SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Robert Payne, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
NEW MEMBER
Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Peter Ashdown as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Parvaz and the other members welcomed him into the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the September 5, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 022-01, a request by David Coats of Prosperity Enterprises to have the Historic Landmark Commission reconsider the contributing status of the Bill and Nada's Cafe at 479 South 600 East, and the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South.
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 request by Mr. David Coats of Prosperity Enterprises was to have the Historic Landmark Commission reconsider the contributing status of Bill and Nada's Cafe at 479 South 600 East, and the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South. He added that this request was part of the applicant's overall request to demolish the two buildings so a new restaurant on the corner of 500 South and 600 East could be constructed.
Mr. Knight reported the following:
The Commission previously reviewed the request for demolition of these structures on July 18, 2001. At the meeting, the Commission reviewed the standards for demolition as outlined in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through g) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, and found that only two of the standards were met by the applicants. Accordingly, the Commission denied the request for demolition. The applicant appealed the Historic Landmark Commission's decision to the Land Use Appeals Board, stating that the Commission had erred in its findings. The Land Use Appeals Board met on August 23, 2001 and upheld the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission.
The Central City Historic District was established in 1991. The survey that was completed shortly after the district was created rated these buildings as contributing structures in the district. Staff used the survey findings to determine that the applicant should pursue the demolition of the buildings using the process outlined in 21A.34.020(L) of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The applicants asked the Commission to revisit this conclusion made by staff, and formally make a determination as to the contributing or non-contributing status of the buildings. Staff conducted further research into the history, integrity, and significance of the buildings; these findings are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Mr. Knight stated that Section 21A.34.01O(B)(1 and 2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance defines "Contributing Structure" and "Noncontributing Structure" as follows:
Contributing Structure: A contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C2 of this section and is of moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.
Noncontributing Structure: A noncontributing structure is a structure within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C2 of this section. The major character-defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures also include those, which are less than fifty years old.
house by analyzing the standards in Section 21A.34.020(C)(2), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Criteria for Selection of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site, which states: The Historic Landmark Commission shall evaluate each parcel of property within a proposed H Historic Preservation Overlay District or the parcel of property associated with a landmark site. Individual parcels within a proposed district, the district as a whole, and landmark sites shall be evaluated according to the following:
a. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following:
i. Events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, or ii. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or iii. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or iv. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City.
Staff's finding of fact: These buildings are part of the Central City Historic District, which is significant under (i) and (iii) of this standard as one of the early neighborhoods of the city, as a physical example of Salt Lake City's evolution from an isolated, agrarian community to an industrial and commercial society, and as a collection of architecturally significant buildings from the first quarter of the twentieth century. The cafe and the duplex may lack individual significance, but when evaluated in their context as one individual component to the historic district, the buildings contribute to the Central City Historic District's significance.
Bill and Nada's Cafe was locally significant as a popular all-night gathering spot for a wide variety of Salt Lake City residents. Most of this significance was lost after the diner closed. As a building constructed in 1951, the cafe is also a significant example of the types of buildings constructed in this neighborhood during the 1950s. The cafe, along with neighboring office buildings and businesses such, as Fendall's Ice Cream on the 700 East side of this block, signifies the shift of this neighborhood from primarily a residential district to primarily a commercial district. This was due to the expansion of the city's central business district into these neighborhoods, encouraged by city policies and real estate speculation. These elements of significance were not addressed when the historic district was created. Indeed, the district was created to combat further erosion of the neighborhood's early Twentieth Century character. Nevertheless, no other historic theme has affected the present character of the Central City Historic District as much as the evolution from an inner-city neighborhood to an extension of the downtown core; thus, the restaurant meets this standard.
b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
Staff's discussion: The National Park Service addresses the different aspects of historic integrity extensively in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following is a short distillation of each of the elements of integrity:
LOCATION: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.
Staff's finding of fact: Both the duplex and the cafe maintain integrity of location because they remain on the property on which they were originally built. Neither building has been moved.
Applicant's discussion: Bill McHenry tore down the original building and built a new one in a different location. The place of the historic property has been moved in the case of the restaurant. Per staff's own findings the history of the building has been destroyed. The 1924 building is no more and Bill and Nada are gone. The duplex is just that, a duplex, and it is still in its location but in unsafe and unsound condition. After all what event took place here? In context, both locations are not historic in any way.
DESIGN: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.
A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.
For districts, design concerns more than just the individual buildings within the district. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites.
Staff's finding of fact: Individually, these buildings maintain integrity of design because they have retained their historic function (commercial and residential) and the arrangement of massing, fenestration pattern, texture of surface materials, and style of ornamental detailing all remain intact on both buildings, with the exception of a missing front porch rail on the duplex. The block upon which this property sits has changed substantially, however, from its original design and from when the district was created. The urban design pattern of single/multi family homes and small commercial and institutional uses with uniform street setbacks and regular placement along the street no longer remains intact, and integrity of design within the context of the district is no longer maintained.
Applicant's discussion: Integrity of design cannot be maintained by use. Nowhere in the definition given you from Bulletin 15 of the National Register is the word "use" used as a criterion. Architecturally, the duplex has been described as Victorian Eclectic. Webster's definition of Eclectic is, "Having components from diverse sources of styles", or in laymen's terms, a hodge-podge of style, not contributing significantly to any particular style or period.
Architecturally, the restaurant building is so non-descript in style, the original findings presented to you before in the original application, did not even attempt to categorize it, but rather called it typical in nature to buildings built in the 1940's. Now we know it was built later. There is no architectural significance to either one of those buildings.
SETTING: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.
Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences.
The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space.
These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.
Staff's discussion: This block once epitomized the neighborhoods that were
developed in Central City during the early part of this century as part of the "shift in the economic structure of the community from an agriculture based community to that of an industrial and commercial society," as noted in the National Register nomination for the Central City Historic District. The copies of Sanborn Insurance Maps for this block, included in the staff report, indicate the number of structures that once occupied the block, and their gradual decline and demolition beginning with the efforts at urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s. Many buildings of similar age and architectural style were demolished in the neighborhood to make way for new commercial and office buildings. The duplex, as one of two remaining structures from this period on the block, now stands isolated, with no other buildings of the same age to provide context.
