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 Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Vicki Mickelsen and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:10P.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 appeals 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 August 15, 2001 meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting 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.
RECESS
Mr. Simonsen called for a short recess while the other members of the Commission returned from the field trip. Ms. Rowland, so moved for a short recess. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members.
LAND USE APPEALS BOARD
Ms. Giraud spoke of the recent cases that went before the Land Use Appeals Board on August 23, 2001 appealing decisions made recently by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Giraud explained how the Land Use Appeals Board functions: Public is allowed to attend, but no public comments is taken. The appellant has 20 minutes to speak, the defendant has 20 minutes to speak, and the appellant has 20 minutes to respond. Anyone can represent either side as long as they do not exceed the time limit. Staff, as well as members of the Historic Landmark Commission could present information. In this case, staff did not receive sufficient notice to inform the Historic Landmark Commission members about the meeting. However, administrative changes were recently made and the new Land Use Appeals Board staff person, Sandra Marler, has promised that she will give staff sufficient notice so that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission can be notified. No new evidence can be submitted to the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Parvaz had asked if minutes could be provided for the Land Use Appeals Board meetings, but currently only a tape of the meeting is kept. She said that she had since been informed that if minutes are necessary, the Planning Division would have to provide the secretarial time to transcribe the minutes.
Ms. Giraud explained the following decisions made by the Land Use Appeals Board:
The Historic Landmark Commission's decision on the IBM building was overturned. The Land Use Appeals Board found that the Historic Landmark Commission had been inconsistent in following its signage policy a monument sign for the IBM Building at 420 East South Temple, citing Zions Bank, Einstein's Bagels and Mrs. Backer's Bakery building. They did not agree with the Commission's finding that multiple signs had only been allowed with retail establishments. They noted that the signage policy called for one sign per building "for office/commercial uses" and did not distinguish between retail and other commercial uses. The members of the board agreed that the signage policy should be clarified to reflect the unwritten intent of the Historic Landmark Commission as it has evolved through prior cases. Thus, the Boyer Company will be able remove the "IBM" letters and be able to place three proposed tenant names on the enlarged planter.
The Historic Landmark Commission's decision on Bill and Nada's Cafe and the duplex was upheld. The applicants first called staff wanting to appeal on the basis that they did not receive a notice or a staff report. Staff found that these items had been mailed, but to an incorrect address. When the applicants understood that they would only be remanded back to the Historic Landmark Commission tore-request a demolition approval, they decided instead to challenge the Commission's decision. The applicants stated that Bill and Nada's Cafe at 479 South 600 East and the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South are not contributing historic structures, and that the Historic Landmark Commission erred by not adhering to the purpose statement in the ordinance. The applicants said, "The Commission made an error in that their decision in no way fosters economic development and historic culture preservation but rather forces the applicant to further expand moneys in futile attempts to salvage non-historic buildings." They also said that the Historic Landmark Commission did not address the fact that the restaurant and the duplex are hazardous buildings, as well as several other points. Staff used the 20 minutes defending the Historic Landmark Commission's decision. It was a spirited debate and discussion.
Ms. Giraud talked about other cases that will possibly be appealed. A short discussion took place regarding the issues with the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Simonsen thanked Ms. Giraud for her analysis of the recent Land Use Appeals Board review.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 028-00, by Zions Securities Corporation requesting a review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of the rear portion of the Orpheum Theatre, at 132 South State Street, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse", and construct a parking structure.
Mr. Gordon recused himself from this case.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Economic Review Panel met on three different occasions, June 19, June 25 and August 20, 2001. She said that the Economic Review Panel convened to hear a petition from Zions Securities Corporation to review the evidence of economic hardship in relationship to a request to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theatre at 132 South State Street, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse". Mr. Gary Chaston with Zions Securities Corporation, was selected by the applicant to represent Zions Securities Corporation throughout the economic hardship process. Mr. Robert Springmeyer, consultant, was selected by the Historic Landmark Commission to represent the City, and the two representatives chose a third member of the panel, Mr. Don Mahoney with Eaton Mahoney Architects.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Mahoney was present at today's meeting to explain the findings of the Economic Review Panel. She added that she believed the Panel did a very thorough and excellent job.
