HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
September 16, 2025 Tuesday 3:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 12:17:21
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Ordinance: Local Landmark Site Designation for Sampson-
Altadena Apartments ~ 3:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would establish the Sampson
and Altadena Apartments as a local landmark site. The site consists of two buildings on
one lot at approximately 276 East 300 South and 310 South 300 East. Located within
Council District 4. Petitioner: The Sampson-Altadena Condominiums Homeowner
Association.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 21, 2025
2.Informational: Avenues Community Plan Update ~ 3:20 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive an initial briefing about the Avenues Community Plan. The main
purpose of the updated plan is to establish a vision for the Avenues Community for the
next 10 years and align the plan with Plan Salt Lake. The plan currently in place for the
Avenues was adopted in 1987 and is the oldest Neighborhood Plan in the City. This
informational briefing provides Council an opportunity to provide input on the public
engagement process, stakeholders, and other information relevant to the project.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake
City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26,
the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted
by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected.
The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one
of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Standing Items
4.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
5.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
6.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 11, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:September 16, 2025
RE: Sampson and Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Site
PLNHLC2025-00357
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to designate the Sampson and Altadena Apartments at 276
East 300 South, and 310 South 30o East respectively, in Council District Four, as a local landmark site. The
buildings share one parcel on the southwest corner of 300 East and 300 South as shown in the image
below.
The Sampson and Altadena buildings have been converted from apartments to condominiums and
members of the homeowner’s association voted unanimously in support of designating the buildings as a
landmark site. If approved by the Council, the zoning map would be amended to apply the H Historic
Preservation Overlay District to the property.
The buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. However, this listing does not
provide protection from demolition that a local landmark site designation would.
This item was reviewed by the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions at their
respective July 10 and July 23, 2025 meetings and public hearings were held. A total of five
people spoke at the hearings, all supportive of the proposal. Both Commissions followed Planning
staff’s recommendations and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation for
approval to the City Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed local landmark site designation, determine if the Council
supports moving forward with the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
Aerial image with the subject buildings outlined in red.
The Sampson building faces 300 South and Altadena faces 300 East.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Designation of a landmark site is governed by Chapter 21A.51.040.A Salt Lake City Code and follows a
similar process as other zoning map amendments. Applications are reviewed by the Historic Landmark and
Planning Commissions before consideration by the City Council, which is the decision-making body.
Both buildings were constructed in 1906 and are Neoclassical architectural style “urban apartment blocks.”
These were a popular housing option at the time for young people moving to the city from rural areas, and
for newly arrived immigrants. The buildings are typical apartment block style of a three-story walkup, with
Page | 3
two apartments that include deep porches on each floor. The buildings are well preserved and retain their
original design elements. It is not common for twin buildings from this era to be located so close to each
other.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATION
Attachment D (pages 132-135 of the Planning Commission staff report) outlines standards for designation of a
landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation that are to be evaluated. They are summarized
below. Please refer to the staff report for additional information.
Chapter 21A.51.040.A Salt Lake City Code has the following standards for consideration:
1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated
with at least one of the following:
a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or
b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or
c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a
notable architect or master craftsman, or
d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory of Salt Lake City.
Finding: Planning staff found that the buildings meet standards 1.a, and 1.c.
2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association
as defined in Section 21A.62.040.
Finding: It is Planning’s opinion that the standard is met as both buildings’ historic integrity is intact.
3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be
listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Finding: Both buildings are listed on the National Register, so this standard is met.
4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development
patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts.
Finding: Planning found the buildings are notable examples of the city’s development patterns and
architecture, so the standard is met.
5. The designation is generally consistent with the adopted planning policies.
Finding: It is Planning’s opinion that the proposed landmark site designation is generally consistent
with goals and objectives in adopted policies and plans.
6. The designation would be in the overall public interest.
Finding: Planning staff stated “Based on the interest expressed by the property owners and the
adopted City policies noted above, designation of the Sampson and Altadena Apartments as a local
landmark site appears to be in the best interest of the City. The proposal meets this standard.”
Chapter 21A.51.040.B Salt Lake City Code includes factors the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council
may consider to help determine whether a proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation
meets the criteria listed above.
1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall
history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report.
Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance.
2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of
the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other
Page | 4
local historic districts within the city.
3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important
knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or
architecture.
4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are
rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey.
Finding: Planning found that applicable factors to consider have been met.
Chapter 21A.51.040.C Salt Lake City Code – Boundaries of a proposed local landmark site: When applying the
evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that
historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries.
Finding: The standard is met as both buildings will be included in the proposed local landmark site.
Attachment E (page 136) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards
that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized
below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with and helps implement the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the city as stated through
its various adopted planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Complies
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April 11, 2025 – Petition submitted by applicant.
• May 7, 2025 – Petition deemed complete and assigned to Noah Elmore, Principal Planner.
Page | 6
• May 23, 2025 – Notice of petition sent to all City-recognized community organizations.
• May 27, 2025 – Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. Public
comment period ended July 23, 2025.
• June 26, 2025 – Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the
listserv.
• July 9, 2025 – Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv.
• July 10, 2025 – Historic Landmark Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive
recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
• July 23, 2025 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation
was forwarded to the City Council.
• August 14, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office.
• August 26,2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• September 4, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DESIGNATION OF A LOCAL LANDMARK SITE
•Standards for Designation –21A.51.040.A
REQUEST
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LOCATION
276 E 300 S
310 S 300 E
•R-MU MU-8
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SITE SIGNIFICANCE
•Period of significance: 1906–1945
•Early examples of apartment
construction of the time
•Represent high style examples of
Neoclassical architecture
•Listed in 2009
•Noteworthy elements:
-Deep porches
-Neoclassical ornamentation
-Brick and stone masonry
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA
CHAPTER 21A.51.040.A
Requests are evaluated on historic significance,
historic integrity, eligibility on the National Register,
public interest, and established planning policies.
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS
CHAPTER 21A.50.050
Requested Amendments are evaluated on whether
they further the adopted plans, policies, and zoning
code, and how the amendments affect surrounding
properties.
MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Both the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning
Commission forwarded positive recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sampson Altadena
Local Landmark Site Designation | July 2025
1 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
AGENDA
2 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
2
Significance
Preservation
Questions
01
02
03
Significance
Architecture | Notable Mason | Persons | Community
3 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
●These sister 3½ story buildings, of the
Neoclassical Revival style , are distinguished
by their pedimented entrances in the center of
the symmetrical facades, dentilated cornices,
pedimented porticos, accentuated keystones
and tuscan columns.
●Their foundations are rock-faced sandstone.
The red-faced brick is laid in a running bond,
with a diamond pattern below the keystone.
●The buildings have been exceptionally
well-preserved, especially when compared to
similar extant apartment blocks of the period.
Architecture
Sampson Altadena Significance
4 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
1.August Rudine is believed to be the bricklayer and builder of
Sampson Altadena buildings
a. Rudine (1862-?) was a Swedish immigrant who came to the
United States in 1882.
b. He was listed as a bricklayer in the Salt Lake City directories until
the late 1890s; and then was listed as a general contractor.
c. August and Anna Rudine sold the property at the corner of 300 S
and 300 E to O. T. Sampson on May 31, 1906.
d. O.T. Sampson obtained permits to build the property without
listing the architect or builder, however, based on the Rudine’s
interest in the property, it is likely he was the builder.
Sampson Altadena Significance
5 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
Notable Master Mason and General Contractor
●Octavius and Eunice Sampson,
were the original owners
○Respected members of the
community and long-time
managers of the building.
○Members of the First
Church of Christ, Scientist,
in Salt Lake City
●The Sampsons are believed to
have built the apartment blocks
as housing for the members of
the church congregation.
Sampson Altadena Significance
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, in 1976.
6 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
Persons
1. Apartment buildings reflect the
growth and urbanization patterns in
Salt Lake City from 1890 to 1930, as
urban apartments were an important
housing option for Salt Lake City's
immigrant population and an influx
of young people moving from Utah
rural towns to the capitol city in
search of employment.
2. The Buildings are one of few
remaining pre-World War I urban
apartment blocks in their original
form.
Community
Sampson Altadena Significance
7 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
Preservation
8 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
Sampson
Altadena
9
1906 $21,000 Buildings erected
1946-2005 Known modifications:
- Exterior elevators removed
- First Floor Rear direct exits eliminated
- Rear stairs enclosed/kitchens extended
- Bricks in interior rear stairwells painted
- Exterior sandstone base painted
- Sampson front sandstone stair replaced
- Two exterior walls coated in brown film
2006 Converted to condominiums/sold
2007 Sampson-Altadena HOA formed
2010 Buildings listed on Historic Registry
2015 Reserve Study Initiated
2016 CC&Rs revised and approved
- Ways & Means established
- Goal: Protect long-term life of buildings
Preservation
Preservation
sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association10
Sampson
AltadenaPreservation
$741,994.13: Special Funding since 2017
2017: Fund study $36,250.00
2018: Altadena plumbing stack $22,075.00
Electric Panels replaced $3,800.00
2019: Reserve Study update $23,200.00
Boiler Repairs $9,657.00
2020: March 18: 5.7 magnitude earthquake
Structural/Seismic evaluation & scoping
2021: Masonry 725,000.00 funding approved
Plumbing Replacement: $23,957.00
- Sampson SW stack $9,456
- Sewer line/Connection $14,501
Power & IT put underground $14,979.00
2021/24: Masonry Restoration $528,181.22
2022:Drip irrigation $3,000.00
2025: Sampson NE Balcony $76,876.91
Questions
11 sampsonaltadenaslc@gmail.comSampson Altadena Homeowners Association
Questions?
Thank you!
Sampson Altadena
HOA Board
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
08/27/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/04/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Elmore, Noah
E-mail
noah.elmore@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
09/03/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/04/2025
Subject:
Local Landmark Site Designation - 276 E 300 S & 310 S 300 E
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Recommendation to approve the designation.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Sampson-Altadena Condominiums Homeowner Association submitted a petition to designate the
Sampson and Altadena Apartments as a local landmark site. The site consists of two buildings on one lot,
Sampson Apartments and Altadena Apartments, located at 276 E 300 S and 310 S 300 E, respectively.
Both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations
on May 23, 2025, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The
recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with
them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on July
7, 2025.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from May 23, 2025 to July 23, 2025. No public
comment was received.
Historic Landmark Commission Meeting: The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing
on July 10, 2025. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council on the
proposed amendment.
Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records
a) HLC Agenda of July 10, 2025 (Click to Access)
b) HLC Minutes of July 10, 2025 (Click to Access)
c) HLC Staff Report of July 10, 2025 (Click to Access Report)
Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 23, 2025. The
Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed amendment.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
d) PC Agenda of July 23, 2025 (Click to Access)
e) PC Minutes of July 23, 2025 (Click to Access)
f) PC Staff Report of July 23, 2025 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Project Chronology
3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4) Original Petition
This page has intentionally been left blank
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 202__
(Ordinance Establishing the Sampson-Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Site)
An ordinance amending the Zoning Map to establish the Sampson-Altadena Apartments
Local Landmark Site pursuant to Petition No. PLNHLC2025-00357.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Historic Landmark
Commission”) held a public hearing on July 10, 2025 on a petition submitted by the Sampson-
Altadena Condominiums Homeowner Association (“Applicant”) to amend the city’s zoning map
(Petition No. PLNHLC2025-00357) to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to
properties located 276 E 300 S and 310 S 300 E, as legally described on Exhibit A (the
“Property”) and to establish the Property as a local landmark site pursuant to Salt Lake City
Code Section 21A.51; and
WHEREAS, at its July 10, 2025 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in
favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
(“Planning Commission”) and Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 23, 2025 on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, at its July 23, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Establishing a Landmark Site. That the Property is hereby established as a
landmark site and shall be known as the Sampson-Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Site.
SECTION 2. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to the Property.
SECTION 3. Adopting the Historic Resource Survey. The landmark designation
petition and associated report, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, is hereby adopted as the Historic
Resource Survey for the Sampson-Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Site.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date
of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
202__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 202__.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting Sampson-Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Sitev1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Katherine Pasker, Senior City Attorney
August 26, 2025
Exhibit “A”
SAMPSON-ALTADENA APARTMENTS LOCAL LANDMARK SITE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All Units and Common Areas located within the Sampson Altadena Condominiums, as the same
are identified in the Record of Survey Map recorded in Salt Lake County, Utah as Entry No
6920523 in Book 98-4P of Plats, at Page 85 and as said record of Survey Map may have
heretofore been amended or supplemented.
Tax ID Nos. 16-06-184-001 through 018
Metes and bounds description:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 54, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City Survey, thence
South 111 feet; thence West 74 ¼ feet; thence North 111 feet; thence East 74 ¼ feet to the place
of beginning.
Subject to a right of way over the following:
Beginning 41 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 54, Plat “A”, Salt Lake City
Survey, and running thence West 74 ¼ feet; thence South 70 feet, thence East 74 ¼ feet; thence
North 9 feet; thence West 64 ¼ feet; thence North 52 feet; thence East 64 ¼ feet; thence North 9
feet to the place of beginning.
Exhibit “B”
Historic Resource Survey
[attached]
NPS Form 10-900 Utah MS Word Format OMB No 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
RECEIVE&a^
DEC 1 8 2009
NAT. REaiSTgR OF HiSTORIC PLACES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A) Complete each item by marking "x' in the appropriate box or by entering
the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural
classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative
items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a) Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Sampson Apartments
other name/site number Sampson Flats, Sampson Altadena Condominiums
2. Location
street name
city or town
state Utah
276 E. 300 South
Salt Lake City
• not for publication
• vicinity
code UT county Salt Lake code 035 zip code 84111
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this EI nomination
n request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property S
meets • does not meet thg National Register criteria I recommend that this property be considered significant
n nationaUy-Q stat^wid^/H locally. ( Q Se^copt{??uation sj;ipet for additional comments.)
17- - ^
Signature of certifying official/Title
Utah Division of State Historv, Office of Historic Preservation
Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property • meets • does not meet the National Register criteria ( • See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby aertify that the property is:
H entered in the National Register,
n See continuation sheet.
• determined eligible for the
National Register
• See continuation sheet.
• determined not eligible for the
National Register.
• removed from the National
Register.
• other, (explain:)
Date of Action
Sampson Apartments
Name of Property
Salt Lake Citv. Salt Lake Countv. Utah
City, County and State
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(check as many boxes as apply)
Category of Property
(check only one box)
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)
^ private
• public-local
• public-State
• public-Federal
13 building(s)
• district
• site
• structure
• object
Contributing
1
Noncontributing
buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.)