As a 1951 building, the cafe building was constructed as the neighborhood was becoming the way it is today. The 1950s and 1960s office and commercial buildings that detract from the integrity of setting for the duplex reinforce the integrity of setting for the cafe.
Staffs finding of fact: The integrity of setting for the duplex is not maintained. The integrity of setting for the cafe is maintained.
Applicant's discussion: This whole block has seen several evolutions, which really destroyed its historical pattern or nature long before the property was acquired. At one time, there was an industrial and commercial shift. That got mixed with an institutional shift and now it is shifting back to commercial. The applicant is trying to go with a neighborhood commercial, which he thinks is very good. The applicant is trying to retain the 'flavor' of Bill and Nada's. The applicant agrees with staff on the duplex and disagrees on the cafe because the building has been relocated and it's setting changed. The cafe is also out of character with the other buildings in the surrounding area. It also does not qualify for evaluation because of the error in the survey.
MATERIALS: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place.
A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must a/so be an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible.
Staff's finding of fact: Both buildings retain their integrity of materials. No historic photos of the buildings are available, but neither building has significant alterations that would affect this aspect of their integrity. Both buildings are deteriorated, but if the properties were to be rehabilitated, the materials could be repaired or replaced in-kind.
Applicant's discussion: How can one debate the materials? They are what they are, but how do they convey the historical event or relationship or person that does not exist?
WORKMANSHIP: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.
Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery.
Staffs finding of fact: The workmanship on these buildings is typical of that found on buildings at the time of their construction.
Applicant's discussion: Staff finds the buildings typical of the period. What else would you find? The workmanship for the duplex is not distinctive in nature. It has no elements of craft. All pieces of construction are standards machine elements, which could be purchased 'off the shelf. The cafe is standard generic construction of poor quality and conveys no special qualities of craftsmanship.
FEELING: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life.
Staffs discussion: Like the setting of the buildings, the integrity of feeling is different for each building. The feeling associated with the district as a late Nineteenth-early Twentieth Century residential neighborhood has been compromised by non-period intrusions in this part of Central City. The feeling associated with the area as it became in the 1950s and 1960s is maintained.
Staffs finding of fact: The integrity of feeling for the cafe is maintained; the integrity of feeling for the duplex is not maintained.
Applicant's discussion: This is so subjective that it could be debated in a different way by every person in this room. The applicant believes that this group had feeling because he is trying to replace the Bill and Nada's Restaurant with similar matter. Bill and Nada are gone and the feeling can never be recreated. They did not want it to be recreated. They refused to allow their name to be used.
ASSOCIAT/ON: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the Eighteenth Century will retain its quality of association with the battle.
Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.
Staffs finding of fact: The cafe is associated with Bill and Nada McHenry, and the local institution they created. It is also associated with the evolution of the neighborhood that took place beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, and continuing to the present day. The duplex is associated with a similar shift in the neighborhood (and city-wide) that took place in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries as the City shifted from an isolated, agricultural community to a cosmopolitan city similar to others nationally.
Applicant's discussion: Bill and Nada were neighborhood restaurant operators, not historical people. There is no event and they were not an institution. The University of Utah is an institution. The Mormon Temple is an institution. There is no historic character to associate with this building.
c. The age of the site. Sites must be at least fifty years old, or have achieved significance within the past fifty years if the properties are of exceptional importance.
Staff's discussion: Sanborn maps indicate the duplex was constructed between 1898 and 1911. The reconnaissance level survey lists the date on this building as c.1906, and the County tax card (which is not always accurate for early buildings) lists the date of construction as 1900.
The construction date for the cafe is listed on the survey as c.1924. The Sanborn Maps for 1911 and 1949 show a restaurant on this corner, but slightly to the south of the current cafe building. Staff's research into the building permit records yielded a building permit obtained by Bill McHenry on November 11, 1951, for a one story block cafe with five rooms and parking. Polk Directories and recent newspaper articles indicate that Bill and Nada's Cafe opened in 1944. Staff believes that the cafe occupied the building shown on the 1911 Sanborn Map, which was demolished after the new building was completed in 1952. The County tax card supports this, because the card lists the building's construction date as 1952. If the building was constructed beginning in November 1951, then the building misses the fifty-year cutoff by less than two months. Under the zoning ordinance's definition of contributing and non-contributing buildings, the cafe must be considered non-contributing, unless the building is of exceptional importance (Section 21A.34.020()(2). With the passing of Bill McHenry and the demise of Bill and Nada's Cafe, staff does not believe that the cafe remains exceptionally important to the history and culture of the city.
Staff's finding of fact: The duplex meets this requirement. The cafe does not meet this requirement.
Mr. Knight referred to the table summarizing the staff's findings of fact, w 1ich was included in the staff report. He pointed out an error staff made in the table that both buildings meet the criteria for design; they should signify that they do not. Mr. Knight stated that staff finds both properties meet the ordinance's standards in terms of significance. Staff further finds that the integrity of both buildings has been affected by the surrounding non-contributing structures, but overall, the physical integrity of both buildings remains evident. The duplex meets the ordinance's fifty-year age requirement, but the cafe does not, by two months.
Under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, if either building is determined to be noncontributing, a notice of demolition is sent to the surrounding property owners within 85 feet, to the chairperson of the neighborhood community councils, and to the list of "interested parties" maintained by the secretary of the Historic Landmark Commission. If no objections are received within a fourteen (14) day waiting period, the planning director could issue a demolition permit or refer the matter to the Historic Landmark Commission for further review. If either building is determined to be contributing, then the Commission's previous action on the demolition request would stand. The applicant would be required to leave the building standing, or pursue the economic hardship process.
Mr. Knight stated that staff does not believe that further review would be beneficial for the owner, the neighborhood, or the city. Mr. Knight offered the following staff' recommendation: "The Commission should find that the duplex is still a contributing structure, and uphold the Commission's previous determination of denying the demolition of that structure. Further, because the cafe is less than fifty years old by two months, staff recommends that the Commission determines that the structure is non-contributing and approve the demolition of the building, pending a reuse plan and recordation of the building."
