07/14/2005 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, DULY 14 , 2005
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, July 14,
2005, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Carlton Christensen Van Turner Nancy Saxton
Jill Remington Love Eric Jergensen Dave Buhler
Dale Lambert
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; and Scott
Crandall, Deputy City Recorder; were present.
Councilmember Lambert presided at and conducted the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance regarding Michael
Kearns request to revoke the historic landmark designation for the property located at
381 East llth Avenue - the "Malcolm A. Keyser" home pursuant to Petition No. 400-05-
22. View Attachment
The following people spoke or submitted written comments in favor of the proposal:
Michael Kearns, Miriam Kearns, Lynda Snow and Chere Romney.
The following people spoke or submitted written comments in opposition of the proposal:
Sandra Hatch, Kirk Huffaker and Cindy Cromer.
Councilmember Jergensen moved and Councilmember Christensen seconded to close the
public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Love moved and Councilmember Saxton seconded to not adopt an ordinance
to revoke the establishment of 381 East llth Avenue as a landmark site.
Councilmember Jergensen said the subject property was one of many historical homes
located in his district. He said historical properties were important assets and
provided livability/viability to City neighborhoods. He said the Historic Landmarks
Commission (HLC) was established to provide a methodical process which allowed homes
to change/evolve while preserving their historic nature. He said he did not want to
harm the petitioner but he agreed with the original designation and would support the
motion.
Councilmember Buhler said even though the proposal had been processed in a short
timeframe, he could not find any reason to overturn the designation made by the City
Commission in the late 1970's. He said the HLC and Planning Commission (PC) reviewed
the request and recommended leaving the designation in place. He said he was concerned
about setting a precedent where other property owners could dispute historic
designations. He said he was not aware of any evidence showing proper notice was not
given and would support the motion.
Councilmember Love said she agreed with comments from previous Council Members. She
said she was sympathetic to the petitioner's problem regarding the property sale but
she had not heard anything which was compelling to change what was done in the late
1970' s. She said there was no evidence that due process was not followed. She said
having notification attached to the property title would be nice but it was not the
City's current policy. She said she took the HLC and PC recommendations seriously and
would support the motion.
05 - 104
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, JULY 14 , 2005
Councilmember Lambert said he believed the City followed the proper legal procedures
when the property was designated 28 years ago. He said the HLC and PC unanimously
recommended retaining the site as an historical property. He said the Council looked
to the HLC and PC for recommendations and he was reluctant to abandon their
recommendations.
Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned about setting a precedent by allowing
everyone to challenge historic designations which would undo the City' s entire historic
landmarks procedure. He said if there were concerns about the process the City could
review the ordinance and make adjustments.
Councilmember Saxton said she owned several buildings which had some historical
significance and understood the renovation process could be difficult. She said she
believed the property was very unique and when the right buyer was found they would
not be concerned about the historic designation because they would appreciate its
historical value. She said she felt it was essential that the home remained a
designated building because it needed to be preserved/cherished. She said the property
enhanced the neighborhood and she would vote in favor of the motion.
Councilmember Lambert called for the question, which motion carried, all members voted
aye.
(P 05-14)
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
sc
05 - 105