Historic Resources of Salt Lake City (Urban Apartments)
Number of contributing resources previously listed
in the National Register
N/A
6. Function or Use
Historic Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: Multiple Dwelling
Current Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: Multiple Dwelling
7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
Neo-Classical Revival
Other: Walk-Up Apartment Block
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation
walls
roof
other
STONE
BRICK
BUILT-UP
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition ofthe property on one or more continuation sheets.)
jSee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 7
NPS Fomi 10 900-a Utah MS Wort Formal MB No 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Narrative Description
The Sampson Apartments, a 3'/2-story Neoclassical brick building, was constructed in 1906. The building is one
of two architecturally similar apartment blocks built at the comer of 300 South and 300 East in Salt Lake City.
The address of the north-facing Sampson Apartments is 276 E. 300 South. The associated building, the
Altadena Apartments, was also built in 1906. It faces east at 310 S. 300 East.' Both buildings are walk-up type
apartment blocks with exterior balconies. The materials and construction methods are nearly identical. The
raised foundation of both buildings is rock-faced sandstone, currently painted salmon. The red face brick is laid
in a running bond with slightly raked mortar joints. There is a softer red brick, now painted dark gray, on the
secondary elevations of the buildings. The roofs are flat and built-up. The buildings have several Neoclassical
features such as pedimented entrances in the center of the symmetrical facades, Tuscan columns, dentillated
cornices and accentuated keystones. All the contrasting elements are painted either white or gray. The flat roof
is buih-up and the brick chimneystacks have been shortened.
The Sampson Apartments is wider and shallower than the Altadena Apartments. The footprint measures 72 by
33 feet with the wide end facing 300 South. The fa9ade (north elevation) is symmetrical with a central entrance
bay and three-story porches on either side. On the east elevation, facing 300 East, there is a three-story
octagonal bay. The foundation is rock-faced sandstone laid in a random ashlar bond with raised mortar joints.
The front entrance has original sandstone steps, also painted salmon. The front steps are flanked by rubbed-
finished sandstone walls with flush mortar joints, currently painted gray. The smooth finish is also found on the
belt course above the foundation (also painted gray). On the south (rear) elevation, the original recessed
entrance and three-story enclosed porches were modified circa 1980, but many original elements remain. There
are two sets of painted sandstone steps flanking the central rear opening. These steps originally accessed the
three-story rear porches. However, the separate openings were blocked when the rear enclosure was modified.
The current single entrance is accessed by a set of wood steps with a pipe rail (circa 1980). The foundation
paint and exterior surface of the rear enclosure are the only major modifications to the exterior.
The dominant architectural feature of the fa9ade (north elevation) of the Sampson block is the central entrance
bay. The front entrance is sheltered by a portico supported on console brackets and engaged square columns
that sit on the stepped stone rail walls. The pediment is covered is rough-textured stucco, painted orange. The
simple gable roof features comice retums and dentils on the recessed raking comice. These wood elements
have been painted contrasting colors of white, orange, and brown. The front door is a three-quarter glass
paneled door with three-quarter sidelights. The door glass has been replaced (date unknown)." The projectmg
wood comice sits above the entrance portico. The comice visually supports a two-story recess with a round-
arch head. The arch is accentuated with contrasting blocks of stone, painted white. Three courses of rowlock
brick are between the blocks and the stylized keystone. There is a diamond-pattem of rock-face brick below the
' The Altadena Apartments is being nominated separately. Both buildings are located on the same legal parcel at 276 E. Broadway
Street (300 South). During the historic period, the street name "Broadway" was associated with 300 South in the commercial business
district only. The use of the name "Broadway" outside of the business district is recent and "300 South" remains the more common
name for the street. Prior to 1972, 300 South and 300 East were more commonly known as Third or 3'' South and Third or 3^"" East.
^ The original glass door was similar to that currently found on the Altadena Apartments.
NPS Fomi 10 900-a Utah MS Word Fomiat MB No 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 2 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
keystone. Within the recessed area are four nine-over-one wood-sash windows (two on each floor) with
rowlock and soldier brick heads that light the interior stairwell. The upper pair of windows has a continuous
stone sill. The other upper floors windows are eight-over-one wood sash windows with brick heads accentuated
by keystones slightly smaller than the main arch and stone sill.
The three-story porches are also a prominent feature of the fa9ade. The main floor porch has square brick piers.
The second and third-story porches feature trios of Tuscan columns at the front comers and single columns in
the rear. All three stories feature a classical (plain) frieze, but the top comice under the flat-roof porch has a
row of dentils that continues the dentil pattem of the main comice. The main comice is a projecting wood
comice that wraps around the comers at the secondary elevations. Above the main comice is a brick parapet
with tracery vents and a wood coping (now covered with metal). Originally, the porch roofs featured a wood
balustrade with tracery similar to the vents. This feature was removed prior to a 1936 tax photograph. The six
porches each feature a curved-slat wrought-iron balustrade and wood rail. All the wood elements are painted
white to contrast with the red brick. Each porch has an exterior three-quarter glass door with transom, sidelights
and screen.'^ Each unit includes one larger eight-over-one window with stone sill and keystone. The basement
windows in the facade are flat-head one-over-one windows. Some basement window panes were replaced
between the 1930s and 1947 when basement apartments were added to the building.
The east elevation (facing 300 East) is similar in materials and omamentation to the fa9ade (north elevation).
The primary difference is the octagonal bay that features rock-face brick at the angles. Each floor of the bay has
an eight-over-one window flanked by narrower four-over-one windows. The single windows to the north are
wider six-over-one windows. There are four basement windows cut into the foundation (three wood sash, one
replacement). The stone belt course above the foundation becomes four courses of brick around the comer to
the rear (south) elevation. The belt course remains painted gray. The brick is painted dark gray, but is peeling
in places revealing the softer red brick of the secondary elevations. As the belt course meets the basement
windows on the rear, the brick courses become segmental arched rowlock brick window heads. There are four
basement windows on the south elevation. The west elevation also has two basement windows where the
foundation is more visible due to the sloping site. The west elevation is relatively blank with two pairs of
single-pane wood sash windows on each floor. The sills are stone (painted white) and the window heads are
segmental rowlock brick arches.
Each upper apartment on the south (rear) elevation has a single one-over-one double-hung window and a set of
three windows, one single pane flanked by two double-hung windows. The sills and window heads are similar
to the west elevation. The basement windows have a variety of glass including original two-pane wood sashes
and non-historic smaller inset windows. There are a few metal vents in the foundation walls. The rear elevation
entrances to the apartments have been modified at least twice since 1906. The 1911 Sanbom fire insurance map
indicates the recessed rear entrance was enclosed with frame and featured a central open elevator."* The
' One of the upper transoms has been replaced with a smaller glass, but the visual impact on the integrity of the building is minimal.
Other alterations on the porches include the installation of planter boxes and trellis, but all are reversible and have minimal impact on
the historic integrity of the building.
" The elevator was noted on the 1936 tax card, but was described as a dumb waiter on the later tax cards through the 1960s. It may
have not been used for passengers in the second half of the twentieth century.
NPS Fomi 10 900-a Uah MS Wond Fomiat MB No 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 3 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
sandstone steps flanking the current entrance suggest that two exits on the rear flanked the elevator before it was
removed (circa 1970s). The original wood staircase is located deep in the recess. The brick and foundation in
the recess have been painted red (date unknown). Around 1980, the rear enclosure was covered with vertical
siding (now painted light gray). The current rear door is solid wood with a wrought-iron security screen.
Details in the recess, such as double-hung exterior windows and rock-face brick at the angles suggest that the
original rear enclosure was more open to view than the current enclosure (possibly screened). Original bead
board ceilings are still visible within the individual porch enclosures. The current enclosure has aluminum
slider windows. There is about ten feet of space between the south elevation of the Sampson and the north
elevation of the Altadena Apartments. The two buildings share a wrought-iron fire escape in the space between.
On the interior, the Sampson Apartments has approximately 2,214 square feet on each floor. The front stairwell
is open and features a square-post balustrade with newel posts. The mailboxes are mounted on the main level
foyer. The carpet and tile are later replacements. There are two units per landing with approximately 1,085
square feet of space each. The four basement units vary in size. There is also a common laundry room and
boiler room in the basement. Although some of the interiors have been altered by the owners after the
conversion to condominiums, the configuration of Unit 6 is representative. This unit features a central hall
extending west from the front door. The kitchen and rear porch are to the south, the bathroom is to the north.
There is a room with an alcove and two built-in cupboards (now a dining room) next to the kitchen. There is a
bedroom in the southwest comer. On the north side, there is a room with a built-in bookcase (now a study) that
shares a pocket door with the living room. The living room is in the northwest comer. It features the large
window and the exterior door to the porch. Many of the elements of the original apartment have been retained
such as the sink basin and drain board, claw foot tub, hardwood floors, wood casings, built-ins, and radiators.^
The basement units were not original and have later features (some historic).
The Sampson and Altadena Apartments share common site features. There is only a few feet of setback on the
street sides (along 300 South and 300 East). There is a concrete sidewalk between parking strip with trees and
lawn and the lawn next to the buildings. Access to the rear of the buildings from 300 East is blocked by chain
link gates between the two buildings, and between the Altadena and the neighboring building to the south. The
remainder of the parcel is paved with asphalt for parking on the west side. This parking area is shared by the
adjacent parcel. There is a small tree behind the Altadena. The neighborhood of the Sampson and Altadena is a
mixed-use neighborhood only a few blocks east of Salt Lake City's commercial business district. Notable
buildings in the area include the YWCA complex and First Church of Christ, Scientist just to the east, and the
newer Broadway Condominiums to the west.^
' The amount of original material varies by unit. Some units retain the original kitchen cabinetry. Not all units were inspected for this
nomination.
The First Church of Christian Science is historically associated with the Sampson and Altadena Apartments (see Section 8). It was
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977.
NPS Fomi 10 900-a Ulah MS Word Fomiat MB No 1024-0018 (Expifes 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 4 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
The Sampson Apartments, built in 1906. have remarkable historic integrity. It meets the registration
requirements of the property type. Urban Apartment Builders, as described in the Multiple Property Listing,
Historic Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century 1890s to 1930s. The
Sampson makes a significant contribution to the historic and architectural resources of Salt Lake City.
Sampson Apartments
Name of Property
8. Description
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
for National Register listing.)
^ A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
O B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
S C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
• D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" In all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
n A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
O B removed from its original location.
• C a birthplace or grave.
• Da cemetery.
• E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
• Fa commemorative property.
• G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance ofthe property on one or more continuation sheets.)
Salt Lake Citv. Salt Lake County. Utah
City, County and State
Areas of Significance
(enter categories from instructions)
ARCHITECTURE
COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Period of Significance
1906-1945
Significant Dates
1906
Significant Persons
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
N/A
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
Builder: August Rudine
ESee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 8
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used In preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
• preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested
• previously listed in the National Register
• previously determined eligible by the National
Register
• designated a National Historic Landmark
• recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
#
• recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record #
Primary location of additional data:
S State Historic Preservation Office
• Other State agency
• Federal agency
• Local government
• University
• Other Name of repository:
SSee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 9
r
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of IHistoric Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Narrative Statement of Significance
The Sampson Apartments, built in 1906, is locally significant under Criterion A and C for its associations with
the urbanization of Salt Lake City in the early twentieth century. Between 1900 and 1935, Sah Lake City
experienced rapid growth and the urban apartment block emerged as a new housing option in the neighborhoods
adjacent to the city's commercial center. The availability of urban apartments was particularly important during
this period of growth as a response to the suburbanization of the city's outlying neighborhoods beginning in the
1890s. Urban apartments were an important housing option for Salt Lake City's immigrant population and an
influx of young people moving from Utah rural towns to the capitol city in search of employment. The first
owners were Octavius and Eunice Sampson, who were part-time residents as well as the managers of the two
buildings for nearly four decades. The period of significance is 1906 to 1945—from the date of construction to
the year the Sampson family sold the property.
The Neoclassical three-story brick Sampson Apartments and its associated building, the Altadena Apartments,
were early examples of this period of apartment construction, during which time the typical apartment block was
a three-story walk-up with two units on each floor flanking a central staircase. The Sampson and Altadena
apartment blocks standout as high-end architectural representatives of the property type. The Neoclassical
architectural omamentation of the building has been exceptionally well-preserved, especially when compared to
similar extant apartment blocks from the period. Architecturally, the Sampson Apartments stands out for the
relatively upscale amenities found in the units. The building had an exterior elevator, only found on a few early
apartment blocks. On the interior, each unit was larger than typical for the period with two bedrooms, a large
kitchen, and a bathroom. The Sampson Apartments is architecturally significant and represents the financial
resources of the Sampson family, as well as the craftsmanship of the builder, August Rudine. The building is
significant under the Multiple Property Documentation for the Historic Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban
Expansion in the Early Twentieth Century. 1890s-1930s. also known as the Salt Lake City Urban Apartments
MPS. The Sampson Apartments has excellent historic integrity and contributes to the historic resources of one
of Salt Lake City's oldest neighborhoods.
History of the Sampson and adjoining Altadena Apartments
At the tum of the nineteenth century, there were three adobe houses at the northeast comer of Block 54. In
February 1904, Adelaide M. Williams sold the comer property to Anna Rudine. One month later, Anna Rudine
also acquired the adjacent property from Victoria S. Hillier. Anna "Annie" Nelson Rudine (1865-1943) was
bom in Norway and came to the United States in 1883. In 1892, she married August Rudine in Califomia.
August Rudine (1862-?) was a Swedish immigrant who came to the United States in 1882. August Rudine was
listed as a bricklayer in an 1893-1894 city directory for Los Angeles. The couple had one son bom in Califomia
before moving to Salt Lake City in 1895. They had three more sons bom in Utah. August Rudine continued to
be listed as a bricklayer in the Salt Lake City directories in the late 1890s. By 1900, August Rudine had
OMB No 1024-OOH, NPS Fonm
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 2 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
established himself as a general contractor in the Salt Lake area. In the 1920s, the family moved back to
Califomia.
In June 1905, Rudine had an agreement to sell the property to R. E. McConaughy, but the transaction never
occurred. Robert E. McConaughy (1859-1924) was bom in Illinois and moved from Nebraska to Utah in 1880s.
He established one of the largest real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City in the first quarter of
the twentieth century. It is not known whether he was involved in the construction of the Sampson and
Altadena Apartments. The Rudines sold the south nine rods to Emma Whiting (1861-1919) in 1904. Emma
Whiting sold to O. T. Sampson in June 1905. On April 26, 1906, August and Anna Rudine sold the comer
property to O. T. Sampson. On May 31, 1906, O. T. Sampson obtained two Salt Lake City building permhs,
each for a three-story terrace apartment block of 68 rooms to be built for an estimated cost of $25,000 at the
comer of 300 East and 300 South. No architect or builder was listed on the building permit. Considering the
interests of August Rudine in the property, it is likely he was the builder for the project.^
Octavius T. Sampson (1867-1945) was bom in Comwall, England. He came to the United States in 1895.