Mr. Knight pointed out that if the Commission determines that either building is contributing, the owners have the option to proceed with the economic hardship process for that building.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig asked if the properties could be excluded from the historic district. Mr. Knight said that at the time the district was created, property owners were given an opportunity to make public comment, but not given the option of being excluded from the historic district. Mr. Littig said that he believed there has been a continuous social history at the cafe. Mr. Knight added that the cafe was not in the same building, as explained in the staff report. Mr. Littig inquired if there was any social history of the duplex. Mr. Knight said that there have been some very long-term occupants of the building like many rented properties in Central City. He noted that the modest housing usually was rented to working class people.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the reuse plan. Mr. Knight pointed out that the applicant submitted a reuse plan for a new restaurant building with the application for demolition, which is required. He said that the reuse plans would have to be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission before a demolition permit was issued.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that in the previous staff report, staff determined that both buildings were contributory. Mr. Knight referred to the staff report dated July 18, 2001: "According to the Central City reconnaissance-level survey conducted in 1994, the restaurant was constructed in 1946 and the duplex was constructed about 1906. Because both are over 50 years old and have maintained a high level of physical integrity, they were rated as contributing structures. Staff recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission defer its decision on the demolition of the structures at 613-615 East 500 South and 479 South 600 East to allow the applicant to ether conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the structures or file applications for economic hardship. Staff further recommended that the Commission table its decision on the new construction application until the issue of demolition is resolved."
Mr. Wilson inquired about other findings that could override if a building is found to be less than 50 years old. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the building would have to be overwhelmingly significant. Mr. Knight said that there is some conflicting information in the ordinance. He said that the definition for a non-contributing building states that "noncontributing structures also include those that are less than fifty (50) years old," but one of the criteria for selecting a district or site states: "Sites must be at least 50 years old or have achieved significance within the past 50 years, if the properties are of exceptional importance.” Mr. Knight said that the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources leaves a lot of room for those culturally significant buildings. The discussion continued relating to this matter.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicant, Mr. David Coats of Prosperity Enterprises, as well as his attorney, Mr. Nick Colessides, were present. Mr. Coats circulated copies of a document, from which he made his remarks, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Coats stated that in light of last week's tragic events this matter may not seem too important, but to the owners of the property, it is. He stated, "We think it is a time for all elected and appointed officials to step forward and do what is right. I'm putting forth my remarks in writing with back up for substantiation of what I'm about to say."
Mr. Coats stated the following: "This is the second time we have appeared before you on this matter. We are not as staff suggests, asking you to reconsider your previous determination. I compliment Mr. Knight because I think he has done an excellent job of research; a proper job of research. But on the contrary, staff originally arbitrarily and capriciously decided to present to you the property as contributing. We were denied the ability to submit a demolition permit for a non-contributing building and a new construction permit. Staff told us that we had to submit a demolition permit for a contributing building, when in fact the original survey had determined that the subject properties were only 'B' buildings. There is a rating form we will discuss later. You can see it in your exhibit 1 and 2. The point is, a 'B' building has no significance. On your original survey, there was no significance. A building with significance would be rated 'A' No significance was found in the original survey." Mr. Coats also pointed out the error in the original survey as to the age of the existing cafe building.
Mr. Coats indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission must take into account the purpose statement, found in Section 21.A.34.020(H) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a noncontributing structure, before evaluating the status of the two subject buildings. Mr. Coats said that the purpose statement has seven points and he believes that the applicant meets all the points except one.
Mr. Coats proceeded by reading and discussing each point in the following manner:
1. "Neither building was or is significant in its historic nature. We were preserving the culture if indeed it exists;
2. "This Commission is to encourage new development and redevelopment in a historic district that is compatible with the character of existing development. We were doing that;
3. "Applicant is applying for demolition of a building but applicant is willing to reconstruct in a manor compatible with the character of existing development so though we fail this one lone point the goal of development has been in line with all other requirements;
4.” We are trying to implement the plans of the city related to historic preservation by agreeing to design criteria and saving of memorabilia;
5. "Our construction would restore civic pride and maintain the culture related to historic preservation and a vacant unusable building could not do that;
6. "We are protecting and enhancing the attraction of the city's historic landmark district for tourists and visitors because the existing buildings are unsafe and not suitable for rehabilitation. We will not be able to be open for the Olympics because of the time constraints placed on us; and
7. "We are fostering economic development consistent with historic preservation by creating an economically viable business and preserving the culture."
Mr. Coats continued by saying, "Staff is right in that the historic district was established in 1991, but they are wrong in that these buildings are not shown to be historic other than the surveyors 'B' rating which means it is eligible, but no significance was found. The Utah Historic Commission reconnaissance survey form says the two structures are 'eligible' for consideration as historic buildings. This report is in error as it regards to the cafe. Staff says that it misses by two months when the cafe actually misses it by ten years and two months. The time of the survey is 1991 when this district was established, that is ten years ago. If you take the time of our application, it's six months ago. Therefore, the cafe never should have been declared 'eligible' because under the evaluation criteria, properties must meet the National Register age requirements so that does not make them significant. The buildings have never been determined to be contributing or non-contributing and now one building is not even rated correctly. Staff has found an error on the original survey (see your exhibits 1 and 2). Bill and Nada's was not constructed in 1924 as it says, but as Nelson (Mr. Knight) said, it was constructed in 1951. Therefore, we feel the Commission must go forward under first the purpose statement and then make its decision based on the significance on the duplex location. This would require you to proceed under 21A.34.020.34.020(H), going first to the purpose statement and then to whether this was a Landmark Site within the overlay district. This site is not listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources nor is it identified on the historic site maps. Therefore, the original surveyor had no historical significance to that site. (See exhibits 3, pages 1-8 and exhibits 4, pages 1-3). There are other errors on the original building survey for the cafe as it classifies the restaurant as brick and it is concrete block."
Mr. Coats noted that the owner has an option of proceeding through the economic hardship process, if the Commission denies this application. He also said that filing a suit in the district court is also an option. He said, "We feel this is a time for reason and logic to prevail in order for you to get what you want, and for the City not to have an additional extra expense. Ours is a country of civil rights and property rights are one of the very basics."
Mr. Coats asked, "What is the significance of the Central City Overlay District, and more importantly, what is the significance of these buildings?" He pointed out that they were not noted on the Salt Lake City Register or on the National Register. He referenced the National Register Bulletin 15 and quoted: "Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity." Mr. Coats stated that being part of an overlay district does not make a property significant in and of itself. He said that staff claimed that the cafe was locally significant as a popular all-night gathering spot for a wide variety of Salt Lake City residents, but staff does not say "why were they there", "when they were there", or "who was there". Mr. Coats added, "It just happened to be an all-night restaurant, which does not make it significant. The only criteria we can identify is 'where' the restaurant was, then we find out that it is not on its original site. That doesn't make it significant."