Ms. Giraud said that at the meeting on June 25th, two issues were raised. She pointed out that a few years ago Cooper-Roberts Architects prepared what has been called a "Cadillac" version of $24,000,000 to $30,000,000 for the renovation of the theater. Ms. Giraud said that another part of the economic review information indicated it might be possible to bring the building up to minimum code for approximately $2,000,000. She added that the Economic Review Panel, knowing that $2,000,000 would not be enough money to do what needed to be done to make the building a community theater, asked the Zions Securities Corporation to undergo another study that identified a minimal cost to make the theater safe for occupancy.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Economic Review Panel wanted a current report on the County's desire to purchase or lease and renovate the theater. She spoke of the Salt Lake County Council's meeting on July 17,2001, which she and Mr. Chaston attended. She pointed out that the County Council determined that the County did not have the funds to purchase or renovate the theater, even as a donation, and they were not willing to go through a bond process.
Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Chaston, representing the applicant, submitted a new study that showed that the minimal renovation would cost $14,700,000 and had prepared a cost analysis that backed up his presentation.
Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Young, and Mr. Knight arrived from the field trip at 4:30P.M.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for staff. Hearing none, Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Don Mahoney to the Commission.
Mr. Mahoney stated that he served as Chair to the Economic Review Panel, which consisted of three members. He said that the $2,000,000 figure to bring the theater up to building code was suspect to the members of the Panel. Mr. Mahoney said that the Panel asked the applicant to go back and do a more thorough analysis, and he did that.
Mr. Mahoney said that the Panel also asked the applicant to make a determination of what a reasonable rate of return would be. He emphasized that the "key word was reasonable". Mr. Lynn Pace from the City Attorney's office attended the second meeting and he was asked to clarify what "reasonable rate of return" would be and other legal matters. Mr. Mahoney said that in most cities, a reasonable rate of return is anything that does not lose money. He said that a reasonable rate of return in most theater projects in cities across the nation is something that does not lose any money. He added that would not be what a business expects to receive. Mr. Mahoney pointed out that Mr. Pace gave the Panel some guidelines and what the intent of the ordinance was.
• Mr. Mahoney stated that the applicant came back with a ·figure of $14,700,000 for a minimal restoration of the theater. Mr. Mahoney talked about the detailed break down the applicant had submitted for the money. He pointed out that the members of the Panel scrutinized those figures, and afterward believed that the inclusions that the applicant provided were complete. Mr. Money said that there is 90,000 square feet of potential space in the building. He indicated that the Panel concluded the $14,700,000 was a realistic number.
Mr. Mahoney said that the Economic Review Panel regretted the final decision and is disappointed that there are no willing tenants. Mr. Mahoney stated that if the Economic Review Panel would have gone through this exercise a year and a half ago, the "political will" of Salt Lake County was different, the building could have been saved, and a bond election appeared more feasible at that time. He added that as time went by, those things changed and changed the course of the outcome of this building.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Parvaz spoke of the issue that Mr. Springmeyer raised about the $2,000,000 to bring the building to an operational level. Mr. Mahoney said that the figure came out of the report by J. Philip Cook and Associates when the prospective market performance of the Playhouse was addressed. He noted that the report pointed out that preliminary indications were that it would cost at least $2,000,000 to bring the facility just to an operating level. Mr. Mahoney said that the building needed seismic work, provisions for stage equipment that had been stripped from the building, the addition of necessary theater and mechanical systems that were no longer operating. He pointed out that $2,000,000 seemed low to the Economic Review Panel; however, the $24,000,000 seemed too high. He added that the Panel believed it should have been somewhere in between and at that time asked the applicant to prepare something that appeared to be more accurate. Mr. Mahoney reported that Mr. Springmeyer raised the issue if the $2,000,000 would have translated into a yearly mortgage amount of about $198,000 and that figure needed to be included into the economic analysis for any group anticipating using the building.
