Transmittal - 3/30/2022ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
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
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 25, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, 385-226-7227
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning text
amendment for the reconstruction of historic carriage houses for the purposes of creating an
additional dwelling unit. Since the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation
on this proposed text amendment, an ordinance has not been provided for this transmittal. If the
City Council wishes to approve the proposal, the applicant will be required to draft adoptable
language so that an ordinance can be drafted for City Council approval.
BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is unknown because the applicant has yet to identity
an application process for a carriage house reconstruction. It is unknown if a future identified
application would off-set staff time associated with a review of a carriage house reconstruction.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, in order to reconstruct or restore the
remains of a historic carriage house on his property. Through working with Planning on potential
options to create an additional dwelling unit in a reconstructed version of the historic carriage
house, several zoning barriers were identified. The barriers are described in detail within the staff
report. In order to address the goals and desires of reconstructing a historic carriage house at 222
E. 4
th Ave, the applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application.
Lisa Shaffer 04/29/2022
04/30/2022
Aerial of Subject Property
Photograph of Subject Carriage House, 2017
The submitted text amendment language specifies the eligibility criteria for a potential carriage
house reconstruction as a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and as a
Salt Lake City Landmark Site, also located in the following zoning districts:
• SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential)
• RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
• RO (Residential Office)
• I (Institutional)
This specific criteria language limits the applicability to 5 properties citywide, which include the
following: 222 E. 4th Avenue, 259 E. 7th Avenue, 529 E. South Temple, 603 E. South Temple
and 1206 W. 200 S. The applicant didn’t specify a clear process for review or an application. The
language does allude to a review by the Historic Landmark Commission but isn’t clear on the
process. The standards and criteria provided by the applicant require evidence of the carriage
house, parking requirements, prohibition of any future subdivision of the property, no
requirement for an owner occupancy, and flexibility of zoning regulations of accessory structures
and density limitations in the applicable base zoning restrictions.
The provided text amendment language is missing key sections that lack clarification on
authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application. Staff attempted to
address the concerns with the proposed language with the applicant several times. Staff
ultimately forwarded the language to the Historic Landmark Commission for input and direction.
The Historic Landmark Commission discussed the proposal during a hearing on July 16, 2020,
and unanimously decided to forward a negative recommendation to Planning Commission. After
the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant did not address the identified issues identified
by staff or the items discussed during the Historic Landmark Commission hearing. The applicant
requested to continue the text amendment to Planning Commission. Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the proposed text amendment on February 23, 2022. The Planning
Commission unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation on the proposal.
As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff acknowledges that there are several
adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation, many of
which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning
regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy
statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for
increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to
further historic preservation goals. With this in mind, staff attempted to work with the applicant
prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction.
Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s
concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea
behind providing flexibility to landmark sites and eligible properties within local historic districts
is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies within several planning documents.
However, the proposed language provided by the applicant does not provide a framework in
which to administer approvals or review requests.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The application was submitted on February 6, 2020.
• The application assigned to Kelsey Lindquist on February 7, 2020.
• An Online Open House was held during April 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020.
• Staff received public comments via email and comments provided direction to the
applicant. Staff included these comments within the staff report for both the Historic
Landmark Commission and Planning Commission.
• On July 16, 2020, the Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and
unanimously forwarded a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
• On February 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) Records
a) HLC Agenda of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
b) HLC Minutes of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access)
c) HLC Staff Report of July 16, 2020 (Click to Access Report)
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020
a) Mailed and Posted Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda/Minutes
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – July 16, 2020
a) Staff Report
b) Agenda/Minutes
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING
a) MAILED NOTICE
b) STAFF REPORT
c) AGENDA/MINUTES
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING
a) STAFF REPORT
b) AGENDA/MINUTES
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
6) MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2020-00106
February 6, 2020 Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue submits text
amendment application.
February 7, 2020 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Planning Manager, for staff
analysis and processing.
March 9, 2020 Petition reviewed internally, staff provided comments to applicant.
April 8, 2020 Notice mailed to properties within 300 feet of identified properties
April 1, 2020 Application posted for online open house.
May 15, 2020 End of online open house.
July 2, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to
list serve recipients.
July 9, 2020 Staff report posted to Planning’s website.
July 16, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing.
February 11, 2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to website and emailed to list serve
recipients.
February 11, 2022 Notice of public hearing provided to the 5 eligible properties.