Mr. Coats addressed the following: "The same is true of the duplex. Why is this duplex historical? When did it become historical? It's always been a rental property. Where did the historical event associated with it take place? In the original survey (your exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4) the surveyor declared the building eligible but could find no significance."
Referring once more to the National Register Bulletin 15, Assessing Integrity in Properties: define the essential physical features that must be present for a property to represent its significance; determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their significance; determine whether the property needs to be compared with similar properties; and determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if they are present.
Mr. Coats said that ultimately, the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it was significant. Quoting again from Bulletin 15, he stated: "A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s)."
Mr. Coats indicated that he also used to frequent Bill and Nada's Cafe, but said that Mr. McHenry was not known historically or not associated with an important event or historical pattern. He said, "Staff either knowingly or in error directed us to submit a contributing demolition application. We request that you declare both buildings and sites eligible for demolition and we will proceed with the new construction application, and we will try to meet your needs to build it the way you want it done."
Mr. Coats proceeded by responding to the aspects of integrity as outlined in the National Register Bulletin 15. He pointed out that Mr. Wayne Belka, architect, helped him evaluate and compile the information. [Please refer to staff's distillation of each of the elements of integrity that are reported earlier in the minutes.]
Mr. Coats concluded by saying, "The rest of staff's comments were merely a summary of their position and you, the Commissioners, are left to make a decision. We would ask for reason and fairness. Bill McHenry got to demolish and reconstruct, and we should too. Please allow us this demolition permit so we can move forward. Thank you."
Mr. Nick Colessides introduced himself as an attorney representing Prosperity Enterprises. He stated the following: "As you are debating this issue, I would like you to focus particularly on your conclusion from the staff recommendation. The staff says that 'based upon the findings and the definitions of contributing and non-contributing buildings in the ordinance, staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission find that the cafe is a non contributing structure in the district, but that the duplex is a contributing structure in the district' therefore we ask you to find our way and if you were to find that way the rest of the ordinance would be a consequence of whatever you would decide I need to reemphasize the fact that originally when we went to the staff, Ms. Giraud, issued two applications. One was an application for a non-contributing structure and she refused to take that application. She took the other application, and that is why we are here "
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking the applicant to clarify his statement regarding the design criteria and saving the memorabilia. Mr. Coats said that he proposed trying to save the images on the interior walls and the memorabilia and use them in the planned new restaurant facility to memorialize Bill McHenry. Mr. Coats talked about the proposal to construct a Carmack's restaurant on the site, which is a historical institution in Bountiful. He stated that he has some concern that option may be lost because "we cannot proceed fast enough. We are already going to miss the Olympic opening, which is the fact of life. It is something we will have to deal with." Mr. Ashdown said that he was from Bountiful and remembered the original Carmack's. He asked the applicant about the square footage of the existing Bill and Nada's Cafe building and inquired why the same building could not be used as a Carmack's. Mr. Coats explained that the building was not large enough or adequate for the new restaurant. He said that Carmack's operates out of 2,600 square-foot-building which would be small for Salt Lake City. Mr. Coats added that it would not be economically feasible to operate out the existing building.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired about any other options for the buildings rather than demolishing them. Mr. Coats said that he has marketed the property for almost two years and had over 200 applications during that time. He said that no prospective tenant made an offer in writing because it would not have been economically feasible to operate out of the existing buildings for the rent that would have been necessary to charge after the buildings were renovated. Mr. Coats added that Domino’s Pizza showed an interest in the cafe building, but he believed that type of business would not have been best for the neighborhood, especially when he had the prospect of developing a property that would house another historical entity, such as Carmack's. He talked about the changing property values in the area. Mr. Coats said that when Trolley Square was made into a commercial operation, the rest of the blocks went commercial, too. He said that Trolley Square is a strong focus point and he wanted to do something to "save Bill and Nada's flavor, but have it be matching Trolley's history". Mr. Coats added that he believed Carmack's would do that. Mr. Coats talked a great deal about the memories he had at Bill and Nada's Cafe and expressed his remorse that the building could not be used.
In conclusion, Mr. Coats thanked the Commissioners for their time.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
Mr. Littig stated that he did not believe the staff was arbitrary because staff has proven to be very thorough and professional. He added that missing a date by two months was slight. Mr. Littig said that he did not understand the applicant's explanation of the ten years and two months error. He stated that he did not believe the applicant understood the difference between "contributing" and "significant". Mr. Littig noted that there are 55 individually "significant" buildings in the Avenues area, which is the largest single area of historic properties between California and the Mississippi River. Most of the others are simply contributing that make up the historic character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Knight referred to the Central City National Register nomination. He said that none of the structures in this application were listed as being "individually significant" in and of themselves, but collectively derived significance as contributing to the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen said that this was a real challenge for him because part of the significance of the site has nothing to do with the cafe building; it has to do with the use of the site through two generations of buildings. He said that the proposal for the use of the site would bring back the social aspect of what made that corner important to the neighborhood, to the city.
Mr. Littig agreed but said he did not believe the Commission had seen a great proposal for the site. He expressed his concern about the planned drive-up window in the proposed new restaurant. He said that would not contribute to the cafe or the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen said he believed those thing could be worked out. He said that the Commission has been dealing with the demolition of the application rather than the reuse plan. He talked further about the matter.
Mr. Young said. "The larger issue was that we will lose it by two months; it is a classic building for the era. Bill and Nada's go back to 1944 when it started. In that light, it is significant. 'Bill and Nada's' is significant but the building in which they were operating was not. It doesn't tie in with the turn of the century quality. However, the duplex, in spite of all the ramifications and deliberations we have had with the setting, context, I think that still has some contributory factors." He said that there was a dichotomy that he was struggling with, because of the possibility of one structure going through an economic hardship and the other one not. Other members agreed.
The discussion continued regarding the loss of the subject buildings, the proposed reuse plan, other kinds of businesses using the buildings, the unlikely use of the building by Carmack's, and the history of Bill and Nada's Cafe. The Commissioners offered their regret of possibly losing this part of the history of the Central City area.