Mr. Parvaz said that he believed this was the first Economic Review Panel that met for three sessions. Mr. Parvaz said there was another question about Zions Securities having had the knowledge of the landmark site designation before the company purchased the building. Mr. Mahoney said that he did not understand the terms when Zions Securities purchased the property and suggested asking the applicant.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Mahoney for volunteering his time for this worthy cause and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Gary Chaston, representing the applicant, Zions Securities Corporation, was present. He said that Zions Securities owned the property before it was designated as a historic landmark site.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring further about the historic designation. Mr. Chaston made the following statement: "In the 1970's, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) approached the LOS Church about listing the theater on the Utah State Register. At that time, there were no restrictions associated with such a listing, so the owners consented. In 1976, the city adopted the State and National Register lists up to that time for the buildings that would be subject to Historic Landmark Commission review. The applicant was the owner of the property long before it was listed." Mr. Parvaz asked for more information about the $198,000 and the economic return that was discussed at the Economic Review Panel meetings. Mr. Chaston said that it was a hypothetical scenario if Zions Securities Corporation had been able to find an organization that was willing to pay them $198,000 a year for a small return for the investment of $2,000,000 for a usable building. Mr. Chaston said that the applicant believed that the $24,000,000 was the cost of a highly intensified, remodeling/ restoration job. He pointed out that when he came back to the Economic Review Panel with a cost of $14,700,000, the Panel, after analyzing the data that was provided, said that figure was more believable. Mr. Chaston talked about meeting with the Salt Lake County Council, where he hoped to have some positive output on the use of the theater, but the County was no longer interested.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen excused the applicant and stated that this had been such an important project, he made the decision to open the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquires, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Kathryn Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she realized that the Promised Valley Playhouse building was not located in the boundaries of the Capitol Hill Community Council, but she said that this was an issue they considered of interest, city-wide. She said that the exterior of the Promised Valley Playhouse building could not be compared with the new Rose Wagner Theatre. Ms. Gardner said that she did not know what to do about the building. She expressed her sorrow that the building could not be restored and used as a theater. Ms. Gardner pointed out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restored the historic Tenth Ward Meeting House on 400 South the 800 East and said how grateful she was that the building was saved. She said that she believed the Promised Valley Playhouse could be restored to be just as nice an asset to the city. Ms. Gardner said that she was going to try to solicit funds to save the building and offered $100.00 from the Capitol Hill Community Council. Mr. Littig said that he would put in $100.00 from the Avenues Community Council, as well. In conclusion, Ms. Gardner said that she hoped for a miracle to save the building.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was silence after Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. Mr. Christensen said, "I think we are quiet because we are all depressed". Other restored theaters in Salt Lake City were discussed, such as the Capitol Theatre. Mr. Christensen stated, "This is a sad day when I think that the oldest theater in the city will be torn down." He added that he did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission had any other option. Ms. Giraud said the option was the economic hardship review process. Mr. Littig agreed with Ms. Giraud and said, "Either win or lose, I think they did a good job."
There was a short discussion about the role of the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting. The City's Zoning Ordinance states in Section 21A.34.020.34(K)(3)(c)(i through iii) Historic Landmark Commission determination of economic hardship: At the next regular Historic Landmark Commission meeting following receipt of the report of the Economic Review Panel, the Historic Landmark Commission shall reconvene its public hearing to take final action on the application. (i) Finding of economic hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence, the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application of the standards set forth in subsection K2 of this section results in economic hardship, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. (ii) Denial of economic hardship: If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application of the standards set forth in subsection K2 of this section does not result in economic hardship then the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. (iii) Consistency with the Economic Review Panel: The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths (314) majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact.
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 028-00 to accept the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel based on Section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(i through iii) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Protasevich abstained. Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Gordon was in a state of recusation. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen, turned the meeting over to the Chairperson, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Gordon returned to the meeting.
Case No. 018-01, at 400 W. South Temple, the Union Pacific Depot. by House of Blues Salt Lake City, represented by NBBJ Design, requesting a review of the revised signage proposal for a new restaurant/nightclub to be located in the north wing of the building. The Union Pacific Depot 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 House of Blues, a national chain of music-themed restaurant/nightclubs, is requesting approval for signage for their new location in the Union Pacific Depot. Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Commission last considered this case at its August 1, 2000 meeting. He pointed out, at that meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission requested that the case be continued and referred it to the Architectural Subcommittee. Additionally, the Commission requested that the applicant submit an overall signage package and review the size and scale of the proposed signs.
Mr. Knight reviewed the revised proposal. The changes included the following: 1) the freestanding "Projecting Building" sign has been reduced in height to 38'-6", and has been commensurably scaled down in width; 2) the "East Elevation Fence Sign" (formerly the "Gate Logo Sign") has been taken off of brick and concrete piers. The metal supporting frame goes all the way to the ground; 3) the blue arrow 'Ticket Sign" has been removed from the previously proposed pole and would hang from the underside of the front canopy. The applicants have also included the previous, pole-mounted proposal, and have indicated that they would be amenable to either design; 4) the proposed wall surrounding the terrace at the east entrance has been revised to a line of metal bollards connected by a chain; and 5) the Boyer Company has submitted an overall signage proposal that includes modifications to the existing Union Pacific Sign on the east side of the building, along with a proposal for a new Gateway sign on the west side of the building (where the Union Pacific Shield was previously located), as well as a conceptual location for future tenant signage on the south wing. He added that the "Ticket Window" sign, "Retail Entrance" sign, and interior signs remain as originally proposed.