Octavius Sampson married Eunice Elgan in Soda Springs, Idaho, in 1899. Eunice Elgan Sampson (1881-1965)
was bom in Saint Clark, Missouri. The couple had two sons, James L. and Octavius T. Jr.. bom in Idaho before
they moved to Salt Lake City in 1906. Their oldest son James Louis Sampson died of epilepsy at the age of
twenty. Their daughter, Altadena, was bom in Salt Lake City in 1908. The Altadena Apartments were
originally known as Vivian Flats. The name was changed only a few years after Altadena's birth.
Octavius and Eunice Sampson were members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Salt Lake City. Their
decision to purchase the Rudine property was likely to do its proximity to the large stone meetinghouse at 352
E. 300 South. The congregation had completed building the edifice just a few years previously in 1898.
According to oral tradition passed along by older neighbors, the Sampsons were very prominent in the church
and built the apartment blocks so that members of the congregation could live there.^ The 1906 city directory
lists Octavius Sampson living at the address 354 E. 300 South, which is either the church building or the brick
house next to it."^ Newspaper subscribers listed in the Salt Lake Herald suggest that the apartments were
occupied as early as December 1906. By 1907, the Sampsons are living at 310 S. 300 East. The name Sampson
Flats is used for both buildings in some sources, but Vivian (later Altadena) had a separate name by 1907. In
^ R. E. McConaughy was listed as a builder for other projects he developed. Another possible builder is W. C. A. Vissing (1874-
1936), a Danish immigrant, who was one of the earliest apartment builders in the city. Andy Vissing built the Cluff Apartments
located at 1270-1280 E. 200 South (NRHP 10/20/1989). which has similar architectural detail to the Sampson and Altadena
Apartments.
' The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was listed on the NRHP in 1976, only the second church of that denomination to be listed at the
time. The Richardsonian-Romanesque building was designed by the prominent Salt Lake architect Walter E. Ware.
' Correspondence of Allison D. Johnson to the First Church of Christ, Scientist, Cominunications Office located in the files of Emily
Evans. There are no membership records available for the period. A high percentage of early tenants were from the mid-west, but the
transient nature of the occupants makes them difficult to trace.
The address ofthe house is 360 E. 300 South. The 1907-1908 Salt Lake City Blue Book lists Mr. and Mrs. Octavius C. [sic]
Sampson living at 354 S. 300 East, which is a duplex. Either way, they were living in the area while the apartments were being
constructed.
OMBNo 1024-0018, NPS Fom
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 3 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
the winter of 1907, Octavius and Eunice Sampson were living in the Sampson Flats when a burglar entered their
apartment. The thief was chased off by the upstairs neighbor, S. A. Giffin, who went to get his revolver."
The Sampsons were a relatively prosperous family. Various sources list Octavius Sampson's occupation as an
apartment manger, a sheepman, and a farmer. By the time ofthe 1910 census, the family was living on a farm
in south Salt Lake, but Octavius still gave his occupation as landlord. He is listed as a farmer at 2943 S. 300
East on the 1920 and 1930 census enumerations. In 1930, Octavius T. Jr. was an auto mechanic.
By the mid-1930s, Octavius and Eunice Sampson moved back into town into the Altadena Apartments as
resident-managers. Octavius T. Sampson died on March 9, 1945. His occupation was listed on his death
certificate was apartment building landlord. Eunice E. Sampson, and her children Octavius T. Sampson Jr. and
Altadena Sampson Cole, sold the property in October 1945 to the Page Investment Company. She moved to a
house on Stratford Avenue where she lived until her death in July 1965. The Sampsons are interred in Mount
Olivet Cemetery.
Items in the local newspapers suggest that the early tenants of the Sampson and Vivian/Altadena buildings were
middle to upper-middle class. The name of the buildings appears in the society columns for parties and other
social events. One resident of the Vivian Flats, J. J. Ott, placed an advertisement for a lost diamond pin, which
he lost somewhere between the Christian Science Church and North Temple.'^ Anonymous Vivian Flats
residents placed an advertisement for a young girl to do housework.'^ Among the earliest tenants were Steven
and Rose Stewart Alley, of whom two local newspapers reported they would be living in the Sampson Flats
after their honeymoon.'^ The Alleys did not stay to be listed on the 1910 census enumeration, but all of the
occupants of the Sampson Apartments were couples.
With the exception of one young couple from Utah, the occupants in 1910 were mostly bom in the Midwest.
Three of the couples were childless and in their twenties or thirties. Two couples had one child. Both of these
households had a live-in servant. One couple in their forties had a son and a daughter, both bom in Utah. The
only immigrant in the building was one man bom in Russia. Besides the domestics, the residents were
employed as a grocery merchant, a lawyer, a bookkeeper for an implement company, a roofing salesman, and
two railroad agents.
Six households in the Sampson Apartments could be located on the 1920 census enumeration. At the time,
there were two young couples. One couple had one child and a lodger. There was one older couple with a
grown child. One head of household was a widower living with his daughter and son-in-law. One divorcee was
living with his mother and another was single. The residents were bom in Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Canada, Switzerland and Greece. The mix of residents living in the Sampson Apartments
had changed by the time of the 1930 census enumeration. The average age was much older with most residents
" 5a// Lake Herald, December 1, 1907.
Sah Lake Herald, January 5. 1907.
" Sah Lake Herald November 16, 1908.
Ogden Standard Examiner, July 9, 1908. Salt Lake Herald, July 9, 1908.
OMB No 1024-0018. NPS Forni
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 4 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
between their mid-forties and early seventies. Part of the shift may have come from the proliferation of smaller
(and less expensive) apartment units available for young couples and singles built in Salt Lake City just prior to
the depression years. There were not children living in the Sampson in 1930. The only younger residents were
the grown offspring of two older couples. The occupations listed in the census enumeration include a salesman,
a miner, a bottler for the local brewery, a druggist, a fumiture store bookkeeper, a mattress maker, and the
proprietor of a grocery store.
One basement apartment was added in the 1930s when the Sampsons moved back. The other units were added
during a 1947 remodeling that occurred after the Sampson family sold the property to the Page Investment
Company in October 1945." In April 1947, Meredith and Maurine S. Page deeded their interest in the property
to Gwynne and Duke Page. The Page Investment Company owned and managed the property until 1972, when
it was sold to Donald B. Hadley et al. This period coincided with a general decline in the urban apartment
market in downtown Salt Lake City and was likely when the rear enclosure was made more secure.
Subsequent owners of the property include GT Real Estate, and later Capitol Redevelopment. The buildings
were converted to condominiums in 1998 after the declaration of the Sampson Altadena Condominiums. The
conversion and ongoing rehabilitation of the two buildings is part of a general renaissance in urban living in Salt
Lake City, which began in the 1990s. The units currently have multiple owners with the common areas owned
by the Sampson Altadena Homeowners Association.
Salt Lake City Development and the Architecture of the Sampson and Altadena Apartments
On July 24, 1847, a small contingent of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or
Mormon Church) entered the Salt Lake Valley under the direction of Brigham Young. On August 2. 1847, a
little more than a week later, the first city survey, known as Plat A, consisting of 135 blocks, was completed.
The land was divided into ten-acre blocks, each containing eight lots of one and one-quarter acres. Streets were
132 wide feet. One house could be constructed on each lot with a standard setback of twenty feet from the front
of the property. The first Sanbom map to cover Plat A's Block 54 was produced in 1898 and show three adobe
dwellings (two single-family and one duplex) at the corner of 300 South and 300 East. Between the late 1840s
and 1900, the population of Sah Lake City had grown from 6,000 to 54,000.
By the time of the 1910 census the population had grown to 92,777. This transformation from agrarian village
to a bustling urban metropolis was spurred by the railroads, which brought an increase in every type of
manufacturing and commerce, as well as an enormous influx of immigrant laborers and their families. The
original lots of each ten-acre block had been divided and subdivided until most of the Plat A blocks had inner-
block streets, courts and places. During this period there was a great range of architecture in the early
neighborhoods. Pioneer settlement adobe and frame hall-parlors were intermingled with brick and frame
" The deed was transferred fi-om the Sampsons to Riverton Motor Company on October 13, 1945, and then on the same day to the
Page Investment Company.
r
OMB No 1024-0018. NPS Fom
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 5 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Victorian cottages. Multiple-family dwellings first appeared as double houses, which became popular in the
1890s.
By the tum of the century the city core had developed into an urban commercial district with high-rise office
buildings and multiple streetcar lines. During the first half of the twentieth century, the rapid increase in the
city's population created a demand for housing that was met by two diametrically opposed types of housing:
central city apartments and subdivision homes.The cit>' instigated massive urban improvement projects such
as water mains, sewage facilities, electrical lines and telephone service, both in the central city and in the
emerging suburbs. Rising land values and urban congestion made the apartment house a feasible investment for
developers.
This was noted in a Salt Lake Tribune that appeared in 1902, just as the first major apartments were being
constmcted: "It is generally recognized by farseeing investors that the period of cottages in Salt Lake has
reached its highest point and the period of flat buildings, marking another stage in the evolution from town to
city, has just begun."'^ Over 180 apartment buildings, all built by private investors, were constructed in SaU
Lake City during the first three decades of the twentieth century. The emergence of apartment building also
presented a practical housing altemative for those residents who could not (or would not) take advantage the
increasing attractive and convenient suburbs. Though, the vast majority consisted of apartments for the middle
class, a few early urban apartments were more luxury units, including the Sampson and Altadena Apartments.
The later period of apartment constmction in Salt Lake City, in the 1920s and 1930s, were primarily large-scale
double-loaded corridor apartments that were built for the middle and higher working classes.
The gradual transformation of some of these buildings into housing for the inner-city poor did not take place
until the last quarter of the twentieth century. In fact, the economic status of the early apartment dwellers was
virtually the same as that of suburban homeowners of the same period, middle and upper-middle class. The
major difference between the two groups was transitory nature of apartment dwellers. Tenants were often in
transitional phases of their lives. Common occupants include newly married or childless couples, widows and
widowers, retirees, and working single adults. The Sampson family and their fellow tenants represent a
somewhat higher socio-economic strata than the general demographic trends for the period, although they were
just as transitory.
The Sampson and adjoining Altadena, built in 1906, are excellent examples of an early apartment complex built
for the architectural tastes and comforts of the upper-middle class. The Neoclassical architectural detail in the
brick and stone masonry is exceptional. UTiile a few amenities in the two buildings, such as built-in cupboards
and exterior porches were typical for the period, several features were atypically luxurious. A cursory study of
the 1911 Sanbom maps reveals only a handful of contemporaneous multi-story apartment blocks with elevators.
Although the 1906 open elevator at the rear of apartments would be considered cmde by today's standards, it
would have been considered a luxury in its day. The interior of the original units are particularly striking for
Roger Roper, Sah Lake City Urban Apartments, MPS, 1989.
Sah Lake Tribune, July 27, 1902: 32. Quoted in MPS.
OMB No 1024-0018 NPS Foim
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 6 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
their numerous windows. The five-room units are considerably larger than the average tum-of-the-century
apartment in Salt Lake City, and the over-sized (by today's standards) kitchen and bathroom in each unit were
particularly commodious. Each unit included one or two built-in closets, a rare feature in 1906. One indication
of the upscale condition of the apartments can be found in a rare complimentary comment written by an
anonymous tax assessor on the December 1936 tax cards for both the Sampson and Altadena Apartments. On
' * 18
both cards, the assessor wrote "These apts. have been kept in the best of condition.'"
The Sampson and Altadena Apartments are two of twenty-five extant examples of walk-up apartments built
between 1903 and 1915. Although a few walk-ups were buih after 1915, they lack exterior porches and are
stylistically distinct from the earlier examples. Eighteen of these examples have been classified as Neoclassical
or Colonial Revival in style. The rest were influenced by the Prairie School. The Sampson and Altadena are
most similar in style to several apartment blocks buih by W.C.A. Vissing (1874-1936). The closest example is
the Cluff Apartments (later Hillview, listed on the NRHP 10/20/1989). The Cluff has similar porches, but is a
much wider building and lacks the distinctive brickwork found on the Sampson and Altadena buildings.
Twin apartment blocks are rare in Salt Lake City. Vissing also built the dual Princeton and Boulevard
Apartments located on the comer of 900 East and 100 South. The Princeton and Boulevard Apartments feature
colossal Ionic columns on the exterior porches (NRHP listed in the Salt Lake Eastside Historic District, Bryant
Neighborhood, 2001). Vissing also built several blocks for the Covey Investment Company that are
Neoclassical in style. The Covey blocks and those like them are larger in scale, closer to downtown and mostly
U-courts. Most did not include the amenities found in the Altadena and Sampson Apartments. There are
numerous smaller apartment blocks located within the Salt Lake City .Avenues Historic District. The Avenues
neighborhood has a fairly steep slope and most of the apartment blocks were more modest in size and had
smaller units than the Sampson and Altadena Apartments. The Altadena and Sampson are particularly well-
preserved and most of the typical modifications found on contemporaneous buildings (porch enclosures and
removals, window and door replacements, etc.) have been avoided.
Constmcted in 1906, the Sampson Apartments, and its companion, the Altadena Apartments, are two of the
many urban apartments built in Salt Lake City during the first three decades of the twentieth century. This was
an unprecedented era of expansion and urbanization in the city. The period of significance for the Sampson and
Altadena Apartments is between 1906 and 1945. which represents this important era. The upscale amenities
designed for the original construction of the Altadena and Sampson Apartments, just those amenities that were
desirable qualities when the buildings were converted to condominiums in 1989. Urban apartments are
significant under Criterion C as an important residential building type that emerged as Salt Lake City was
transformed into an urban center during the early twentieth century. Both buildings meet the registration
requirements and are significant under the Multiple Property Documentation for the Historic Resources of Salt
Lake City, Urban Expansion in the Early Twentieth Century, 1890s-1930s, also known as the Salt Lake City
Urban Apartments MPS.
Salt Lake County tax assessor cards, December 18, 1936. It was much more common for the assessor to note deficits such as
crumbling brick or cheap materials.
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 9 Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
BibUography
Carter, Thomas and Peter Goss. Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940, A Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah:
University ofUtah Press, 1988.
Evans, Emily. Interviews conducted by author May 2009 to July 2009.
. Research file on the Sampson-Altadena Apartments.