Mr. Ashdown inquired what control the Historic Landmark Commission had as to what the final building would look like? Mr. Littig said that the Historic Landmark Commission would have the purview of reviewing and approving any new reuse plan for the site. Mr. Wilson said that we have control over new construction within the district.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the response of the members of the Central City Community Council. Mr. Knight said that most in attendance expressed how unhappy they were that Bill and Nada's had gone away but were resigned to the fact that the building would be demolished. He added that most were positive to the idea that Carmack's was a potential use for the property.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Commission make two separate motions for the two buildings in question.
Motion on Bill and Nada's Cafe:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 022-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission support staff's findings of fact regarding Bill and Nada's Cafe located at 479 South 600 East and deem the building a "non-contributing" structure in the Central City Historic District. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Mr. Ashdown abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was some further discussion regarding the demolition process for a non-contributing building. Mr. Simonsen recommended that the application for demolition, after the process was completed, could be administratively approved and a Certificate of Appropriateness issued.
Motion on the duplex:
Mr. Littig also moved for Case No. 022-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission support staff's findings of fact regarding the duplex located at 613-615 East 500 South, that the building would retain its "contributing" status in the Central City Historic District. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen commented that the Commission had to follow the criteria in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Case No. 023-01, a request by the Boyer Company for approval of a signage package for the Union Pacific Depot at 400 W. South Temple, which 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 Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company, is requesting approval for a signage package for the Union Pacific Depot, including modification of the existing shield and Union Pacific lettering on the east elevation, and two new signs on the west and south facades of the building. The Union Pacific Depot is individually listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. The building is being renovated as part of the Boyer Company's Gateway development. The depot and surrounding properties are zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use. "The Gateway" districts are intended "to provide controlled and compatible settings for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, and implement the objectives of the adopted Gateway Development Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed-use character of the area and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses and high-density residential."
Mr. Knight gave a brief history of the Union Pacific Depot, which was constructed in 1908-1909, and designed by D.J. Patterson, architect, and John D. Isaacs, consulting engineer. He said that the building served as a railroad station until the 1980s, when Union Pacific gave the building to the State of Utah. Mr. Knight added that the Utah Arts Council occupied the station for a time, and numerous proposals were put forward to restore the building for a new use. He noted that Gateway Associates, a group led by the Boyer Company, a local developer, acquired the building in 1999 and are renovating it to serve as the centerpiece of their large mixed-use development on the surrounding blocks.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the renovation plan for the depot, along with the two new adjoining additions, in December 1999, and December 2000. He added that the future tenants for the building were unclear, so signage proposals were not included in the approvals.
Mr. Knight stated that the Commission placed a condition of approval that the existing Union Pacific signs on the East and West facades would remain. He indicated that the architects for the depot renovation raised a question at that meeting as to the age of the shield on the west side, as well as concerns over the structural soundness of the sign framework and its effect on the historic character of the building.
Mr. Knight said that the Commission placed an additional condition on the approval stating that the sign on the west side could be removed if additional information could be supplied that established the age of the sign and the risk to the building if the signage structure were to remain. He noted that the architects provided staff with information that showed the sign had been added in the 1970s, and staff approved the removal of the sign.
Mr. Knight presented the three sign proposals:
1. Removal of the existing Union Pacific lettering to the left and right of the shield on the east side of the building. The letters would be replaced by new metal letters spelling out "The Gateway". "The Gateway's letters would be between 4'-3" and 6'-4" high and 56'-0" long. The letters would be painted a bronze color, and illuminated with a field of clear globe lights approximately 4-1/2" apart. The existing Union Pacific shield logo would remain as is.
2. Construction of a new sign in the location of the former sign on the west fa<;ade spelling out "The Gateway" in metal letters. This sign would be identical to the sign proposed on the east facade, with the same size, paint color, and illumination. The sign would be mounted to the existing framework that supported the former sign. Contrary to the information previously presented, the applicants stated that this framework is sufficient to support the sign and will not result in damage to the building if retained.
3. A new metal-framed archway over the walkway at the south end of the depot, with metal letters spelling out "The Gateway" mounted atop the archway. The letters would be illuminated from below with ten halogen fixtures mounted three feet off the face of the arch.
Mr. Knight talked about the Architectural Subcommittee meeting on September 12, 2001 where the applicants presented their proposal. The members of the subcommittee felt strongly that the Union Pacific letters on the east side should remain, and that the illumination proposed was not appropriate. Members were in favor of the proposed mounting structures and emphasized that any signs should not obscure the historic features of the building and should do no damage to the historic materials.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H historic preservation overlay district, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter
21A.46, Signs.
Staffs discussion: The zoning ordinance allows one general building sign per street frontage in the G-MU Zone. The size is limited to 1.5 square feet per linear floor of building face. On the east and west sides of the building, 584.85 square feet of general building sign would be allowed. Staff does not believe a sign of that size would be compatible with the historic character of the Union Pacific Depot, but the square footage is included here to show that the signs proposed are in keeping with the zoning ordinance requirements for size. However, the proposed signs do not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance because they are roof mounted and pole signs, both of which are prohibited sign types in this zone. The applicants propose to obtain a recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission that the Board of Adjustment grant a special exception for these signs because they are in keeping with the signs that were historically used on this building and would result in less damage to the historic fabric of the building than a sign type that is allowed in this zone.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs require a special exception from the board of adjustment in order to comply with the requirements of the Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, signs.
Mr. Knight reported that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The Commission should use these criteria in determining whether the proposed signs are consistent with the historic character of the Union Pacific Depot, as required by the zoning ordinance. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding:
1. A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee 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 signs are similar in size, location, color and materials to signs that were historically mounted on the building. One portion of an existing sign is proposed for removal: The Union Pacific lettering on the east side of the depot. The existing letters are approximately five feet high, and are metal with neon lighting. The applicants state that these letters were added in the 1970s. A February 1972 photo from the Planning Division's files, which shows that there were no such letters on the building at that time, supports this. However, another photo of the building from 1952 shows similar Union Pacific letters flanking the shield. Before that time, historic photos indicate that there were several iterations of the Union Pacific shield and lettering in the same location on the building.