Mr. Knight pointed out that this information was submitted to planning staff after the agenda for this meeting had already been sent; thus, the proposed gateway signage will be considered at the September 19, 2001 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Knight talked about the issues that were raised at the Architectural Subcommittee, which were included in the staff report. He said that one issue was that the roof sign on the back of the building should be balanced with a similar future sign on the overall sign plan. The considered at the September 19, 2001 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Knight talked about the issues that were raised at the Architectural Subcommittee, which were included in the staff report. He said that one issue was that the roof sign on the back of the building should be balanced with a similar future sign on the overall sign plan. The Commission should consider carefully whether three big signs on the west side of the depot would be appropriate.
Mr. Knight also stated that the Commission requested a clarification of whether the Historic Landmark Commission would review signs in the depot lobby. He pointed out that the Boyer Company agreed to give the City a twenty-four-hour public access easement through the lobby as a condition of approval for the Gateway project. Mr. Knight said that the City Attorney reviewed the easement language and responded that the easement mandates Historic Landmark Commission approval for changes to the lobby. He added that the staff report included a discussion and findings for the appropriateness of the proposed lobby signage.
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.
Staff's discussion: The August 8, 2001 staff report for this case included staff's findings with respect to the zoning ordinance and the Historic Landmark Commission signage policy. Staff had an issue with the size and amount of signage that was previously proposed. The applicants had not reduced the number of signs with this submittal, but substantially reduced the overall size of the signs in terms of square footage, especially for the roof mounted and projecting building signs. These two signs were by far the largest signs and were the subject of most of the comments from the previous Historic Landmark Commission meeting and the Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
The height of the projecting blade sign has been reduced from 52-%' to 35'-8". Each face is now 75 square feet, down from the 122 square feet originally proposed. The City Council is still considering a change in the sign ordinance that would allow projecting building signs (blade signs) of up to 125 square feet for theaters or other uses over 35,000 square feet in this zone. The applicants base their justification for this sign on the premise that a projecting building sign mounted on the building would be allowed under the base provisions of the zone. In order to protect the historic fabric of the building, the sign would be moved off the building and on to a pole. Since the City Council is still considering the ordinance change, staff recommends that, if the sign is approved, a condition be placed on the approval contingent to the approval of the ordinance change by the City Council.
The roof sign has been reduced in size from 586 square feet to 126 square feet. The dimensions have been reduced from 75'-0" long by 10'-6" high to 42'-0" long by 2'-10" high. When considered in context with the overall sign plan submitted by the Boyer Company, this sign would be subordinate to the larger sign at the center and could be balanced by a sign of similar size on the south end of the building. Any size sign in this location will still require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment, because roof signs are not ordinarily allowed in this zone.
Staffs finding of fact: The ticket window and retail entrance signs comply with the requirements of chapter 46. The projecting building, gate logo, and roof-mounted signs require a special exception from the board of adjustment. Reducing the size of the proposed signs has mitigated staffs previous finding that the signs would not be in keeping with the historic character of the structure due to their size and the overall amount of signage.
Mr. Knight discussed the following: Staff had not addressed the interior signs in the previous staff report because the Commission's review does not ordinarily extend to interiors. In this case, the public access easement mandates a Historic Landmark Commission review of changes to the building lobby, now called the Grand Hall by the Boyer Company. Two signs are proposed: 1) one sign is at the east end of the lobby, above the entrance to the House of Blues. The House of Blues heart logo would be mounted on a metal gate, but braced by an attachment to the building wall. The gate supports would be attached to the floor, but would not be attached to the walls or ceiling; and 2) the other sign would be a similar heart logo mounted above the ticket windows on the east wall of the building. The face of the sign would be set off from the wall by eight to sixteen inches. The sign would be mounted to the plaster wall at several points.
Mr. Knight stated that staff has encountered similar signage at other re-use projects of historic train stations in Washington, D.C. and St. Louis. He said that the most formal area in each station is the historic waiting room. Mr. Knight noted that in each building the signs in this space are austere, low-key, and subordinate to the architectural features of the space. He added that s one moves through the lobbies into the historic trains sheds and secondary spaces, the signs become more prominent. Mr. Knight stated that staff believes that a similar approach is justified here. He said that signs should reflect the architectural character of the Union Pacific Depot and its historic use as a train station and a city gateway. The signs should have as little impact on the historic building fabric as possible. Mr. Knight pointed out that the strongest elements of the lobby are the murals at the east and west ends, and the art glass windows. No signage should compete with these elements.
Mr. Knight reported the following: After input from the Architectural Subcommittee, staff finds the proposed materials for each sign acceptable, as well as the proposed neon illumination. The size of each sign would require extra bracing into the historic plaster walls. The ticket window overlaps the plasterwork above the windows. A smaller sign or a change in logo (perhaps to the plain blue "House of Blues" neon letters used on the exterior) would require less bracing into the wall and less potential damage to the historic building fabric. Above the ticket window, a smaller sign would fit into the horizontal plaster band above the wood window frames without overlapping the decorative plaster panels.