Fohlin, E. V. Sah Lake City Past and Present: A Narrative of Its History and Romance, Its People and
Cultures, Its Industry and Commerce. Its Attractions and Grandeurs, Its Bright and Promising Future
With Chapters of Utah's General Resources And Progressiveness. Salt Lake City, Utah: E. V. Fohlin,
1908.
Polk Directories, Sah Lake City, 1900-1993. Published by R.L. Polk & Co. Available at the Utah State
Historical Society and the Marriott Library, University of Utah.
Roper, Roger V. Historic Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century,
1890s-1930s, [Salt Lake City Urban Apartments] Multiple Property Documentation Form. Prepared
1989. Available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
[Salt Lake County Tax Cards]. Available at the Salt Lake County Archives.
[Salt Lake County Title Abstracts]. Available at the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office.
Salt Lake Herald.
Salt Lake Tribune.
[Sampson Apartments, 276 E. 300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah]. Files of the Utah State Historic Preservation
Office.
Sanbom Fire Insurance Maps for Salt Lake City, 1898, 1911, and 1950. Available at the Utah State Historical
Society and the University of Utah Marriott Library
United States Federal Census Enumerations. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, 1900 to 1930.
Utah Heritage Foundation. "Through the Eyes of Many Faiths.'" Compiled and edited by the members of the
Church Tour Committee of the Utah Heritage Foundation, 1983 & 1990.
OMB No 1024-0018. NPS Forni
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 9 Page 2 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
[Utah State Historical Society Burials Database]. Available online at Historical Society's website
(www.history.utah.gov).
Sampson Apartments
Name of Property
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property 0 19 acre(s)
Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah
City, County and State
UTM References
(Place additional boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
A 1/2 4/2/5/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/5/6/0
B / / / / / / I I I I I I
Zone Easting
C J_ 1 1 / 11
Zone Easting
Northing
I I I I I I
Northing
Zone Easting
D / I I I I I
Zone Easting
Northing
I I I I I I
Northing
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries ofthe property.)
BEG NE COR LOT 8. BLK 54, PLAT A, SLC SUR; S 111 FT; W 74.25 FT; N 111 FT; E 74.25 FT TO BEG. LESS UNITS 0.19 AC
(BEING THE COMMON AREA OF SAMPSON ALTADENA CONDOMINIUM).
Property Tax No. 16-06-184-001 to 16-06-184-018
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
The boundaries are those which were historically associated with the property and which continue to be associated with the property.
•See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 10
11. Form Prepared By
name/title Korral Broschinsky, Preservation Documentation Resource
organization prepared for the Sampson Altadena Homeowners' Association
street & number PO Box 58766
city or town Salt Lake City
date October 1, 2009
telephone 801-913-5645
state UT zip code 84158
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs: Representative black and white photographs ofthe property.
Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
name/title Multiple Owners / Contact person: Emily Evans, Owner Representative (see Contiuation Sheet)
street & number 276 E. 300 South (Broadway Street), #S6 telephone 801-554-0730
city or town Salt Lake City state UT zip code 84111
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
OMB No 1024-0018. NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. Owner Contact Information Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Owners of the Sampson Apartments
Unit# Unit Owner Alternate Address for Non-Occupants
SOI Emily Moench n/a
S02 Patrick Colclough n/a
1299 W. 4800 South
SOS William Vince Park Murray. UT 84123
5131 S. Dawson Street,
S04 Hooman Tajbakhsh Seattle, WA 98118 (part-time occupant)
805 Patrick Colclough n/a
S06 Emily Evans n/a
451 Bishop Federal Lane, Apt. 4115
S07 John Bucher Salt Lake City, UT84115
555 E 475 South
S08 Sarah Brown CenterviUe, UT 84014
S09 John Lopez n/a
SIC Heather Moench n/a
OMB No 1024-0016 NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. PHOTOS Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Common Label Information:
1. Sampson Apartments
2. 276 E. 300 South, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah
3. Photographer: Korral Broschinsky
4. Date: November 2009
5. Digital images on file at Utah SHPO.
Photo No. 1:
6. North elevation ofbuilding. Camera facing south.
Photo No. 2:
6. North and east elevations of building. Camera facing southwest.
Photo No. 3:
6. West and south elevations of building. Camera facing northeast.
Photo No, 4:
6. Interior, Unit 6, office with pocket doors. Camera facing northwest.
Photo No. 5:
6. North and east elevations of building. Camera facing southwest.
Photo No. 6:
6. East elevations of Sampson (right) and Altadena (left). Camera facing west.
Photo No. 7:
6. West elevations of Sampson (left) and Altadena (right). Camera facing east.
Photo No. 8:
6. West elevation ofbuilding. Camera facing southeast.
Photo No. 9:
6. East elevation of building. Camera facing northwest.
Photo No. 10:
6. North elevation ofbuilding, entrance detail. Camera facing northwest.
OMB No 1024-0018. NPS Forni
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. PHOTOS Page 2 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
PhotoNo. 11:
6. Interior, stair and newel post detail. Camera facing southeast.
Photo No. 12:
6. Interior, view into Unit 6 from stair landing. Camera facing west.
Photo No. 13:
6. Interior, Unit 6, living room. Camera facing southeast.
Photo No. 14:
6. Interior, Unit 6, dining room with alcove and built-ins. Camera facing south.
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Forni
United States Department ofthe Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. HISTORIC PHOTOS Page 1 Sampson Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Sampson & Altadena Apartments, photographed August 7, 1907
27
6
E
.
3
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
,
S
a
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
U
t
a
h
Sa
m
p
s
o
n
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
CO
m
o O'
o X CD
H O O
•u
X O
H o
TJ
•x
;
rc
C/3
3
C/
)
o >
ID CD
3
03
CO —
CD
O CO
0) O
o c
o z
O 0
)
!2
: o
c f
i
)
&} ~
=3
: 7
J
o ®
(A
o
-\
O
&)
o
0
O C
D
3 Q
.
2i
. 0
)
-Q a
)
* s
r
3r
<
n
<D C
D
5. 0
)
<^ a
.
" 3
ff
i
3 o'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET
REQUESTED ACTION: NOMINATION
PROPERTY Sampson Apartments
NAME:
MULTIPLE Salt Lake City MPS
NAME:
STATE Sc COUNTY: UTAH, Salt Lake
DATE RECEIVED: 12/18/09 DATE OF PENDING LIST: 1/13/10
DATE OF 16TH DAY: 1/28/10 . DATE OF 45TH DAY: 2/01/10
DATE OF WEEKLY LIST:
REFERENCE NUMBER: 09001292
REASONS FOR REVIEW: - ' -
APPEAL: N DATA PROBLEM: N LANDSCAPE: N LESS THAN 50 YEARS: N
OTHER: N PDIL: N PERIOD: N PROGRAM UNAPPROVED: N
REQUEST: N SAMPLE: N SLR DRAFT: N NATIONAL: N
COMMENT WAIVER: N
_ACCEPT RETURN REJECT | * 7S1' DATE
ABSTRACT/SUMMARY COMMENTS;
£ateredtn
RECOM./CRITERIA
REVIEWER DISCIPLINE_
TELEPHONE DATE
DOCUMENTATION see attached comments Y/N see attached SLR Y/N
If a nomination is returned to the nominating authority, the
nomination is no longer under consideration by the NPS.
^ ^ ^ ^^
"-!..v...y
state of Utah
G.ARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of Community and Culture
PALMER DePAULIS
Executive Director
State History
PHILIP F. NOTARIANNI
Division Director RECEIVED 2280
DEC 1 8 2009
NAT. REGISTER OK HISTORIC PLACES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
TO: Dr. Janet Matthews, Keeper,
National Register of Historic Places
FROM: Cory Jensen, National Register Coordinator
Utah State Historic Preser\'ation Office
SUBJECT: National Register Nomination
The following materials are submitted on this day nfX^Qg^^
for the nomination of the Sampson Apartments
^ ,2009,
to the National Register of Historic Places:
1 Original National Register of Historic Places nomination form
Multiple Propert}^ Nomination form
14 Photograph(s) (archival)
_2 Photograph (s) (supplemental)
J Gold Archival CD-R w/Image Files & Nomination PDF
J Original USGS Map
Sketch map(s)/figure(s)
Pieces of Correspondence
Other
COMMENTS: Please review
iSIATE
For questions please contact Cory Jensen at 801/533-3559, or coryjensen@utah.gov
ISIOKf
UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ANTIQUITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RESEARCH CENTER S. COLLECTIONS 300 S. RIO GRANDE STREET. SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101-1182 TELEPHONE 801 533-3500 - FACSIMILE 801 533-3503 HISTORY.UTAH.COV
state ofUtah
GARYR. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of Community and Culture
PALMER DePAULIS
E.xecutive Director
State History
PHILIP F. NOTARIANNI
Division Director
December 10, 2009
DR. JANET MATTHEWS
KEEPER
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
1201 EYE STREET, NW, 8"^ FLOOR (MS 2280)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
Dear Dr. Matthews:
Enclosed please find the registration form and documentation for the following National Register
nominations that have been approved by the State Historic Preservation Review Board and the Utah State
Historic Preservation Officer for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places:
Chipman, Henry & Elizabeth Parker, House
Dunn-Binnall House & Farmstead
Altadena Apartments
Sampson Apartments
American Fork, Utah Co.
American Fork, Utah Co.
Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Co.
Sah Lake City, Salt Lake Co.
Thank you for your assistance with this nomination. Please contact me at 801/533-3559, or at
coryjensen@utah.gov if you have any questions.
J. Cory J ;nsen
Architect aral Historian
National Register Coordinator
Office of Historic Preservation
P
Enclosures
SIATE
HISTOFX UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
ANTIQUITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RESEARCH CENTER «. COLLECTIONS 300 S. RIO GRANDE STREET SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101-1182 • TELEPHONE 801 533-3500 FACSIMILE 801 533-3503 HISTORY.UTAH.COV
NPS Foim 10-900 Utah MS Word Format OMB No 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
y^
RECEIVED 2286 CTlires 5/31/2012)
DEC 1 8 2009
NAT. R6GI8TER 0?^ HISTORIC PLACES
NATIONiAL PARK SERVICE
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts See instructions in How to Complete tfie National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x' in the appropriate box or by entering
the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural
classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative
items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typew/riter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Altadena Apartments
other name/site number Altadena Flats, Sampson Altadena Condominiums
2. Location
street name
city or town
state Utah
310 S. 300 East
Salt Lake City
D not for publication
• vicinity
code UT county Salt Lake code 035 zip code 84111
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act. as amended. I hereby certify that this S nomination
n request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ^
meets • does not meet the National Register criteria I reconjmend that this property be considered significant
• nationally; • st^tewi;;^^ locally. ( • Se^-pqptjhuation jKeet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title
Utah Division of State Historv, Office of Historic Preservation
Date
state or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property • meets • does not meet the National Register criteria. ( • See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. Natipnal Park Service Certification
I hereby c^ify that the property is:
57entered in the National Register.
• See continuation sheet.
• detennined eligible for the
National Register
• See continuation sheet.
• determined not eligible for the
National Register.
• removed from the National
Register.
• other, (explain;)
Date of Action
i-nic)
Altadena Apartments
Name of Property
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(check as many boxes as apply)
^ private
• public-local
• public-State
• public-Federal
Category of Property
(check only one box)
M buiiding(s)
• district
• site
• structure
Q object
Salt Lake Citv. Salt Lake Countv. Utah
City, County and State
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)
Contributing
1
Noncontributing
buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.)
Historic Resources of Salt Lake City (Urban Apartments)
Number of contributing resources previously listed
in the National Register
N/A
6. Function or Use
Historic Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: Multiple Dvt/elling
Current Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: Multiple Dwelling
7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
Neo-Classical Revival
Other: Walk-Up Apartment Block
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation
walls
roof
other
STONE
BRICK
BUILT-UP
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition ofthe property on one or more continuation sheets.]
^ S ee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 7
NPS Form 10 900-a Utah MS VWord Format MB r4o 1024-0018 . ^ (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Narrative Description
The Altadena Apartments, a 3'/2-story Neoclassical brick building, was constructed in 1906. The building is one of two
architecturally similar apartment blocks built at the comer of 300 South and 300 East in Salt Lake City. The address of
the east-facing Altadena Apartments is 310 S. 300 East. The associated building, the Sampson Apartments, was also
built in 1906. It faces north at 276 E. 300 South.' Both buildings are walk-up type apartment blocks with exterior
balconies. The materials and construction methods are nearly identical. The raised foundation of both buildings is rock-
faced sandstone, currently painted salmon. The red face brick is laid in a running bond with slightly raked mortar joints.
There is a softer red brick, now painted dark gray, on the secondary elevations of the buildings. The roofs are flat and
built-up. The buildings have several Neoclassical features such as pedimented entrances in the center of the symmetrical
fa9ades, Tuscan columns, dentillated cornices and accentuated keystones. All the contrasting elements are painted either
white or gray. The flat roof is built-up and there is a single full-height corbelled chimneystack.
The Altadena Apartments is narrower and slightly deeper than the adjoining Sampson Apartments. The footprint
measures 52 by 44 feet with the wider end facing 300 East. The fa9ade (east elevation) is symmetrical with a central
entrance bay and three-story porches on either side. The foundation is rock-faced sandstone laid in a random ashlar bond
with raised mortar joints. The front entrance has original sandstone steps, also painted salmon. The front steps are
flanked by rubbed-finished sandstone walls with flush mortar joints, currently painted gray. The smooth finish is also
found on the belt course above the foundation (also painted gray). On the west (rear) elevation, the original recessed
entrance and three-story enclosed porches were modified circa 1980, but many original elements remain. There are two
sets of painted sandstone steps on the west side of the rear opening (one is partially demolished). These steps originally
accessed the three-story rear porches. However, the separate openings were blocked when the rear enclosure was
modified. The current single entrance is accessed by a set of wood steps with a pipe rail (circa 1980). The foundation
paint and exterior surface of the rear enclosure are the only major modifications to the exterior.
The dominant architectural feature of the facade (east elevation) of the Altadena block is the central entrance bay. The
front entrance is sheltered by a portico supported on console brackets and engaged square columns that sit on the stepped
stone rail walls. The pediment is covered is rough-textured stucco, painted orange. The simple gable roof features
cornice returns and dentils on the recessed raking cornice. These wood elements have been painted contrasting colors of
white, orange, and brown. The front door is the original beveled glass with central diamond panes set in a geometric-
patterned wood sash. The front door features a metal kick plate and three-quarter glass sidelights. The projecting wood
cornice sits above the entrance portico. The cornice visually supports a two-story recessed area with a round-arch head.