Even though the "Union Pacific" letters on the east elevation date from the 1970s, they are based on historic letters, and staff believes that they have acquired significance in their own right and, like the Union Pacific shield, should be retained. The location of the proposed replacement sign below the existing shield would obscure the architectural detail along this portion of the building. Additional signage on this side would be acceptable in order to identify "The Gateway" project, but it should be constructed in such a way so that the existing signs remain.
The applicant has based the illumination for the new signs on historic theater marquee lighting, and other examples such as Trolley Square and Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco. The applicants desire to differentiate the overall depot signage from the tenant signs, which will be neon. The Architectural Subcommittee took issue with the lighting; members felt that the individual lights were not characteristic of the types of signs historically seen on this building or other train stations.
The design and lettering style for the signs is based upon the standard font that the Boyer Company is using for all of its Gateway signage. The lettering is not based upon any historic precedent, but is compatible with the character of the building.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signs complement the building in terms of size, location, materials, style, and color, but not in terms of illumination because the proposed individual lights are not in keeping with the types of signs historically used on this building or other train stations. The existing Union Pacific lettering on the east side is a character defining feature of the building and should be retained. If the letters are removed, then new letters should be mounted so as not to obscure any architectural detail.
2. In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee [Historic Landmark Commission] encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The proposed signs are based upon previous historic signs that were once on the building, and are sophisticated and low-key to the extent that would be expected on a historic train station. No backlit plastic or animated signs are proposed.
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.
Staff's discussion: The owner submitted this proposal as an overall signage plan to guide future signs on the building when the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the House of Blues' signs at an earlier meeting. Staff expects that additional signs will be proposed when the south end of the building is leased. Staff finds the arch at the south end of the building to be the most historically appropriate sign of those proposed, but the most problematic from a zoning standpoint. In order for the sign to be approved, the Board of Adjustment would have to grant a special exception based on the historic standards previously outlined. Since this sign is at the south end of the building, adjacent to the end of the depot that is yet to be leased, staff is reluctant to advise that the Historic Landmark Commission recommend a special exception. If the future tenant seeks approval of an amount of signage previously approved for the House of Blues, then the overall amount of signage at this end of the building would be excessive.
Staff's finding of fact: These signs are acceptable in terms of the comprehensive sign plan for the building if the expected amount of signage for a tenant in the south end of the building is commensurately reduced.
Mr. Knight stated that the decision rendered by the Commission should address the following:
1) the removal of the Union Pacific letters on the east side; 2) the three new proposed signs on the east, west, and south sides of the building; 3) a reduction in the amount of signage expected for the future tenant at the south end of the building; and 4) make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment regarding a special exception to allow the proposed signs because they are a historically appropriate sign type and would result in less damage to the historic fabric of the building.
Mr. Knight offered staff’s recommendation, as follows: "Based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report, staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed signs with the conditions that the Union Pacific letters and the shield remain on the east side, and that the total amount of signs envisioned by the signage plan be reduced, if the south arched gateway sign is constructed. Staff also recommends forwarding a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about the premise of the Historic Landmark Commission reviewing the archway sign if it is not attached to the building. He said that he did not believe this proposed sign would be any different than the archway sign at the Utah State Fairpark; it would be an entry way to open space. Mr. Knight indicated that the Zoning Administrator opinion is that the sign would be sitting on top of two poles, and he would consider it a pole sign, even though it would span the walkway.
Mr. Parvaz said that the sign is part of the package and an issue that cannot be ignored if any part of it would be mounted on the face of the building.
Mr. Littig inquired about the space around the perimeter of a Landmark Site. Mr. Knight said that there is a one-foot space around the perimeter that would be considered part of the building. Mr. Littig pointed out that the one-foot space would be under the eaves of the building. There was a short discussion regarding this matter.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Doug Thimm of MHTN Architects, and Mr. Jeff Krantz of Young Electric Sign Company (YESCO), representing the applicant, were present. Mr. Thimm talked further about the archway gate sign. He said that he would like to make it more of a gate with a sign on top with spotlighting. Mr. Thimm said the lettering would be a patina copper finish to give it a more rustic look. He said that the color would be a medium bronze. He pointed out that the signage would be attached to freestanding supports and not attached to the building. Mr. Thimm said that the applicant wanted to create an entry place for people who wanted to come into the property from the Trax station of the Delta Center without actually going into the depot building. He said that he believed the sign should be a "low key" subordinate to the other signage.
Mr. Thimm said that the Union Pacific Depot building is the structure that set the architectural tone for the Gateway project. He added that the building would actually be the "centerpiece", the "front door". Mr. Thimm said that he considered this a very important project. He added that the task at hand is very interesting because the building has a very rich historic identity in Salt Lake City and there will be a need to establish an appropriate and proper identity for the Gateway area.
Mr. Thimm discussed the signage package that contains the three basic signs. He talked about the maintenance of the existing Union Pacific Railroad shield on the east elevation because it has been identified with the building for many years that has been substantiated by historic photographs, although in varying forms. He said that at one time, there was a clock embedded in the shield. Mr. Thimm said that those same historic photographs show that the "Union Pacific" text has not always been on either side of the shield on the east elevation. However, he recognized that the yellow letters are there now and have been there for a long time. He said that the applicant did not believe that the lettering makes a major historic statement. Mr. Thimm stated that the applicant was proposing signage that would be appropriate for the historic building to identify the Gateway area.
Mr. Krantz used a display board to further explain the project. He talked about the historic resources that were used that helped make the decision to use globe lettering for the sign. Mr. Krantz compared it to the globe letters at Trolley Square and Ghirardelli Square. He said that the globe lettering predates the neon system. Mr. Krantz circulated some additional photographs of historic buildings using the globe letters for signage. He said that when one looks at the Union Pacific Building at night and sees the red, white, and blue colored neon of the shield, the yellow neon letters almost appears to be an afterthought. Mr. Krantz pointed out that the applicants tried to find a way to bridge the identity of the building by "beefing up" the shield and the identity of the project by placing "The Gateway" sign on the front.
Mr. Krantz said the proposed sign would space the letters so the architectural detail is clearly visible behind them. He stated that a structure has been made that would hang over the top of the cornice and minimize any penetrations to the building. Mr. Thimm added that the spacing of the letters would make the sign almost transparent so the cornice would show through.
Mr. Thimm talked about the proposed signage on the west elevation by saying that the signage would be the same "The Gateway" sign as planned for the east elevation. Mr. Krantz said that the framework would be minimized.