Mr. Knight pointed out that staff finds that the bollards and chains now proposed are in keeping with the historic character of the depot, and the bollards would not have a negative visual impact on the building, as the Commission found with the previous proposal. He added that similar bollards have been used historically to delineate public space.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the revised proposal has addressed the concerns outlined in the August 1, 2001 staff report by reducing the size of the proposed signage. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions:
1. Approval of the projecting building sign is subject to approval of the proposed ordinance change allowing projecting buildings signs in the G-MU zone;
2. Approval of the projecting building, gate logo, and roof-mounted signs are subject to Board of Adjustment approval; and
3. The size of the interior signs shall be reduced so the number of attachment points into the wall can be reduced, and so they would not visually obscure the ornamental plasterwork.
Staff further recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to approve a special exception to allow the proposed signs. After the Board of Adjustment takes action on this proposal, the Architectural Subcommittee or staff should review any changes to ensure that the changes are still in keeping with the character of the building."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig said that when the Union Pacific Railroad shield on the west elevation was discussed at a previous Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the applicant said that the shield should be removed because it was damaging the historic material and the shield was removed. Mr. Littig asked if this had changed. Mr. Knight said the applicants believed that by tying into the building through the roof, there would be less impact on the historic fabric of the building, because the roof is not original and it was replaced sometime in the 1970's. He added that the original material was slate or an asbestos-type shingle with a fish scale pattern.
Mr. Christensen also addressed that issue. He said the applicant declared that the previous sign was endangering the building, yet what they propose now was to put another sign in its place. Mr. Knight suggested questioning the architect.
Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that issue would arise when the Gateway signage package was reviewed. Mr. Simonsen asked Mr. Knight to clarify the interior signage. Mr. Knight referred to the photograph of the Grand Hall in the depot building that is in the proposed plans. He pointed out where the signage was planned. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concerns about the plaster walls being damaged and talked further about the signage and the proposed gate structure. Mr. Knight said that he believed there would be less damage if the sign would be mounted on the gate structure. He said that the staff would take the same approach to the issue of minimizing the holes in the wall as in the historic car barns at Trolley Square.
Mr. Wilson noted that the plans call out that the sign is to be supported on the gate structure and braced to existing wall and the existing plaster detail not to be damaged.
Mr. Christensen commented that the Grand Hall space is quite large, but it appears that the House of Blues would take over the entire ticket windows which are in the center of the hall. He added, "It seems like it would overpower the building and make it clear that this is the House of Blues building instead of a building that occupies two or three businesses." Mr. Knight brought out the fact that House of Blues would need to sell tickets and it seemed like a natural for that business to use the ticket office. Mr. Knight reported that at the last meeting where this project was reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, the members expressed their concerns that the building would become known as "The House of Blues" rather than "Union Pacific Railroad Depot".
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Molly Rose, representing the applicant, was present. She pointed out that the interior signage now had become an issue. She said that the applicant's intent is not to damage the trim or wood, and to minimize the damage to the plaster because of the bracing. Ms. Rose also said that the applicant believed using the ticket windows again would be a good use. She stated that the size of the interior signage could be reduced. Ms. Rose added that to fit the signage within the band of plaster above the ticket windows would work.
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 expressing his concerns about the interior lighting and the affect it would have on the historic walls and the murals in the interior. Ms. Rose said that neon is the House of Blues logo, but was willing to look at other lighting. She added that brass signs have also been used in some other establishments. However, she said that she would prefer using the blue neon for the ticket windows. She said that the heart logo could be eliminated, and just have "House of Blues". Ms. Rose talked about the applicant being willing to compromise on the signs. Mr. Christensen said that he did not find the heart logo as objectionable as the lettering used on the logo.
• When Ms. Rose asked about appropriateness of the Ballard and chain fencing, Mr. Parvaz said that the Ballard and chain is better than having a wall and a fence for the area. Ms. Rose said that the applicant misinterpreted the code by thinking when alcohol is served in the outside dining area, the area had to be walled or fenced. Mr. Parvaz asked about the function of the docking area on the north elevation of the building. Ms. Rose said that is where the production trucks will go load and unload. She noted that the area would be walled so the trucks would be out of view and would also help prevent the fumes from permeating the public areas. She stated that the wall would be about one foot shorter than the trucks. Mr. Parvaz was concerned that the height of the wall would block the north elevation of the building from view. Ms. Rose said that the wall would block the view of the loading dock, but the windows in the building would not be blocked because the wall would be about six feet tall. Ms. Rose pointed out that the brick pattern for the wall would be the same as the existing wall on the north elevation of the building. She added that the wall would not be attached to the building. Ms. Rose also said that the blade sign would be mounted to that wall. There was some discussion that the blade sign was considerably lower than the one previously proposed. Mr. Parvaz also inquired about the attachment of the roof sign. Ms. Rose said that the sign would be mounted on two steel supports that would go through the roof. She added that there is very little repair work to the roof afterwards.