The arch is accentuated with contrasting blocks of stone, painted white. Three courses of rowlock brick are between the
blocks and the stylized keystone. There is a diamond-pattern of rock-face brick below the keystone. Within the recess
are four nine-over-one wood-sash windows (two on each floor) with rowlock and soldier brick heads. The windows light
the interior stairwell. The upper pair of windows has a continuous stone sill. The windows on the upper floors are eight-
over-one wood sash windows with brick heads accentuated by keystones slightly smaller than the main arch and stone
sill.
The Sampson Apartments is being nominated separately. Both buildings are located on the same legal parcel at 276 E. Broadway
Street (300 South). During the historic period, the street name "Broadway" was associated with 300 South in the commercial business
district only. The use of the name "Broadway" outside of the business district is recent and "300 South" remains the more common
name for the street. The Altadena Apartments use the address 310 S. 300 East. Prior to 1972, 300 South and 300 East were more
commonly known as Third or 3"^ South and Third or 3"* East.
NPS Form 10 900.a Utah MS WbiTl Format MB No. 1024-OOH (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 2 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
The three-story porches are also a prominent feature of the facade. The main floor porch has square brick piers. The
second and third-story porches feature trios of Tuscan columns at the front corners and single columns in the rear. All
three stories feature a classical (plain) frieze, but the top cornice under the flat-roof porch has a row of dentils that
continues the dentil pattern of the main cornice. The main cornice is a projecting wood cornice that wraps around the
comers at the secondary elevations. Above the main cornice is a brick parapet with tracery vents and a wood coping
(now covered with metal). Originally, the porch roofs featured a wood balustrade with tracery similar to the vents. This
feature was removed prior to a 1936 tax photograph. The six porches each feature a curved-slat wrought-iron balustrade
and wood rail. All the wood elements are painted white to contrast with the red brick. Each porch has an exterior three-
quarter glass door with transom, screen and wide sidelights." The basement windows in the fa9ade are one-over-one
windows with flat stone lintels.
The original windows on the secondary elevations are mostly Victorian in style. However, the north elevation does
feature flat-head wide windows and tripartite casements on each level. The upper apartments on the south and west (rear)
elevations feature both tripartite windows and square fixed-frame windows. The window heads are segmental-arched
three-course brick heads and the sills are stone (painted gray). There are three basement windows in the foundation on
the north and south elevations. These windows have three panes of glass in a wood sash. The stone belt course above the
foundation becomes four courses of brick around on the secondary elevations. The belt course remains painted gray. As
the belt course meets the basement windows on the rear, the brick courses become segmental arched rowlock brick
window heads. The brick is painted dark gray, but is peeling in places revealing the softer red brick of the secondary
elevations. The west elevation also taller paired double-hung windows where the foundation is more visible due to the
sloping site. The upper windows on the west elevation are narrow one-over-one double-hung windows.
There are a few metal vents in the foundation walls.
The rear elevation entrances to the apartments have been modified at least twice since 1906. The 1911 Sanbom fire
insurance map indicates the recessed rear entrance was enclosed with frame and featured a central open elevator.' The
sandstone steps flanking the current entrance suggest that two exits on the rear flanked the elevator before it was removed
(circa 1970s). The original wood staircase is located deep in the recess. The brick and foundation in the recess have
been painted red (date unknown). Around 1980, the rear enclosure was covered with vertical siding (now painted light
gray). The current rear door is half-glass with a square transom (circa 1980). Details in the recess, such as double-hung
exterior windows and rock-face brick at the angles suggest that the original rear enclosure was more open to view than
the current enclosure (possibly screened). Original bead board ceilings are still visible within the individual porch
enclosures. The current enclosure has aluminum slider windows. There is a blocked basement door facing north on the
rear enclosure (circa 1980, blocked later). There is about ten feet of space between the south elevation of the Sampson
and the north elevation of the Altadena Apartments. The two buildings share a wrought-iron fire escape in the alley
space.
On the interior, the Altadena Apartments has approximately 2,210 square feet on each floor. The front stairwell is open
and features a square-baluster balustrade with newel posts. The mailboxes are mounted on the main level foyer. The
carpet and tile are later replacements. There are two units per landing with approximately 970 square feet of space each.
The basement unit is slightly smaller at 925 square feet. There is also a common laundry room and boiler room in the
basement. Although some of the interiors have been altered by the owners after the conversion to condominiums, the
• One of the doors has been replaced with a four-panel door. Other alterations on the porches include the installation of planter boxes,
but the changes are reversible and have minimal impact on the historic inEgrity of the building.
" The elevator was noted on the 1936 tax card, but was described as a dumb waiter on the later tax cards through the 1960s. It may
have not been used for passengers in the second half of the twentieth century.
NPS Form 10 900.a Uah MS Word Format MB No 1024-0018 {Expires M1/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 3 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
configuration of Unit 2 is representative of the original interiors. This unit features a short central hall extending north
from the front door. The kitchen and rear porch are to the west, the bathroom is to the east. The living room is in the
northeast comer with access to the exterior porch. There are paneled pocket doors between the living room and an office
in the rear. The bedroom is off the main hall. There is a built-in closet in the bedroom and the hall. The kitchen has its
original built-in cabinets w ith glass doors. Many of the elements of the original apartment have been retained such as the
claw foot tub, paneled doors (with half-glass to the kitchen), pocket doors, hardwood floors, wood casings, moldings
above the doors and window, built-ins, and radiators.^ The basement unit was not original and has later features (some
historic).
The Altadena and Sampson Apartments share common site features. There is only a few feet of setback on the street
sides (along 300 South and 300 East). There is a concrete sidewalk between parking strip with trees and lawn and the
lawn next to the buildings. Access to the rear of the buildings from 300 East is blocked by chain link gates between the
two buildings, and between the Altadena and the neighboring building to the south. The remainder of the parcel is paved
with asphalt for parking on the west side. This parking area is shared by the adjacent parcel. There is a small tree behind
the Altadena. The neighborhood of the Altadena and Sampson is a mixed-use neighborhood only a few blocks east of
Salt Lake City's commercial business district. Notable buildings in the area include the YWCA complex and First
Church of Christ, Scientist just to the east, and the newer Broadway Condominiums to the west.'
The Altadena and Sampson Apartments, built in 1906, have remarkable historic integrity. They meet the registration
requirements of the property type. Urban Apartment Buildings, as described in the Multiple Property Listing, Historic
Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century, 1890s to 1930s. The Altadena
Apartments is a contributing historic resource in Salt Lake City.
"* The amount of original material varies by unit. Some units retain the original kitchen cabinetry. Not all units were inspected for this
nomination.
^ The First Church of Christian Science is historically associated with the Sampson and Altadena Apartments (see Section 8). It was
listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977.
Altadena Apartments
Name of Property
8. Description
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
for National Register listing.)
^ A Property Is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
O B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
^ C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
• D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" In all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
n A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
• B removed from its original location.
• C a birthplace or grave.
• Da cemetery.
• E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
• Fa commemorative property.
• G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used In preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.
Salt Lake Citv. Salt Lake Countv. Utah
City, County and State
Areas of Significance
(enter categories from instructions)
ARCHITECTURE
COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Period of Significance
1906-1945
Significant Dates
1906
Significant Persons
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
N/A
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
Builder: August Rudine
SSee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 8
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
n preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested
• previously listed in the National Register
• previously determined eligible by the National
Register
• designated a National Historic Landmark
• recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
#
• recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record #
Primary location of additional data:
^ State Historic Preservation Office
• Other State agency
• Federal agency
• Local government
• University
• Other Name of repository:
^See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 9
OMBNo 1024.001t . NPSFotm
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Narrative Statement of Significance
The Altadena Apartments, built in 1906, is locally significant under Criterion A and C for its associations with the
urbanization of Salt Lake City in the early twentieth century. Between 1900 and 1935, Salt Lake City experienced rapid
growth and the urban apartment block emerged as a new housing option in the neighborhoods adjacent to the city's
commercial center. The availability of urban apartments was particular significant during this period of growth as a
response to the suburbanization of the city's outlying neighborhoods beginning in the 1890s. Urban apartments were an
important housing option for Salt Lake City's immigrant population and an influx of young people moving from Utah
rural towns to the capitol city in search of employment. The first owners were Octavius and Eunice Sampson, who were
part-time residents as well as the managers of this building and the Sampson Apartments next door for nearly four
decades. The period of significance is 1906 to 1945, from the date of construction to the year the Sampson family sold
the property.
The Neoclassical three-story brick Altadena Apartments and its associated building, the Sampson Apartments, were early
examples from this period of apartment construction, during which time the typical apartment block was a three-story
walk-up with two units on each floor flanking a central staircase. The Altadena and Sampson apartment blocks standout
as high-end architectural representatives of the property type. The Neoclassical architectural ornamentation of the
building has been exceptionally well-preserved, especially when compared to similar extant apartment blocks from the
period. Architecturally, the Altadena Apartments stands out for the relatively upscale amenities found in the units. The
building had an exterior elevator, only found on a few early apartment blocks. On the interior, each unit was larger than
typical for the period with a large kitchen and a bathroom. The Altadena Apartments is architecturally significant and
represents the financial resources of the Sampson family, as well as the craftsmanship of the builder, August Rudine.
The building is significant under the Multiple Property Documentation for the Historic Resources of Salt Lake City,
Urban Expansion in the Early Twentieth Century, 1890s-1930s, also known as the Salt Lake City Urban Apartments
MPS. The Altadena Apartments has excellent historic integrity and contributes to the historic resources of one of Salt
Lake City's oldest neighborhoods.
History of the Altadena and Sampson Apartments
At the tum of the nineteenth century, there were three adobe houses at the northeast comer of Block 54. In February
1904, Adelaide M. Williams sold the comer property to Anna Rudine. One month later, Anna Rudine also acquired the
adjacent property from Victoria S. Hillier. Anna "'Annie'" Nelson Rudine (1865-1943) was bom in Norway and came to
the United States in 1883. In 1892, she married August Rudine in California. August Rudine (1862-?) was a Swedish
immigrant who came to the United States in 1882. August Rudine was listed as a bricklayer in an 1893-1894 city
directory for Los Angeles. The couple had one son bom in Califomia before moving to Sah Lake City in 1895. They
had three more sons bom in Utah. August Rudine continued to be listed as a bricklayer in the Salt Lake City directories
in the late 1890s. By 1900, August Rudine had established himself as a general contractor in the Salt Lake area. In the
1920s, the family moved back to Califomia.
In June 1905, Rudine had an agreement to sell the property to R. E. McConaughy, but the transaction never occurred.
Robert E. McConaughy (1859-1924) was bom in Illinois and moved from Nebraska to Utah in 1880s. He established one
ofthe largest real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City in the first quarter of the twentieth century. It is
OMBNO 1024-00H. NPS Fomi
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 2 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
not known whether he was involved in the construction ofthe Altadena and Sampson Apartments. The Rudines sold the
south nine rods to Emma Whiting (1861-1919) in 1904. Emma Whiting sold to O. T. Sampson in June 1905. On April
26, 1906, August and Anna Rudine sold the comer property to O. T. Sampson. On May 31, 1906, O. T. Sampson
obtained two Salt Lake City building permits, each for a three-story terrace apartment block of 68 rooms to be built for an
estimated cost of $25,000 at the comer of 300 East and 300 South. No architect or builder was listed on the building
permit. Considering the interests of August Rudine in the property, it is likely he was the builder for the project.^
Octavius T. Sampson (1867-1945) was bom in Comwall, England. He came to the United States in 1895. Octavius
Sampson married Eunice Elgan in Soda Springs, Idaho, in 1899. Eunice Elgan Sampson (1881-1965) was bom in Saint
Clark, Missouri. The couple had two sons, James L. and Octavius T. Jr., bom in Idaho before they moved to Salt Lake
City in 1906. Their oldest son James Louis Sampson died of epilepsy at the age of twenty. Their daughter, Altadena,
was bom in Salt Lake City in 1908. The Altadena Apartments were originally known as Vivian Flats. The name was
changed only a few years after Altadena's birth.
Octavius and Eunice Sampson were members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Sah Lake City. Their decision to
purchase the Rudine property was likely to do its proximity to the large stone meetinghouse at 352 E. 300 South.'' The
congregation had completed building the edifice just a few years previously in 1898. According to oral tradition passed
along by older neighbors, the Sampsons were very prominent in the church and built the apartment blocks so that
members of the congregation could live there.* The 1906 city directory lists Octavius Sampson living at the address 354
E. 300 South, which is either the church building or the brick house next to it.' Newspaper subscribers listed in the Salt
Lake Herald suggest that the apartments were occupied as early as December 1906. By 1907, the Sampsons are living at
310 S. 300 East. The name Sampson Flats is used for both buildings in some sources, but Vivian (later Altadena) had a
separate name by 1907. In the winter of 1907, Octavius and Eunice Sampson were living in the Sampson Flats when a
burglar entered their apartment. The thief was chased off by the upstairs neighbor, S. A. Giffin, who went to get his
revolver.'"
The Sampsons were a relatively prosperous family. Various sources list Octavius Sampson's occupation as an apartment
manger, a sheepman, and a farmer. By the time ofthe 1910 census, the family was living on a farm in south Salt Lake,
but Octavius still gave his occupation as landlord. He is listed as a farmer at 2943 S. 300 East on the 1920 and 1930
census enumerations. In 1930, Octavius T. Jr. was an auto mechanic.
R. E. McConaughy was listed as a builder for other projects he developed. Another possible builder is W. C. A. Vissing (1874-
1936), a Danish immigrant, who was one of the earliest apartment builders in the city. Andy Vissing built the Cluff Apartments
located at 1270-1280 E. 200 South (NRHP 10/20/1989), which has similar architectural detail to the Sampson and Altadena
Apartments.
' The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was listed on the NRHP in 1976, only the second church of that denomination to be listed at the
time. The Richardsonian-Romanesque building was designed by the prominent Salt Lake architect, Walter E. Ware.
* Correspondence of Allison D. Johnson to the First Church of Christ, Scientist, Communications Office located in the files of Emily
Evans. There are no membership records available for the period. A high percentage of early tenants were from the mid-west, but the
transient nature of the occupants makes them difficult to trace.
' The address ofthe house is 360 E. 300 South. The 1907-1908 Salt Lake City Blue Book lists Mr. and Mrs. Octavius C. [sic]
Sampson living at 354 S. 300 East, which is a duplex. Either way, they were living in the area while the apartments were being
constructed.
^'^ Salt Lalie Herald. December 1, 1907.
OMB No 1024.0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 3 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
By the mid-1930s, Octavius and Eunice Sampson moved back into town into the Altadena Apartments as resident-
managers. Octavius T. Sampson died on March 9, 1945. His occupation was listed on his death certificate was
apartment building landlord. Eunice E. Sampson, and her children Octavius T. Sampson, Jr., and Altadena Sampson
Cole, sold the property in October 1945 to the Page Investment Company. She moved to a house on Stratford Avenue
where she lived until her death in July 1965. The Sampsons are interred in Mount Olivet Cemetery.