The presentation continued with both Mr. Thimm and Mr. Krantz describing the signage and how it would relate to the Union Pacific Depot building.
Mr. Thimm said that the applicant wants to maintain the overall image of the building. However, he said that the applicant also wants to make certain that people will know how to enter into the Gateway area. Mr. Thimm summarized the signage proposal once more and said that the applicant believes that it would be appropriate to remove the yellow "Union Pacific" lettering from the building and place "The Gateway" sign on the east elevation. He added that it would reduce the amount of clutter. Mr. Thimm said that the applicant knows the need to establish the Gateway area and have the signage make a property statement.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquired if YESCO was the same company that did the signage for the House of Blues. Mr. Thimm said that House of Blues had its own group do the signage. Mr. Littig said that he was not an advocate for a lot of signs in front of the Union Pacific Depot building. He again talked about the perimeter of the building and said he would like to find a way that the archway sign would not be in the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission. A lengthy discussion took place relating to this matter. Mr. Littig asked further about the medium bronze color of the lettering on the archway sign. He said what it considered a medium bronze was a very dark brown color. Mr. Krantz said that it would be lighter and the same color that would be used on the mullions in the windows of the buildings and other elements throughout the project; it will be a very strong color. He added that the letters would be manufactured out of aluminum and painted with a metallic finish.
• Mr. Young said that in the very first historic photograph accompanying the staff report, it shows the "Union Station" lettering below the cornice and inquired if the applicant had investigated putting some kind of signage below the cornice. Mr. Thimm said that the applicant has looked at many locations, but could not answer if there was any consideration to put a sign below the cornice on the east or west sides. He said that he believed the applicant wanted to stay from mounting to the surface of the historic fabric of the facade as much as possible. Mr. Thimm said that is why the applicant leans towards an element that would be structurally supported from the backside of the parapet. Mr. Krantz said that "The Gateway" would have both upper and lower case lettering and would have to be the right proportion to be viewed from a distance. Mr. Young inquired what color would the signage be in the daytime when it is not lit. Mr. Krantz said that it was a grayish color like concrete and would not compete with the color of the cornice on the building.
• Ms. Mickelsen said that she was curious about the entire complex and not just this building and inquired if the words "The Gateway" would be visible elsewhere. Mr. Thimm said that there would be other key places in the project where the signage will occur. Mr. Thimm said that there would be additional entryways where identification would have to be established. Ms. Mickelsen said that a project as massive as the Gateway area would not have any trouble with establishing an identity. Ms. Mickelsen said the entire project itself would have an identity. She questioned the need to have a sign on the train station itself.
• Mr. Wilson said that he wondered that too. He said that the view on South Temple looking west is the Union Pacific Depot building from the downtown area. Mr. Wilson said that the identity of the Gateway area would be established through the depot building. He added that when he would go the Gateway commercial/entertainment center, he would know to go through the train station. A short discussion continued regarding the identity issue. Mr. Littig said that there is an issue using the word identity. He said that the applicants are talking about a "project identity" and the Commission is talking about "historic identity". He also agreed that the project would be well defined. Mr. Krantz reminded the Commission that many visitors coming into the city would not know that the Gateway center could be accessed through the Union Pacific Depot unless a Gateway sign could be seen on South Temple.
Mr. Wilson asked why is the project called "The Gateway" instead of just "Gateway"? Mr. Thimm said that was a marketing decision. He added that it had to do with other projects being called "Gateway". Mr. Krantz said that "The Union Pacific Square" was being considered, but the Union Pacific Railroad people prevented the Boyer Company from using the name.
• Mr. Ashdown asked why the lower case Roman style lettering was chosen for "The Gateway" signage proposed for the building? Mr. Thimm said that was also a marketing decision. Mr. Krantz said that YESCO deals with many corporate identities and most of them have a theme and letter style that is used on marketing materials and brochures, including signage. In response to Mr. Ashdown's question about a future change in the style of lettering, Mr. Thimm told the Commission that the Boyer Company envisioned the style of lettering to be a "timeless" choice.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if the proposed globes were to be combined with neon, then asked why the applicant did not choose neon? Mr. Krantz presented the idea of using the globe lighting to the applicant because it would differentiate from, but complement, the neon that the tenants in the building would use.
• Mr. Simonsen asked what kind of lamp would be used in the globes? Mr. Krantz said that the globes are 10-watt incandescent lamps spaced on 41/2 centers. He said that they would be slightly encased in the channel. Mr. Krantz added that the channel would help contain the light at night, which is very traditional.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the heights of the letters for the proposed "The Gateway" signage for the building. Mr. Krantz said that the proposal on the east and west side called for the capital "T" to be 6'- 4", but the majority of the letters would be much smaller because of the lower case. Mr. Parvaz commented that the tail of the "y" looked like it would be about 3 feet high, which would make the total signage 9 feet high. He asked whether or not the representatives knew how high the yellow "Union Pacific" letters were on the roof. Mr. Krantz said that he did not know for certain but believed the letters, which are upper case, were about 4 feet high. Mr. Krantz said that the letters would be spaced out more on the west side since the square footage would not be an issue. There was some discussion regarding some discrepancies in the drawings as to the placement of "The Gateway" signage on the building. Mr. Krantz said that was pointed out in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. He added that the drawing of the east elevation is correct; the letters would be mounted in front of the cornice. Mr. Krantz said that the tail of the "y" is a challenge because it drops down. He said that perhaps all the letters could be dropped, but then it would cover the cornice, which the Commission does not want. Mr. Parvaz asked the Commissioners to keep that in mind when they make their decision.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Commissioners separate the discussion and motion for the three individual signs.
Discussion of "The Gateway" signage over the arched entry way: Mr. Littig said that he believed there might be some mechanical problems with "The Gateway" sign over the archway entrance. However, he said that sign was the least objectionable. He said he believed that the one-foot space around the perimeter of the building was measured from the overhanging soffit. Mr. Littig stated that once the framework clears the cornice and moves another foot away from the building, the decision on this sign would be out of the purview of this Commission and the Board of Adjustment would have to review it.
There was some further discussion how this could be handled so the Commission would not have to take a position on "The Gateway" sign. There was also some discussion about making a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment even though the signage might be out of their purview.