Mr. Wilson inquired further about the roof top sign. He asked if the framework would be as visible as it is on the drawing? Ms. Rose said it would be as the drawing illustrates; it would be aluminum open channel letters with a double tube and exposed neon. She pointed out the Santa Fe sign, included in the drawings, that was built on the same framework.
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
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the signage package. Mr. Christensen inquired if the Commission thought the signage request should go back to the Architectural Subcommittee for a final review. Mr. Simonsen said that the applicant made the changes recommended by the members of the subcommittee. He said he believed the issues could be discussed at this meeting and a decision made.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the Commission had a number of issues so he recommended that each sign be discussed and a vote be taken afterward.
PROJECTING BUILDING SIGN ON EAST ELEVATION:
Mr. Littig said that he did not see the need for the projecting building sign. He said that it was huge and should be seen on a highway and not on 400 West. Mr. Littig said that it was not compatible with the existing historic fabric. He said that he also did not believe that it should be considered a blade sign. Mr. Simonsen said that it is indicative of a blade sign without being attached to the building. Mr. Littig said that he is pleased that the sign would not be attached to the building, but the sign is very large and unnecessary. Mr. Littig said that just 30 feet away there would be another large sign that would read "House of Blues" in neon from both directions. He added that no one would have trouble finding the train depot building. Mr. Littig stated, "It was like everyone signing the Declaration of Independence, then there was John Hancock. I just used that as an example. I think we have a very large sign for the House of Blues over the entrance to the patio. That sign in itself is substantial. I do not see the need for the additional sign on 400 West."
Mr. Simonsen said that he really struggled with the signage because historic signage is very important. He said that blade signs are very common on historic buildings and in historic districts, even though this is not technically a blade sign. Mr. Simonsen said that it would read well from either direction on 400 West and that it would fit in nicely. Mr. Simonsen stated that he believed it is a "tasteful" signage package. He said, "The scale is appropriate to the building. It doesn't overwhelm the building, but it is still large enough. This is a monumental building and I think the signage can be scaled to the structure."
Mr. Protasevich said that he agreed. He said that everyone would know where it is.
Ms. Rowland said that the other tenants might have the same need. She said, "You have to consider, how much neon this old lady can have on her, when it is filled up with tenants."
Mr. Knight reminded the members of the Commission that the City Council would have to approve the new sign ordinance amendment before this sign would be allowed.
Mr. Littig asked if the combination of this sign and the gate sign would be over the allowable signage? Mr. Knight said, according to the ordinance, that matter could not be considered. He added that there could be two separate signs, but someone could not actually combine the square footage because they are two different types of signs. Mr. Knight stated that there is a limit to an overall maximum amount of signage. He said that because of the overlay zoning, the Historic Landmark Commission has every right to be more restrictive than the City's Sign Ordinance.
There was some discussion regarding the overall maximum amount of signage. Mr. Knight referred to the chart that was included in the previous staff report.
Mr. Wilson said that was valuable information. He stated that he presumed these signs conform to the sign ordinance. Mr. Knight reiterated that the projecting building sign would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment as a special exception, if this Commission recommends approval. Mr. Wilson stated, "The music might be a little loud and some of us might want to turn it down. Maybe that is what the place is about. If it adds to the excitement and the activity, I don't have any objections."
Mr. Christensen commented that it did not "bother him". He pointed out that the future tenant would more than likely want the same kind of sign on the south end of the building. Mr. Wilson pointed out that in the Boyer sign package it shows a Gateway sign on the other end, but that signage package would be reviewed at the next meeting.
Mr. Gordon said that in 1912, there were a lot of signs "sticking out". He added that it would be a big sign, but it is big building. Mr. Gordon said that he would prefer it to be smaller. Mr. Parvaz said that he found the sign acceptable as long as it is not attached to the building.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 018-01 to approve the projecting building sign on the east elevation, based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact, on the
condition that the proposed ordinance change allowing projecting building signs in
the G-MU zoning district be approved, and subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen , Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Littig, and Ms. Rowland were opposed. Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
EAST ELEVATION FENCE SIGN:
Mr. Littig said that the top would read a little more transparent, so he did not have a problem with that, but he said that the gate standards would be a little wide. He added that the diagonals "are great".