Items in the local newspapers suggest that the early tenants of the Sampson and Vivian/Altadena buildings were middle
to upper-middle class. The name of the buildings appears in the society columns for parties and other social events. One
resident of the Vivian Flats, J. J. Ott, placed an advertisement for a lost diamond pin, which he lost somewhere between
the Christian Science Church and North Temple." Anonymous Vivian Flats residents placed an advertisement for a
young girl to do housework.'^
The residents of the Altadena Apartments listed on the 1910 census enumeration were all couples between their thirties
and sixties in age. No servants were listed, but one couple had two lodgers living with them. Another couple had two
grown daughters at home and one couple was living with a mother-in-law. With one exception, all ofthe residents were
bom in the Midwest, New York or Colorado. The one immigrant was born in Canada. There were no Utah natives living
in the Altadena in 1910. The occupations listed on the 1910 census include a lawyer/judge, three real estate agents (one
specializing in mining), a clerk in a railroad shop, and two managers (one for an implement company and one for a
saloon). The Ott family was still living in the building in 1910.
On the 1920 census, seven units are listed for the building, so it is likely the basement was added sometime in the mid-
1910s. Three of the households were couples with no children. One couple lived with a mother-in-law. There were
three single heads of household: one lived with a mother, one with a daughter, and one with a daughter and son-in-law.
Although the Altadena units were somewhat smaller than the Sampson, they did accommodate extended family living
arrangements. The residents were older than those found on the 1910 census. The youngest resident was twenty-seven
and the oldest was sixty-three. Five residents were bom in Utah. The rest came from Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Arizona and Canada.
With the exception of the Sampsons, there were no residents who stayed longer than a decade during the historic period,
which was typical for Salt Lake apartments in the first half of the twentieth century. Only five units were listed on the
1930 census enumeration. Eleven of the seventeen residents in 1930 were born in Utah. The others were bom in
Colorado, Arizona, Califomia and Pennsylvania. In contrast to the previous censuses, half of the employed residents
were working women. Their occupations included a dry goods saleslady, a school teacher, a stenographer and two
typists. The men were employed as a miner, a bank clerk, a printer, and a railroad clerk. The youngest resident was
thirteen and the oldest was seventy-five. One household was exceptionally large with a mother, two daughters, and two
female boarders.
After Octavius T. Sampson death in 1945, the Sampson family sold the property to the Page Investment Company in
October 1945.In April 1947, Meredith and Maurine S. Page deeded their interest in the propertj' to Gwynne and Duke
Page. The Page Investment Company owned and managed the property until 1972, when it was sold to Donald B. Hadley
" Salt Lake Herald, January 5, 1907.
^-Salt Lake Herald November 16, 1908.
The deed was transferred from the Sampsons to Riverton Motor Company on October 13, 1945, and then on the same day to the
Page Investment Company.
OMB No 1024.0018 NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 4 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
et al. This period coincided with a general decline in the urban apartment market in downtown Salt Lake City and was
likely when the rear enclosure was made more secure. Subsequent owners of the property include GT Real Estate, and
later Capitol Redevelopment. The buildings were converted to condominiums in 1998 after the declaration of the
Sampson Altadena Condominiums. The conversion and ongoing rehabilitation of the two buildings is part of a general
renaissance in urban living in Salt Lake City, which began in the 1990s. The units currently have multiple owners with
the common areas owned by the Sampson Altadena Homeowners Association.
Salt Lake City Development and the Architecture of the Altadena and Sampson Apartments
On July 24, 1847, a small contingent of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon
Church) entered the Salt Lake Valley under the direction of Brigham Young. On August 2, 1847, a little more than a
week later, the first city survey, known as Plat A, consisting of 135 blocks, was completed. The land was divided into
ten-acre blocks, each containing eight lots of one and one-quarter acres. Streets were 132 wide feet. One house could be
constructed on each lot with a standard setback of twenty feet from the front of the property. The first Sanbom map to
cover Plat A's Block 54 was produced in 1898 and show three adobe dwellings (two single-family and one duplex) at the
comer of 300 South and 300 East. Between the late 1840s and 1900, the population of Salt Lake City had grown from
6,000 to 54,000.
By the time of the 1910 census the population had grown to 92,777. This transformation from agrarian village to a
bustling urban metropolis was spurred by the railroads, which brought an increase in every type of manufacturing and
commerce, as well as an enormous influx of immigrant laborers and their families. The original lots of the each ten-acre
block had been divided and subdivided until most of the Plat A blocks had inner-block streets, courts and places. During
this period there was a great range of architecture in the early neighborhoods. Pioneer settlement adobe and frame hall-
parlors were intermingled with brick and frame Victorian cottages. Multiple-family dwellings first appeared as double
houses, which became popular in the 1890s.
By the tum of the century the city core had developed into an urban commercial district with high-rise office buildings
and multiple streetcar lines. During the first half of the twentieth century, the rapid increase in the city's population
created a demand for housing that was met by two diametrically opposed types of housing: central city apartments and
subdivision homes.''' The city instigated massive urban improvement projects such as water mains, sewage facilities,
electrical lines and telephone service, both in the central city and in the emerging suburbs. Rising land values and urban
congestion made the apartment house a feasible investment for developers. This was noted in a Salt Lake Tribune that
appeared in 1902, just as the first major apartments were being constructed: "It is generally recognized by farseeing
investors that the period of cottages in Salt Lake has reached its highest point and the period of flat buildings, marking
another stage in the evolution from town to city, has just begun."'^
Over 180 apartment buildings, all built by private investors, were constructed in Salt Lake City during the first three
decades of the twentieth century. The emergence of apartment building also presented a practical housing altemative for
those residents who could not (or would not) take advantage the increasing attractive and convenient suburbs. Though,
the vast majority consisted of apartments for the middle class, a few early urban apartments were more luxury units,
including the Altadena and Sampson Apartments. The later period of apartment construction in Salt Lake City, in the
Roger Roper, Salt Lake City Urban Apartments, MPS, 1989.
" Salt Lake Tribune, July 27, 1902: 32. Quoted in MPS.
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 5 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
1920s and 1930s, were primarily large-scale double-loaded corridor apartments that were built for the middle and higher
working classes.
The gradual transformation of some of these buildings into housing for the inner-city poor did not take place until the last
quarter of the twentieth century. In fact, the economic status of the early apartment dwellers was virtually the same as
that of suburban homeowners of the same period, middle and upper-middle class. The major difference between the two
groups was transitory nature of apartment dwellers. Tenants were often in transitional phases of their lives. Common
occupants include newly married or childless couples, widows and widowers, retirees, and working single adults. The
Sampson family and their fellow tenants represent a somewhat higher socio-economic strata than the general
demographic trends for the period, although they were just as transitory.
The Altadena and Sampson, built in 1906, are excellent examples of an early apartment complex built for the
architectural tastes and comforts of the upper-middle class. The Neoclassical architectural detail in the brick and stone
masonry is exceptional. While a few amenities in the two buildings, such as built-in cupboards and exterior porches were
typical for the period, several features were atypically luxurious. A cursory study ofthe 1911 Sanborn maps reveals only
a handful of contemporaneous multi-story apartment blocks with elevators. Although the 1906 open elevator at the rear
of apartments would be considered crude by today's standards, it would have been considered a luxury in its day. The
interior of the original units are particularly striking for their numerous windows. The four and five-room units are
considerably larger than the average turn-of-the-century apartment in Salt Lake City, and the over-sized (by today's
standards) kitchen and bathroom in each unit were particularly commodious. Each unit included one or two built-in
closets, a rare feature in 1906. One indication of the upscale condition of the apartments can be found in a rare
complimentary comment written by an anonymous tax assessor on the December 1936 tax cards for both the Sampson
and Altadena Apartments. On both cards, the assessor wrote "These apts. have been keep in the best of condition.'"'^
The Altadena and Sampson Apartments are two of twenty-five extant examples of walk-up apartments built between
1903 and 1915. Although a few walk-ups were buih after 1915, they lack exterior porches and are stylistically distinct
from the earlier examples. Eighteen of these examples have been classified as Neoclassical or Colonial Revival in style.
The rest were influenced by the Prairie School. The Altadena and Sampson are most similar in style to several apartment
blocks built by W.C.A. Vissing (1874-1936). The closest example is the Cluff Apartments (later Hillview, listed on the
NRHP 10/20/1989). The Cluff has similar porches, but is a much wider building and lacks the distinctive brickwork
found on the Altadena and Sampson buildings. Twin apartment blocks are rare in Salt Lake City. Vissing also built the
dual Princeton and Boulevard Apartments located on the comer of 900 East and 100 South. The Princeton and Boulevard
Apartments feature colossal Ionic columns on the exterior porches (NRHP listed in the Salt Lake Eastside Historic
District, Bryant Neighborhood, 2001).
Vissing also built several blocks for the Covey Investment Company that are Neoclassical in style. The Covey blocks
and those like them are larger in scale, closer to downtown and mostly U-courts. Most did not include the amenities
found in the Altadena and Sampson Apartments. There are numerous smaller apartment blocks located within the Salt
Lake City Avenues Historic District. The Avenues neighborhood has a fairly steep slope and most of the apartment
blocks were more modest in size and had smaller units than the Sampson and Altadena Apartments. The Altadena and
Sampson are particularly well-preserved and most of the typical modifications found on contemporaneous buildings
(porch enclosures and removals, window and door replacements, etc.) have been avoided.
Salt Lake County tax assessor cards, December 18, 1936. It was much more common for the assessor to note deficits such as
crumbling brick or cheap materials.
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 6 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Constructed in 1906, the Altadena Apartments, and its companion, the Sampson Apartments, are two of the many urban
apartments built in Salt Lake City during the first three decades of the twentieth centur>'. This was an unprecedented era
of expansion and urbanization in the city. The period of significance for the Altadena and Sampson Apartments is
between 1906 and 1945, which represents this important era. The upscale amenities designed for the original
construction of the Altadena and Sampson Apartments, just those amenities that were desirable qualities when the
buildings were converted to condominiums in 1989. Urban apartments are significant under Criterion C as an important
residential building type that emerged as Salt Lake City was transformed into an urban center during the early twentieth
centur>\ Both buildings meet the registration requirements and are significant under the Multiple Property
Documentation for the Historic Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban Expansion in the Early Twentieth Century, 1890s-
1930s, also known as the Salt Lake City Urban Apartments MPS.
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 9 Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Bibliography
Carter, Thomas and Peter Goss. Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940, A Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of
Utah Press, 1988.
Evans, Emily. Interviews conducted by author May 2009 to July 2009.
. Research file on the Sampson Altadena Apartments.
Fohlin, E. V. SaU Lake City Past and Present: A Narrative of Its History and Romance, Its People and Cultures, Its
Industry and Commerce, Its Attractions and Grandeurs, Its Bright and Promising Future With Chapters of
Utah's General Resources And Progressiveness. Salt Lake City, Utah: E. V. Fohlin, 1908.
Polk Directories, Salt Lake City, 1900-1993. Published by R.L. Polk & Co. Available at the Utah State Historical
Society and the Marriott Library, University ofUtah.
Roper, Roger V. Historic Resources of Salt Lake City, Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century, 1890s-1930s,
[Salt Lake City Urban Apartments] Multiple Property Documentation Form. Prepared 1989. Available at the
Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
[Salt Lake County Tax Cards]. Available at the Salt Lake County Archives.
[Salt Lake County Title Abstracts]. Available at the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office.
Salt Lake Herald.
Salt Lake Tribune.
[Altadena Apartments, 310 S. 300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah]. Files of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
Sanbom Fire Insurance Maps for Sah Lake City, 1898, 1911, and 1950. Available at the Utah State Historical Society
and the University ofUtah Marriott Library
United States Federal Census Enumerations. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, 1900 to 1930.
Utah Heritage Foundation. "Through the Eyes of Many Faiths.'" Compiled and edited by the members of the Church
Tour Committee of the Utah Heritage Foundation, 1983 & 1990.
[Utah State Historical Society Burials Database]. Available online at Historical Society's website
(www.history.utah.gov).
Altadena Apartments
Name of Property
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property 0.19 acre(s)
Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah
City. County and State
UTM References
(Place additional boundaries ofthe property on a continuation sheet.)
A 1/2 4/2/5/5/6/0 4/5/1/2/5/4/0
B / I I I I I I I I I I I
Zone Easting
C_/_ I I I I I
Zone Easting
Northing
I I I I I I
Northing
Zone Easting
D / I I II I
Zone Easting
Northing
I I I I I I
Northing
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property.)
BEG NE COR LOT 8, BLK 54, PLAT A, SLC SUR; S 111 FT; W 74.25 FT; N 111 FT; E 74.25 FT TO BEG. LESS UNITS 0.19
AC (BEING THE COMMON AREA OF SAMPSON ALTADENA CONDOMINIUM).
Property Tax No. 16-06-184-001 to 16-06-184-018
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
The boundaries are those which were historically associated with the property and which continue to be associated with the property.
•See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 10
11. Form Prepared By
name/title Korral Broschinsky, Preservation Documentation Resource
organization prepared for the Sampson Altadena Homeowners' Association
street & number PO Box 58766
city or town Salt Lake City
date October 1, 2009
telephone 801-913-5645
state UT zip code 84158
Additional Documentation . .... ....
Submit the following items with the completed fonn:
Continuation Sheets
Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs: Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
name/title Multiple Owners / Contact person: Emily Evans, Owner Representative (see Continuation Sheet)
street & number 276 E. 300 South (Broadway Street), #S6 telephone 801-554-0730
city or town Salt Lake City state UT zip code 84111
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 ef seq.;.
Estimated Burden Statement; Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this forni to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service. P O Box 37127, Washington. DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
OMB No 1024-OOH. NPS Fomi
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. Owner Contact Information Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Owners of the Altadena Apartments
VnitU Unit Owner Alternate Address for Non-Occupants
AOl Ian Gascoyne n/a
A02 Candace Dewaal n/a
AOS Melissa Mackie 0308 SW Montgomery #507 AOS Melissa Mackie Portland, OR 97201'
A04 Kevin Emerson n/a
A05 Joanna Marusienski n/a
A06 Jon Wagstaff 4126 Parkview Drive
SLC, UT 84124
A07 Amber Stackhouse n/a
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Fonm
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. PHOTOS Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Common Label Information:
1. Altadena Apartments
2. 310 S. 300 East, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah
3. Photographer: Korral Broschinsky
4. Date: November 2009
5. Digital images on file at Utah SHPO.
Photo No. 1:
6. East elevation of building. Camera facing west.
Photo No. 2:
6. East and north elevations of building. Camera facing southwest.
Photo No. 3:
6. West elevation of building. Camera facing east.
Photo No. 4:
6. West and south elevations of building. Camera facing northeast.
Photo No. 5:
6. Interior, Unit 2, living room and door to porch. Camera facing southeast.
Photo No. 6:
6. East elevation ofbuilding, main level detail. Camera facing southwest.
Photo No. 7:
6. East and south elevations of building. Camera facing northwest.
Photo No. 8:
6. East elevations of Altadena (left) and Sampson (right). Camera facing west.
Photo No. 9:
6. West elevations of Altadena (right) and Sampson (left). Camera facing east.
Photo No. 10:
6. Interior, stairwell and main entrance. Camera facing east. Photo No. 11: 6. Interior, Unit 2, living room and pocket doors. Camera facing west.
