed by the historic overlay zone. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission wants base zones that are compatible with the density or intensity to its preservation efforts because the economies ultimately will determine what is demolished and what is preserved and not the zoning ordinance.
Recognition of historic buildings and other historic landmarks: Mr. Parvaz stated that the master plan should reflect buildings and their surroundings, bridges, walls, landscaping, road systems, subdivisions, signage, histories, statistics of a building, and other such historic landmarks. He added that someone would have to identify them. Mr. Parvaz referred to Vernier Court and the sense of entry formed by the two flanking buildings and arrangement of the road system. He added that he does not believe the Historic Landmark Commission would ever see a National Register nomination for a subdivision or a road system, just the buildings themselves. Mr. Parvaz discussed this more in detail. He believed that the master plan addresses the problems and the general solution to those issues.
Ms. Giraud thought it would be a good idea to have some language in the Historic Preservation chapter that would recognize not just buildings, but the land on which they sit. She continued by saying that historic landmarks could include such things as clock towers, bridges, barns, and silos to name a few. Mr. Parvaz agreed and said anything that has historic value. Ms. Giraud stated that there was much written in the Bryant Neighborhood nomination to the National Register about the impact of the street system and the impact of the large ten-acre blocks that ultimately affected the development of the area.
Mr. Parvaz cited that nomination and the fact that there were other entities listed besides buildings.
Ms. Giraud indicated that this was a very complex issue and master plans are meant to be general. She added that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addresses site features, landscaping and other such features. Ms. Giraud said that it would be difficult for Staff to write a master plan that would have a checklist for absolutely every element that one could find in an historic district.
Mr. Knight said that someone approached Staff about putting together a map of everything Staff thought was historic and significant for the updated version of the master plan area. He said that Staff was reluctant to do that because significant things would be limited to what Staff selected. Mr. Knight also pointed out that people have different perceptions on what is significant and what is not. He said that there is a specific implementation item in the Capitol Hill Master Plan that calls for putting together guidelines for historic landscape features. Mr. Knight believed that a statement could be inserted into the master plan that landmark sites should not be limited to buildings or structures.
Statistics of a building prior to demolition: Mr. Parvaz talked about the importance of the statistics of a building prior to demolition. He believed the "heart" of the building should be recognized. Mr. Parvaz said, "This seems to fall through the cracks."
Mr. Parvaz also suggested that there should be a listing of the buildings lost in the central community. Ms. Coffey thought that should be included in the Historic Landmark Commission's annual report.
The State of Utah versus preservation: Mr. Parvaz inquired if the State of Utah has any property covered by this master plan. Mr. Knight believed there may be five or six. Mr. Parvaz said that in his opinion the State of Utah does not care about preservation other than the State Capitol Building. He mentioned the historical coliseum at the State Fair Grounds that was destroyed.
Mr. Simonsen clarified that was a big issue raised when the historic house north of the Governor's Mansion was demolished. In defense of the State, he said that the State of Utah also preserves many properties; the Governor’s Mansion was a great restoration project. He added that sometimes it is just the matter of economics.
Ms. Coffey said that something could be included in the master plan to encourage the State of Utah to consider historic preservation issues. She said there is a lot of similar language in the Capitol Hill Master Plan because of the State Capitol Building.
There was further discussion regarding the recommended zoning changes.
In conclusion, Mr. Joyce and Ms. Coffey agreed that all the suggestions would be considered and language would be added to the Historic Preservation section pertaining to this discussion. Mr. Joyce said the concerns that were expressed at this meeting could be identified as concerns and issues. He commented that Staff would not get to a detailed level of recommendation on some of those concerns, but Staff can at least identify them as issues that should be addressed.
Ms. Giraud said that this master plan has far more positive statements about preservation issues compared to previous Central City plans. She noted that preservation issues are observed throughout the document and not just in the Historic Preservation chapter.
A general discussion took place regarding the wording of a motion. Mr. Simonsen suggested either sending a favorable or an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Ashdown believed that an unfavorable recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council due to the major conflicts in density specifically in the Vernier Court area. Mr. Simonsen said that the conflicts are within the zoning and this was not a zoning change. He did not believe that was grounds not to forward it favorably because the language allows zoning changes that would be more compatible. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission forward it with the recommendation and the Commission work expeditiously to get the zoning changed which is already in process. He said that Staff has been given direction to begin working on that process. Mr. Simonsen added that both the Planning Commission and the City Council will have to adopt any zoning changes.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Central Community Master Plan with additional language to be included in the document that would address the following: 1) Issues with the demolition of historic structures; 2) Zoning changes be considered for future land uses and densities that conflict that the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; 3) More clearly define what historic landmarks and contributing buildings are; and 4) Encourage the State of Utah to be conscientious about historic preservation. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Staff for the work done on the master plan.
Petition regarding the Transit Orientated Development (TOD) and Walkable Communities ordinance:
Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Division recently had a petition for the TOD zone and the Walkable Communities go to the City Council. She said that the city council recommended or required that a consultant be hired, Mr. Frank Grey, to study the ordinance. Ms. Giraud reported that he would be attending a luncheon which will be held tomorrow (October 3rd)at 12:30 P.M. in Room 326 of the City and County Building. She said that he requested two members from the City's boards and commissions to also attend and discuss their perspectives and concern to consider in his review of the ordinance. Mr. Littig and Mr. Simonsen said they would try to attend.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gordon moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00P.M.