Motion:
Mr. Wilson moved for Case No. 018-01 to approve the east elevation gate sign with the heart logo, based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact, subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
HANGING TICKET SIGN (DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON EAST ELEVATION): Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich questioned the necessity of the sign.
Mr. Simonsen said that when the signage package was reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, the members discovered that the sign would be directing the public where to buy tickets for the venue upstairs, which would be the performance hall. He said that be believed the sign should be considered a "directional" sign. Mr. Simonsen added that although there would be several signs on the building, House of Blues would need that sign to avoid confusion and he believed it was justified.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired where people would park their cars while purchasing tickets because parking would not allowed in front of the building. Mr. Simonsen said that the House of Blues is anticipating that people would be walking along 400 West to the building.
Mr. Littig said, "That is the best sign they have." Someone commented that the hanging sign would be better than a pole sign.
There was some comments that the hanging sign would have to be secure and if there is any damage to the building, it would be underneath the canopy. Mr. Knight said that the revised drawings show that the sign would be hung from the canopy.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 018-01 to approve the hanging ticket directional sign on the east elevation, based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
TICKET WINDOW SIGN ON EAST ELEVATION:
Mr. Littig said that it is technically inside the window and questioned whether or not it would be part of the Commission's purview. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission usually does not review signs inside windows. Mr. Parvaz said that the Commission had reviewed window signs in Trolley Square.
Mr. Simonsen discouraged the Historic Landmark Commission setting a precedent for every window display to be reviewed.
Ms. Rowland mentioned that a window sign could be seen as much as an exterior sign. She talked about another business that had many window signs in their front window. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance allows up to 50 percent of the glass be used for signage. Mr. Parvaz said that this does not compare with signs stuck to the inside glass. Mr. Simonsen said that he thought this was more of a zoning enforcement issue.
There was no motion or vote taken on this sign.
ROOF MOUNTED SIGN ON WEST ELEVATION:
Mr. Littig said that he appreciated the fact that the roof sign would be half the size that it once was. He said that it should not be attached to the building. Mr. Littig said, "It's a lesser of two evils." He also commented that he wished it would be on the stair tower and not on the building.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No.018-01 to approve the roof mounted sign on the west elevation, based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact, subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
RETAIL ENTRANCE SIGN ON WEST ELEVATION:
Mr. Knight clarified that this sign would be on the additions on the west side of the depot.
There was some question over whether this sign was outside the Commission's purview. It was decided that since the Commission reviewed the additions and they were connected to the historic portion of the depot, then it would be appropriate to review the signage.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No.018-01 to approve the retail entrance sign on the west elevation, based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
GRAND HALL GATE SIGN:
Mr. Knight reiterated that the Historic Landmark Commission has the purview to review the signage in the Grand Hall because there is a public easement, which specifically grants the Historic Landmark Commission authority to review projects in the lobby.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said the gate inside for the House of Blues would be too large. She also recommended that the burning heart be removed from the sign over the gate, as well. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated that the lettering could be blue and hung within the plaster band, as indicated on the drawings. Mr. Parvaz again expressed his concerns about damaging the plaster walls.
Mr. Simonsen said that by reducing the gate sign, it would not have the same visual impact. He suggested anchoring the entire sign to the gate structure so it would not have to go into the wall. Mr. Simonsen further recommended dropping the cross pieces on the gate so it would allow the whole thing to shift down and it would not impact the sign to the entrance.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No.018-01 to approve the Grand Hall gate sign, with the condition that the sign be reduced by one-third in size and the sign be mounted entirely on the gate. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen , Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
GRAND HALL TICKET WINDOW SIGN:
Mr. Christensen said that the wording of the motion needed to be very precise because staff recommended that it be reduced, but it does not say to a specific size.
Mr. Knight said that the details had been discussed during this meeting, such as reduced enough to fit into the band and without the heart logo.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that on the latest drawings, the heart logo was eliminated, so the sign would just have the blue lettering.
Mr. Simonsen said that he did not mind that the sign would be reduced but believed the heart logo was important to the tenant. He added that he was not opposed to having more color in the Grand Hall. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that there would be quite a bit going on and the applicant offered to remove that heart logo. The discussion continued regarding this issue.
Mr. Littig said, "I am very concerned about the amount of blue lighting on those historic murals. We are going to witness a change to the use of the building. We are going to witness a change to the historic presence of the lobby that was once a place where you waited for a train; it will now be an entrance to a mall. I personally think we have to be conscious of the history and retain some of it I'm less concerned with the size and more concerned with the light." Mr. Knight inquired if there would be a better lighting system than neon, such as incandescent lighting.