OMB No. 1024-001S, NPS Fomi
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. PHOTOS Page 2 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Photo No. 12:
6. Interior, Unit 2, office and pocket doors. Camera facing northeast.
Photo No. 13:
6. Interior, Unit 2, kitchen cabinets. Camera facing northwest
OMB No 1024-0018, NPS Fomi
United States Department ofthe Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. HISTORIC PHOTOS Page 1 Altadena Apartments, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Sampson & Altadena Apartments, photographed August 7, 1907
31
0
S
,
3
0
0
E
a
s
t
Sa
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
,
S
a
l
t
L
a
k
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
U
t
a
h
Al
t
a
d
e
n
a
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
in
CD
O p
(X
H O
o
I o
H o
CO
Tl
SD
0)
IN
)
Q-CD
>
T3 3
13
CD
(D O
0)
0) o
o c 13
O Z
O f
i
)
•
O
c o
>
fi
)
•
•
a: 7
J
O 0
(0
o o
"V
fi
)
o CD
(A
z c
SI 5
. —•
O A
3
Q
.
» S
T
JT (
A
0) o
<D
3 3-
S«! Sol
State ofUtah
GARY R. HERBERT
Governor
GREG BELL
Lieutenant Governor
Department of Community and Culture
PALMER DePAULIS
Executive Director
State History
PHILIP F. NOTARIANNI
Division Director
RECEIVED 2280
DEC 1 8 2009
. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
TO: .. Dr. Janet Matthews, Keeper,
National Register of Historic Places
FROM: Cory Jensen, National Register Coordinator
Utah State Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: National Register Nomination
The following materials are submitted on this l ^ ^ "^ day nf^^:^vJjrO^ , 2009,
for the nomination of the Altadena Apartments " '
to the National Register of Historic Places: w
1 Original National Register of Historic Places nomination form
Multiple Property Nomination form
13 Photograph (s) (archival)
_2 Photograph(s) (supplemental)
J Gold Archival CD-R w/Image Files & Nomination PDF
J Original USGS Map
Sketch map (s)/figure (s)
Pieces of Correspondence
Other
COMMENTS: Please review
5SIATE
For questions please contact Cory Jensen at 801/533-3559, or coryjensen@utah.gov
UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY •
ANTIQUITIES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
RESEARCH CENTER «, COLLECTIONS 300 S. RIO GRANDE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 -1182 • TELEPHONE 801 53J-3.SOO . FACSIMILE 801 533-3503 • HiSTORYUTAH.COV
2. PROJECT
CHRONOLOGY
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
Project Chronology
Petition: PLNHLC2025-00357
April 11, 2025 Petition submitted by the applicant.
May 7, 2025 Petition was deemed complete.
May 7, 2025 Petition assigned to Noah Elmore, Principal Planner.
May 23, 2025 Notice of petition sent to all City-recognized community
organizations.
May 27, 2025 Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House
webpage. Public comment period ended July 23, 2025
June 26, 2025 Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to the website and
emailed to the listserv.
July 3, 2025
Historic Landmark Commission staff report posted to Planning’s
webpage.
July 10, 2025 Historic Landmark Commission meeting and public hearing held. A
positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
July 9, 2025 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the
listserv.
July 16, 2025 Planning Commission staff report posted to Planning’s webpage.
July 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing held. A positive
recommendation was forwarded to the City Council.
August 14, 2025 Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office
August 26, 2025 Ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2024-01357. At the November 13, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to initiate a zoning text
amendment to review the land uses that are subject to, or should be subject to, the 1,000-foot prohibition
from residential zoning districts. The petition also included reviewing whether other land uses should be
subject to the provision and clarifying how the distance is measured. Other related provisions in Title 21A
may also be modified as part of this proposal.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments
regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue
will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of
the public hearing. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 pm
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in -person that
opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451
South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx
connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be
provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the
Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Noah Elmore
at (801) 535-7971 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at
noah.elmore@slc.gov. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by
selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2024-01357.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate
formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,
(801) 535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. ORIGINAL
PETITION
1 November 1, 2024
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Nick.norris@slc.gov or 801-535-6173
Date: November 13, 2024
Re: Petition initiation requested by Planning Commission to modify the provision that
prohibits some land uses from being within 1,000 feet of single and two family
zoning districts.
Petition Initiation
REQUEST:
The commission recently requested that a work session item be placed on an agenda to discuss
broadening the applicability of a regulation that prohibits certain land uses within 1,000 feet of
single- and two-family zoning districts. The request proposed expanding the 1,000-foot
prohibition to any residential zoning district. The purpose of this request is to protect the health
and safety of residents living in other zoning districts, not just those who live in a single- or two-
family district.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Division recommends that the commission initiate a petition that would potentially
expand the regulation that prohibits some land uses that are detrimental to the health and safety
of residents from being located within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district to apply
to other residential zoning districts where people live. The following motion may be considered
by the commission:
“I move that the commission initiate a text amendment to review the land uses that are
subject to, or should be subject to, the 1,000-foot spacing requirement from residential
zoning districts. The initiation may include reviewing other land uses that should have
the provision applied, clarifying whether the distance applies to the property or the
boundaries of a use, and other related provisions that may help protect the health and
safety of city residents.”
ATTACHMENTS:
A. ATTACHMENT A: Maps of areas impacted by the 1,000-foot spacing requirement
2 November 1, 2024
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning Commission recently asked the Planning Division to provide some background
information on a potential text amendment related to the spacing requirements between some land
uses and single- or two-family residential zoning districts. Specifically, the commission asked if that
wording should be changed so the spacing requirement would apply more equitably to all residential
zoning districts and not just the single- and two-family zoning districts. The commission also asked
about clarifying how the measurement is applied so the spacing applied if any portion of the property
is within 1,000 feet.
The purpose of the footnote is to prohibit land uses that generate noise, odor, pollution and other
impacts that negatively impact the health and/or safety of people who live near such uses.
The allowed land uses in each zoning district are listed in tables found in 21A.33. The uses listed are
shown as either permitted or conditional. If the table does not indicate that the use is permitted or
conditional, then the use is considered prohibited. Some land uses in some zoning districts include
footnotes that typically further restrict a specific land use under specific circumstances. One of the
footnotes found in the land use tables reads “Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family
Zoning District.” A sample of the uses that this footnote applies are in the table below.
Zoning
Districts
Permitted or
Conditional
M-2, P
The table indicates that most of the land uses with this provision are in the M-1 Light Manufacturing
Zoning District and the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Zoning District. Some of the uses are also in the CG
General Commercial Zoning District or the EI Extractive Industry Zoning District. If the commission
initiates a petition, a more thorough review of the land use tables will identify all land uses that are
subject, or should be subject, to the footnote provision.
3 November 1, 2024
All but two of the other land uses with the provision are in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. Attachment
A includes maps that show portions of the M-1, M-2, and EI zoning districts that are within 1,000-feet
of a residential zoning district. The maps show that the land impacted by the 1,000-foot buffer are all
in the Capitol Hill, Northwest, and Westside Planning Communities. The maps show single- and two-
family zoning districts in yellow and all other residential districts in orange. The A-Agriculture zones
are included as well because they allow single family dwellings on large lots. The intent of separating
out the zoning districts is to demonstrate how the provision currently applies (residential shown in
yellow on the maps) and how it may apply if modified to apply to all residential districts.
The “Theater, Live Performance” land use was recently reviewed by the Planning Commission because
the City Council initiated a text change to expand where this use is allowed. That land use would not be
considered as part of this initiation as a result.
There are likely other land uses within the land use table that create pollution and other health or safety
impacts where this provision may be appropriate. As part of the review, the land use tables will be
analyzed in more detail to identify the uses that create health and safety impacts to determine if the
uses should be subject to the proposal. The analysis will also review the land use tables that are part of
the zoning consolidation project. It is possible that the footnote may be applied to other zoning districts,
be modified as well, or additional footnotes added based on the analysis.
APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY
The commission has the authority to initiate a zoning amendment. To do so, the action must be
advertised on the agenda with at least 24 hours public notice, a commissioner must make a
motion to initiate the amendment, and then a majority of the commissioners present must vote
to initiate the petition.
If an amendment is approved, the Planning Division will research the relevant changes, draft the
proposed changes, check in with the commission to ensure the changes are consistent with what
the commission intends, and then start the public engagement process. The desired output of the
process is to update the code to protect health and safety by limiting how close some impactful
land uses are to where people live and to do so as quickly as possible to limit the possibility of the
identified uses being established.
4 November 1, 2024
ATTACHMENT A: Maps of areas impacted by
the 1,000-foot spacing
requirement
5 November 1, 2024
6 November 1, 2024
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Kate Werrett
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:September 16, 2025
RE:Avenues Community Plan Update
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Planning Department is in the early stages of the Avenues Community Area Plan update. At this time, the
existing conditions portion of the plan is drafted and community engagement has begun. Planning is seeking
Council policy input and direction on focus elements to include in the plan update.
Goal of the briefing: Receive the draft existing conditions report, review the Engagement Timeline, and
provide policy feedback on key plan element updates. At this stage, no action or public hearing is required.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Resolution 14 of 2020 acknowledges City Council’s legislative duty to “adopt policies and ordinances to address
the present and future needs of the city and to guide growth and development within the city”. The resolution
outlines the request that plans be brought to City Council at the early stages so that early input and feedback can
be provided. At this stage of the plan updates, Resolution 14 of 2020 provides details on the City Council’s role:
- Receive existing conditions report and written executive summary of deliverables
- Review calendar and framing document
- Support public engagement process
This early briefing provides the City Council the opportunity to express concerns and ideas relevant to the
Avenues Community Area Plan. This early update provides details on the proposed scope of work, timeline, and
any potential barriers in the process. Planning staff is seeking City Council input, ideas, suggested stakeholders,
and concerns on key plan updates such as the public engagement process.
The Avenues Existing Conditions Report is available on the Avenues Community Plan Update Project Page.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the updated plan will balance housing needs in the
broader community with community and neighborhood character and historic preservation.
Page | 2
2. What large City budgetary items are anticipated to be included in the Avenues Community Plan, and will
the plan indicate that those budgetary items may need to be implemented in context with overall City
budget needs?
3. What significant changes may arise in the upcoming plan (LDS Hospital redevelopment, street changes,
zoning modifications (housing, mixed use), new multi-modal options, etc)?
4. How will the plan address the foothill open space and access? How will it support/collaborate with the
Foothills Trail Master Plan?
ATTACHMENTS
1.Informational Administrative Transmittal: Avenues Community Plan Update
2.Resolution 14 of 2020: Declaring City Council Policy and Objectives for Preparing Master Plans
3.Avenues Community Plan Update Project Page
4.Avenues Existing Conditions Report
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council -September 16th, 2025
AVENUES COMMUNITY
PLAN UPDATE //
WORK SESSION
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•Update the City Council early in the process
•Scope of the project
•Existing conditions highlights
•Highlights from initial engagement
•Next steps
•Comments and feedback from the Council
PURPOSE OF BRIEFING
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PURPOSE & NEED
•Oldest Community Plan (1987)
•Align with Citywide Plans
•Create a vision for the next 10 years
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
COMMUNITY PLANSELEMENT PLANSCITYWIDE PLAN
Zoning
Infrastructure
Improvements
Private
Development
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
WE ARE HERE
PROCESS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
REPORT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PLAN AREA
The plan area is approximately 4.75 square miles or 3,063 acres in size.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DEMOGRAPHICS
$-
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
1148.00 1010.00 1011.02 1011.01 1012.00
Median Income
Salt Lake City
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Salt Lake
City
1148.00 1010.00 1011.02 1011.01 1012.00
Rent or Own
Rent Own
1148.00
1010.00
1011.02
1011.02
1012.00
16,610
Residents
(8% of city’s population)
8,252
Households
(9% of city’s households)
22%
Non-White Population
(35% citywide)
18%
Retired Age Population
(12% citywide)
68%
Population with a Degree
(51% citywide)
ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019-2023
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
DEVELOPMENT PERIODS
Nearly 50% of buildings
were constructed before
1920
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Structures Built by Decade
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
• National Register District
• Local Historic Districts
• 45 Individually Listed Sites
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
LAND USE + ZONING
52%Open Space + Public Lands
45%Residential
1%Residential Mixed-Use
1%Institutional
1%Commercial
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
HOUSING
14% Townhomes &
Condos
39% Apartments
42% Single-Family
Housing Types and % of Units
5% Duplexes &
Single-Family w/ADU
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Map
Number Name Park Type Size
(acre)
1 Shields Park Mini 0.1
2 Kay Ress Park Mini 0.7
3 11th Ave Park Community 14.3
4 Lindsey Gardens Neighborhood 18.7
5 Popperton Park Neighborhood 7.9
6 Memory Grove Community 11.3
7 Kletting Park Mini 0.2
8 5th Ave & C Street Pickleball Mini 0.4
9 Shipp Park Mini 0.1
10 Salt Lake City Cemetery Cemetery 120
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9
10
100% of households are within a 15-minute walk of a park, trailhead, or the cemetery.
PARKS + OPEN SPACE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
TRANSPORTATION
Daily Traffic Volumes
•South Temple
•11th, 3rd, & 2nd Ave
•B, E, I, & Virginia Street
Existing Bus Routes + Frequency
•9th Ave & South Temple (FSN 6am-7pm M-Sa)
•11th & Virginia St (every 60 min)
•3rd Ave (every 60 min)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
Opportunities & Issues
(Spring - Summer 2025)
•Present Existing Conditions
•Stakeholder interviews
•Online survey & open
house
•In-Person Outreach Events
Big Ideas
(Summer-Fall 2025)
•Council & Commission
Work Sessions
•Share Initial Engagement
Results
•Get feedback on common
themes and draft
initiatives
Final Vision
(Fall 2025 – Spring 2026)
•Get feedback on final
draft plan
•Community meetings
•Online open house
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
•6 in-person events
•Stakeholder interviews
•Online open house
•Online survey
Over 200 surveys have
been taken!