Motion for "The Gateway" signage over the arched entry way:
Mr. Littig moved for Case No. 023-01 that "The Gateway" sign which is to the south of the Union Pacific Depot be approved as designed with the limitation that it would have to clear the one-foot distance from the overhanging soffit around the perimeter of the building as required of a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen , Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Discussion on 'The Gateway" signage for the east elevation of the building: Mr. Protasevich said he did not understand the necessity of having three "The Gateway" signs on the building. He said that he believed there would be many Gateway signs in the center. He talked about the possibility of new owner of the property and then the signs would all have to be changed. Mr. Protasevich expressed his concern about damage that would be done to the historic building.
Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe change was a bad thing. He cited historic properties all over town where change of ownership has taken place. Mr. Simonsen said that the building should reflect the new use of the building because it is no longer a train station. Mr. Simonsen confronted the issues at hand and said, "One of the things that I hope to see this achieve is that it does become an entry way to a very vibrant downtown commercial district, regardless of whether or not I agree it's the best location for such a commercial district ! feel it is better to have as many people going through the lobby, what now is a public easement, is in the interest of that building so they can experience the historic building and if all the signage is moved away from there, it would direct people to go elsewhere and not to experience this historic building." There was some further discussion relating to the issues of the signage.
Mr. Littig said that he does not believe the Gateway project should dominate the historic structure by placing the signage on the front of the building. He stated that the "Union Pacific" lettering and shield are elements "people have known and grown to expect" when they see the building. Mr. Littig said that the Union Pacific Depot has its own identity and history and it should remain that way. Mr. Littig went on to say that he believed the globe lights have the character for entertainment, and not for a train station and he is offended when he hears people say things like "it will help the building" or "we think it is appropriate", but he said that a democracy means that people differ in their opinion. Mr. Young asked if Mr. Little would like to eliminate "The Gateway" sign or relocate it elsewhere? Mr. Littig said that he wanted to eliminate "The Gateway" sign on the front of the Union Pacific Station, which is the east elevation. Mr. Young said that he thought the arched walkway would be the main entry.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Gateway area is an entertainment district now. He said that he was not certain that he agreed with the type of signage the applicants wanted to use, but he did not disagree that there could be an identification sign on the east side of the building that would essentially say that this is the entry into a downtown commercial/entertainment district. Mr. Simonsen compared it to Trolley Square, that is no longer a car barn; it's a commercial entertainment center. He added that commercial/entertainment entities have signage in Trolley Square and ownerships changed many times.
Ms. Mickelsen said she believed that most people are going to think of the building as the House of Blues because its signs are going to be very prominent.
Mr. Wilson said that he believed that the building would be better served by not having "The Gateway" sign on the east elevation and have the entire community think of the Gateway project being located at the Union Pacific Depot building. He noted that there would be many other entrances into the center. Mr. Wilson suggested treating the building with dignity and not to allow the signage.
Motion on "The Gateway" signage for the east elevation of the building:
Mr. Littig further moved for Case No. 023-01 not to allow "The Gateway" sign attached to the front of the building, which is the east elevation, and to retain the Union Pacific Depot without further signage. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Discussion on "The Gateway" signage for the west elevation of the building: Mr. Littig said that he would like to see all framework behind the signage as obscured as possible, especially where it comes across the cornice. He said that perhaps it could be painted a matching color of the cornice, so that it would disappear as much as possible. Mr. Littig mentioned that the blue color in the illustrations was a "little bothersome".
There was some discussion about the House of Blues that is proposed to be located in the north end of the Union Pacific Depot, and other potential retail entities possible for the building.
Mr. Littig stated that the city lost the sign and shield on the west side of the building because the brackets that were being used were considered unstable, and now the applicant wants to use the same brackets. He talked about the size of the signage, but that he had less problem with the signage on the west elevation of the building, which is now the new back of the building. Mr. Littig suggested that there needed to be some discussion about where the signage should be placed on the roof surface so the tail of the "y" would not cover the cornice of the building.
Mr. Wilson agreed and said that a major sign on the west side or new side of the building did not bother him.
Mr. Simonsen expressed his concerns about the usefulness of the sign on the west side and what purpose would it serve? He said that people would be exiting the property at the rear of the building and it would not be a "way finding" element at that point and no longer an identification sign. He suggested not allowing it on the west side of the building. Mr. Parvaz said that all the activities would be behind the building.
• There was some discussion regarding what buildings would surround the plaza on the west side of the building and well the sign on the west elevation would be seen. It was suggested that signage on top of the tower would be a better place. The discussion continued reiterating the issues of the signage on the building.
Motion on "The Gateway" signage for the west elevation of the building:
Mr. Littig further moved for Case No. 023 01 to approve "The Gateway" sign on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot building with the sign support system painted an obscure color. Further, the sign should be placed in such a way that all parts of "The Gateway" lettering be above the cornice or any other architectural detail. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilson left at 6:40 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.
Discussion regarding a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment: Mr. Knight suggested making a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for "The Gateway" sign on the west elevation, as well as the archway sign so they would some direction. He said that the Board of Adjustment looks to the Historic Landmark Commission for advice in matters relating to historic buildings.
Mr. Simonsen inquired why the west side sign would need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment when it would be attached to the wall. Mr. Parvaz said that there would be a support system on the roof, as well. Mr. Simonsen reminded the Commissioners that the archway signage is not out of the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Motion regarding a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment:
Mr. Young moved for the final motion for Case No. 023-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission send a positive endorsement for the designation of "The Gateway" sign on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot building. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. JakovcevUlrich, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission Awards for 2001.
Mr. Knight introduced the subject of the Historic Landmark Commission Awards ceremony for 2001 where the public would receive recognition for projects appropriately done inside the City's historic districts of landmark sites. He said that the projects did not necessarily need to be large projects, and some may have been issued a Certificate of Appropriateness without going through this Commission. There was some discussion about when and where it would be held. It was a unanimous decision by the Commission members that the ceremony should be held in November for 2001 awards in this building.
Discussion of the Public Official Training Series.
Mr. Knight circulated a notice to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission regarding the Public Official Training Series called "The Public Meeting Assuring Procedural Due Process" that will be held on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 in Room 126 of the City and County Building from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00P.M. for members of the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, and the Board of Adjustment.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:00P.M.