Mr. Littig said that there would be a need to create excitement in the area. He mentioned that he had not seen the entire lighting package for the interior of the building and that may make a difference. Mr. Littig again expressed his concern about the blue light on the murals on the walls and the leaded glass windows. He said, "I feel like I need to protect them if I can." Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich noted that in an enclosed space, neon signage will expand when lit.
First motion:
Mr. Wilson moved for Case No.018-01 to approve the Grand Hall ticket window sign with the heart logo. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion.
After much discussion regarding the issues relating to the signage, Mr. Wilson said he would amend the motion.
Amended motion:
Mr. Wilson moved for Case No. 018-01 to approve the Grand Hall ticket window sign with blue letters, without the heart logo, and mounted within the plaster band. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Knight suggested making a motion for the Ballard and chain around the patio area where a wall and fence was previously proposed.
Motion for Ballard and chain:
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved for Case No. 018-01 to approve the bollard and chain around the patio area on the east elevation. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was some discussion regarding the motion for the Board of Adjustment.
Motion for the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Young moved to forward a recommendation of approval for special exceptions to the Board of Adjustment for the following signs: 1) the projecting building sign, on the condition that the proposed ordinance change allowing projecting building signs in the G-MU zoning district be approved; 2) the east elevation gateway logo sign; and 3) the roof mounted sign. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 021-01, at 1403 E. Westminster Avenue, by Paddington Campos, requesting a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "David and Juanita Lewis" house on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Littig recused himself from this case.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) requests input from the Historic Landmark Commission for National Register nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries. The input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nomination. The nomination is then sent to the National Park Service, the federal organization responsible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight introduced the applicant and owner of the house, Mr. Paddington Campos. Mr. Knight had prepared and gave a slide presentation as he described the home in the following manner:
The David H. and Juanita Lewis House was constructed as a single-family dwelling in approximately 1911, by Clark 0. and Earl Dunshee, investors and developers, who created small neighborhood subdivisions. Dr. Lewis was an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and his wife lived in the house until about 1922. The residence is situated on a lot in the original Westminster Heights Subdivision. The character-defining features of the neighborhood include bungalow-style houses and cobblestone retaining walls. The exterior of the house has been restored to its original siding materials. A historic dormer on the west side, that had been removed, has been replicated. The house contributes to the historic qualities of the area. The architecture of the Arts and Crafts Movement is reflected in the use of "natural" materials in the California Bungalow style. The foundation is faced with granite cobblestones of various sizes with deeply raked mortar joints, giving way to cedar shingle siding, which is divided part way up by a belt course, accentuating the horizontal feeling of the house. The roof is hipped on the right side and gables on the left, with wide eaves, exposed rafters, and ridge parallel to the street. There is a front facing gablet at the right end of the roof ridge and a projecting gabled porch spanning the left side (corner) of the facade, supported by square wood posts on cobblestone piers and railing wall. Two cobblestone chimneys rise from the center roof ridge, topped by concrete caps similar to those of the piers and railing walls. Additional features include original casement and double-hung windows with geometric muntin patterns; stained/leaded glass bay windows; front door and sidelights; tongue and groove porch ceiling; and cobblestone retaining wall along the front sidewalk. Some of the interior features in the home typical of Arts and Crafts architecture include: quarter-sawn oak front door with hammered brass hardware; fir cabinetry, box beams, and moldings stained and shellacked; window seat with storage compartments and built-in hot water radiator, writing desk; built-in buffet/bay window; art glass bay and cabinet windows; dining room plate rail; and original brass hardware on doors and cabinets, with pyramidal-head nails. The fireplace consists of irregularly colored brick and a hearth of 6"x 6" green tiles, topped by a long mantle of quarter-sawn white oak. The floors on the west side of the house are constructed of quarter-sawn white oak with mahogany parquet border, while those on the east are a light-colored maple. A noteworthy feature of the dining room is the recently uncovered original Dutch-scene wallpaper frieze.
Mr. Campos talked about the dormer that he replicated and replaced on the roof. He said that the flashing and some of the braces were still evident which coincided with the early photographs he saw.
Mr. Campos talked about the restoration of the house. He said the siding that was removed was not original. He added that most of the shingles are original except the damaged ones that had to be replaced. Mr. Campos talked about the discovery of the Dutch scene while he was removing the old paper and restoring the plaster walls. He said that he will do some research to find out how it can be restored.
Since the Commission had no 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
There was no further discussion.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 021-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "David and Juanita Lewis" home on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Littig was in a state of recusation. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
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. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:15P.M.