OUTREACH SUMMARY
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
VALUES & OPPORTUNITIES
Important Issues:
Housing
Transportation
Neighborhood Serving Businesses
95% of participants rated quality
of life in the Avenues good or
very good
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
HOUSING
Love the historic character & architectural variety
Most popular strategies for adding housing:
o Adaptive re-use
o Mixed-use
o Infill development/allowing different housing types in certain areas
Preferred infill development types:
-Duplex
-Townhome
-Small Single Family
-Triplex
-Small-scale multi-family (4-9 units)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
TRANSPORTATION
Important Issues:
-Speeding and unsafe intersections
-Bike infrastructure
-Pedestrian safety
-Public transit frequency
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PRESERVATION
Requirements of the Historic Preservation Overlay
•Have helped the neighborhood retain what many people
love about the avenues
•Flexibility when it comes to repairs or updates
•Some uncertainty about requirements/consistency
•New construction
Other Preservation Related Feedback
•City Cemetery
•Preservation incorporated into placemaking /
beautification elements
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PARKS
•Maintenance/upkeep
•Shade
•Lighting
•Play structures/splash pad
•Gathering areas
•Restrooms & drinking fountains
•Community gardens
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
Desired Uses:
•Cafés and restaurants
•Retail
•Recreation center
•Entertainment
Preferred Locations:
•Spread out within the Avenues
•Corner properties
•Clustered near other commercial
development
•Specific streets - 3rd Avenue and E Street
most popular choices
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
NEXT STEPS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
OPPORTUNITIES & ISSUES
(Spring - Summer 2025)
•Present Existing Conditions
•Stakeholder interviews
•Online survey & open house
•In-Person Outreach Events
BIG IDEAS
(Summer-Fall 2025)
•Council & Commission Work
Sessions
•Share Initial Results
•Get feedback on common themes
and draft initiatives
FINAL VISION
(Fall 2025 – Spring 2026)
•Get feedback on final draft plan
•Community meetings
•Online open house
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Amy Thompson //
Planning Manager
amy.thompson@slc.gov
Rylee Hall //
Principal Planner
rylee.hall@slc.gov
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
07/31/2025
Date Sent to Council:
08/07/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Amy Thompson
E-mail
amy.thompson@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
08/06/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
08/07/2025
Subject:
City Council Informational Memo - Avenues Community Plan Update
Additional Staff Contact:
Rylee Hall, rylee.hall@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Amy Thompson, Rylee Hall
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
This is an informational transmittal to the City Council regarding an update to the Avenues Community Plan
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
There is no public process required for this item, as it's only intended to provide information to the City Council and give them a chance to provide feedback to Planning Staff early in the plan update process.
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In accordance with Resolution 14 of 2020 the Planning Division is providing this informational
transmittal for the City Council regarding an update to the Avenues Community Plan. The resolution
indicates that the City Council should be updated early in the process so there is an understanding of
the scope of work, project timeline, and any barriers that may impact the process. Additionally, this is
an opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders,
and provide other information that may help the project.
The Avenues Community is in the northeastern area of the city, situated between City Creek to the
west, the University of Utah and East Bench to the East, and Downtown and Central City to the
south. The plan area is approximately 4.75 square miles or 3,063 acres in size.
Avenues Community Plan Boundary
Purpose and Need
The plan currently in place for the Avenues was adopted in 1987 and is the oldest Neighborhood
Plan in the city. As a result of its age, it doesn’t address some of the current city goals and policies
found in citywide plans, such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC. The main purpose of the update
is to establish a vision for the Avenues Community for the next 10 years and align the Avenues
Community Plan with Plan Salt Lake. The housing issues facing the community and the city have
changed dramatically since the Avenues Plan was last updated, and the 1987 plan provides little
opportunity for growth, includes outdated policies related to housing that do not align with current
housing needs in the city, and existing policies do not adequately support neighborhood serving
businesses.
The intent is to develop a plan that is focused on land use, links the land use policies with other
plans such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC, various transportation plans, and Reimagine
Nature, and identifies key action items to implement the land use plan. The Planning Division
envisions a plan that is easy to use, direct, can be implemented, includes metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of the plan, and set up to be updated on a more frequent basis instead of taking
decades.
Planning Process and Timeline
The overall planning process is anticipated to take approximately 8 months. The project team will
engage other city departments as well as public agency representatives throughout the process for
input on the existing conditions and guidance on other plan deliverables as the plan is developed.
Spring/ Summer 2025
• Existing Conditions Report: The team compiled an Existing Conditions Report that is
accessible from the Avenues Community Plan Update project page. The report can be
viewed here: Avenues Existing Conditions Report.
• Initial Community Engagement: The team kicked off the initial public engagement effort
by presenting key findings from the Existing Conditions Report to the community to enable
ongoing conversations and gather feedback that will inform the Avenues Plan Update.
o Stakeholder Interviews: This involves technical interviews with representatives
of City departments, associated agencies, and interviews with property owners,
residents, business owners, developers, and other public stakeholders to help
inform the plan’s development. These interviews are ongoing.
o Community Outreach: The team has been engaging with the community in-
person by holding several outreach events at various locations throughout the
neighborhood. These outreach events include information about the process as well
as interactive posters as a means for residents to share their opinions. The team has
also published an online survey that is available through August 1, 2025, to collect
feedback on specific topics. A report summarizing the feedback received from the
in-person events and the online survey will be published on the project website.
o University of Utah College of Architecture and Planning: Students enrolled in
the college of Architecture and Planning focused on updating the Avenues
Community Plan during Spring Semester 2025. The class developed their own
analysis of the existing plan, engaged the community, and identified
recommendations for a new Avenues Plan. This effort is being used to inform the
update that the Planning Division is working on.
• Analysis: The team will compile all feedback gathered during the initial community
engagement and analyze how it aligns with existing community conditions and relevant
citywide policies. From this, common themes will be identified to inform the development
of goals and policies that will shape the updated plan. Some preliminary themes have begun
to emerge from these efforts, summarized below:
o Many residents note the lack of retail and neighborhood businesses as an issue.
There is strong support for more dispersed commercial development throughout the
Avenues.
o Housing affordability and scarcity are common concerns from both in-person
engagement events and the survey. Mixed-use development, adaptive re-use of
non-residential buildings, maximizing development potential of existing lots, and
allowing a mix of housing types are the preferred strategies to increase housing
stock in the neighborhood. When asked about infill housing, small multi-family,
single family homes on small lots, and rowhomes were the most popular responses.
o Residents are concerned about the compatibility of new development in their
community. A vocal minority want the current amount of housing in the Avenues
neighborhood to remain unchanged.
o Overall, neighborhood residents greatly value the eclectic mix of housing,
walkability, sense of community, and easy access to parks and natural lands.
o Speeding and intersection safety, for both drivers and pedestrians, are a top concern.
o A majority of residents want improved bus services and routes, especially to the
University of Utah.
Summer/Fall 2025
• Draft Plan & Outreach: During this phase, the team will draft a plan with two overarching
goals in mind: (1) align the updated plan with city wide initiatives, and (2) incorporate the
wants and needs from the community engagement into a plan that will guide development
in the Avenues for the next 10 years. The draft plan will be shared online for public
feedback and through other venues that are to be determined.
Winter 2025-26/Spring 2026
• Planning Commission/City Council The team will present the final draft plan to the
Planning Commission and City Council. These meetings will include public hearings
which is another opportunity for the public to provide additional input.
Project Management Team
• Nick Norris, Planning Director
• Michaela Bell, Deputy Planning Director
• Amy Thompson, Planning Manager
• Rylee Hall, Principal Planner
Anticipated project deliverables include:
• Draft and final community plan
• Draft and final zoning regulations, if applicable (to follow plan adoption)
The project team will meet regularly throughout the planning process. Additionally, the Planning
Division will provide periodic updates to the City Council in accordance with Resolution 14 of
2020,
Risks
All planning projects have some degree of risk that may result in a longer timeline or require
additional resources. These risks, include:
• Needing to modify engagement activities to achieve equity.
• Conflicts in public input that require additional time to find consensus.
• Opposition to the draft plan.
• Time to coordinate with neighboring and overlapping government agencies.
• A change in priorities that require assigning staff to other projects.
• An increase in development applications that require shifting staff resources.
The Project workplan will adjust as needed to respond to these risks as they arise. Most of the risks
can be addressed can be addressed utilizing existing staff and deferring to other existing plans or
engagement results without any additional budget resources.
EXHIBITS
1) Avenues Existing Conditions Report
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
DATE:September 16, 2025
RE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING TITLE AND
DESCRIPTION
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
BACKGROUND
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Item Schedule:
Page | 3
REDLINED CFS SCHEDULE
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
08/28/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/03/2025
From:
Department *
Public Utilities
Employee Name:
Jorgensen, Jacob
E-mail
jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
08/28/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/02/2025
Subject:
CFS Correction - Missing Title and Description
Additional Staff Contact:
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.govJacob Jorgensen - jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
Approximately $740,237 in uncollected revenue that was budgeted for and rates set to collect.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" which was inadvertently left off of one of the rate tables in the CFS. The title "fire lines" was included in the original submission to the City Council and the rates are being applied the same as they have been historically, which is per inch size of the connection since 1981. This was updated as part of the comprehensive rate study for Water.
Background/Discussion
These rates were presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm) and has always been charged per inch size of the connection.since t change the way the rate is applied and the rate study simply updated the cost of service to establish the new rate amount.
The rate table itself is published in the CFS, however, without the title and description customers are unaware that it applies to fire lines. This is what we would like to have corrected to avoid any confusion from the customers and correct this error in the published CFS.
I have included as attachments the updated redlined CFS and the final rates published from the Water Rate Study.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This was presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm). Legal has reviewed this and the rate is allowable and part of this correction could have been done using "scrivener's error" since the title "Fire Lines" was in the redlined CFS. However, since the description was left off of how the rate is applied, we are correcting both parts through this process of City Council approval of a CFS change.
This page has intentionally been left blank
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount per inch
City County
2 inch $0.84 $1.13 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 $2.27 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 $3.54 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 $7.06 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 $11.31 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 $16.25 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 $23.85 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
This page has intentionally been left blank
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$22.48
1"$28.57
1.5"$43.66
2"$61.85
3"$110.40
4"$164.95
6"$316.43
8"$498.28
10"$710.49
12"$1,036.26
Fire Lines per inch
2"$0.84
3"$1.68
4"$2.62
6"$5.23
8"$8.38
10"$12.04
12"$17.67
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$2.84
$3.49
$4.46
$4.92
Non-Residential
Summer $3.53
Winter $2.18
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $3.35
Winter $2.18
Irrigation
Up to target budget $2.93
$4.09
Over 300% of target $4.30
County Rates - Monthly
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$30.35
1"$38.57
1.5"$58.94
2"$83.50
3"$149.04
4"$222.69
6"$427.18
8"$672.67
10"$959.16
12"$1,398.95
Fire Lines per inch
2"$1.13
3"$2.27
4"$3.54
6"$7.06
8"$11.31
10"$16.25
12"$23.85
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$3.83
$4.71
$6.02
$6.64
Non-Residential
Summer $4.77
Winter $2.94
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $4.52
Winter $2.94
Irrigation
Up to target budget $3.96
$5.52
$5.81
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to certain fire line fees.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date: _______9/3/2025___________
This page has intentionally been left blank
City Council Announcements
For Your Information:
A.Westside Council Meeting
A reminder that the October 7th Council work session and formal meeting will be
held off-site at the Sorensen Unity Center on the Westside.
Please note that this meeting will be in person only. There will be no virtual
participation option for presenters or the public.
Formal Complaint Regarding Sewer Charge
Increases for Multi-Unit Residential
Buildings
Letter to City Council and Department of Public Utilities
To the Honorable Members of the City Council and the Department of Public Utilities,
We are writing to express our deep concern and lodge a formal complaint regarding the
recent increase in sewer charges applied to multi -unit residential buildings, specifically
those comprised of four units and up. As investors, property owners and community
advocates, we find this new rate structure not only inequitable but also detrimental to the
residents whom these buildings serve. The classification and resulting charges, which now
reflect the full commercial rate, raise significant issues of fairness, accur acy, and
community impact.
Disproportionate Classification of Sewer Use
It has come to our attention that the new sewer charges for multi -unit residences are being
calculated as the full commercial rate. This rate structure is designed for buildings with
intensive sewer and restroom use throughout the day, such as office complexes, retail
centers, and restaurants. However, the multi -unit buildings in question are small-scale
residential properties —such as four-plexes and similar developments—whose usage
patterns are fundamentally different from commercial enterprises.
A typical four-unit residential building, used primarily as housing, does not operate on the
same schedule or volume of sewer use as a commercial property. In fact, these residences
often have periods of low occupancy, limited communal activity, and predic table usage
patterns consistent with private dwellings. To apply a charge that assumes round -the-clock
restroom and sewer demand is to misrepresent both the nature and impact of these
buildings in our community.
Attachment 2 - Page 1
Residential Use vs. Commercial Use: A Fundamental
Distinction
We urge the council and the utilities department to recognize the essential distinction
between residential and commercial use. While both may consist of multiple units, their
respective functions, occupancy rates, and overall impact on public utilities are distinctly
different.
•Residential buildings such as four-plexes are homes. They do not generate the level
of sewer and water use typical of businesses where employees, clients, and the
public use facilities continuously throughout the day.
•Commercial buildings, by contrast, are designed and operated for high -throughput
activities, with restroom facilities often in constant use and utility systems taxed
accordingly.
To categorize a four-unit residence as a commercial enterprise, for the purposes of billing,
ignores the lived reality of these spaces and imposes undue financial hardship.
Impact on Residents: University Students and Affordability
The residents of these multi-unit buildings are overwhelmingly university students and
individuals seeking affordable housing options. These clients are uniquely vulnerable to
increases in utility costs. Unlike commercial tenants, who may pass costs on to customers
or offset them through business activity, university students live on fixed and often modest
budgets. Many juggle academic commitments with part-time work, and a sudden hike in
living expenses—such as a jump in sewer charges —can jeopardize their ability to remain
housed.
•Students already face rising tuition, fees, and textbook prices.
•Affordable housing near campus is increasingly scarce.
•Unexpected utility increases threaten their financial stability and educational
success.
The current rate structure has placed many of these residents at risk of displacement, as
landlords and property managers are compelled to raise rents or reduce services to absorb
the costs. This, in turn, affects the socioeconomic fabric of our city, wher e diversity and
educational opportunity are supposed to be priorities.
Attachment 2 - Page 2