February 23, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00106 Carriage House
Reconstruction – On behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner of 222 E. 4th Avenue, is requesting
a text amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic
carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or
height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City
Landmark and list as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following
zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office),
I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential).
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:
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
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 Kelsey
Lindquist at 385-226-7227 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number
PLNPCM200-00106.
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.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
a) Mailing Notice
February 11, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
b) Staff Report
February 23, 2022
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930
Date: February 17, 2022
Re: PLNPCM2020-00106 Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
MASTER PLAN: Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and The
Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35, RO, I, SR-1A
REQUEST: The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition
from Stephen Pace, to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit located within the
reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would not be required to meet density, lot
coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district or the accessory structure footprint
or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt
Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in
one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential),
RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential).
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for
zoning text amendment, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Vicinity Map
B.Applicant’s Proposed Code
C.Applicant’s Narrative
D.Eligible Properties
E.City Plan Considerations
F.Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards
G.Public Process and Comments
PLNPCM2020-00106 1 February 16, 2022
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING
Staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on July 16, 2020 to gain feedback and direction on the
proposed language. To watch the full discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission meeting can be viewed
via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNg7TG8fSOc&t=11s. Ultimately, the briefing
resulted in the HLC forwarding a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission with the following
motion (language pulled from HLC minutes):
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the HLC
forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density on the
property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development on
properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of circumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges the
Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance or RMF-35
Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing and applies to
the City more broadly as a whole.
BACKGROUND OF THE REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENT:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 E. 4th Avenue and 181 N. B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to provide an incentive to reconstruct or restore
the remains of a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Planning on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 E. 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 February 16, 2022
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
Photo of Subject Carriage House, 2018
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 February 16, 2022
The applicant has approached the City with the intent of rebuilding the remains of a carriage house on the
property located at 222 E. 4th Avenue, in order to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City
zoning regulations do not allow the reconstruction due to building location regulations, minimum lot width
and minimum lot areas for the applicable zoning district. The Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations would
also prohibit the applicant’s proposal to reconstruct a carriage house as a dwelling unit on the property. The
following provides a summary of these barriers:
1. The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered a
single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a. All principal structures required to have frontage on a public street (21A.36.010.B) must be
located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be located in back of the existing
principal structure on the property.
b. The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling (21A.24.130.C), so 10,000 square feet would be required for two
single-family dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet which does not meet the
minimum size requirement.
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations (21A.24.130) due
to its close proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephen Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
Staff acknowledges that the barriers to achieving the goals of restoring the carriage house prohibit the
applicant from introducing an additional dwelling unit on the property. The proposed text amendment is
essentially site specific in order to permit the construction of an additional single-family dwelling on the
property. The proposed language will not offer or introduce an overall solution to other contributing
structures within a local or national historic district.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in a
reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance language.
Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, if they addressed staff’s recommendations, could be
incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s
proposal is in Attachment B.
To better organize and summarize the proposal, Staff attempted to categorize the provided language into
the standard ordinance format (see below).
Purpose Statement: No purpose statement provided by the applicant.
Definitions
• CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
Applicability
• For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 February 16, 2022
• The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
• There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o Historic photographs
o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
o Planning, zoning or building permit records.
o Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
• A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
• A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
• Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
• The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
• If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
• The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
• The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
• The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
• Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. City Goals Regarding Historic Preservation
Staff acknowledges that there are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for
historic preservation, many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting
flexible zoning regulations that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites.
Policy statements and goals in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan
and Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan, include encouraging and supportive statements for increasing
housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as well as creating tools to further incentivize historic
preservation for many of the historic property owners within the City. With that said, Staff was originally
supportive of the concept of introducing zoning flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring
existing structures and introducing additional housing stock. With this in mind, staff attempted to work
with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and
assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff recommendations or direction. Additionally, the
applicant has not been amenable to the Historic Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the
specific reasoning for the negative recommendation. The idea behind providing flexibility to landmark sites
and eligible properties within local historic districts is generally in line with the adopted plans and policies
within several planning documents (see Attachment E). However, the proposed language provided by the
applicant does not provide a framework in which to administer approvals or review requests. Additionally,
the language is essentially site-specific.
2. Rational for Negative Recommendation
Planning Staff has identified the following specific issues regarding the proposed language:
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 February 16, 2022
1. As proposed, the language would affect only one property by providing some allowance for the
applicant to construct a second single-family dwelling on the site. However, as an amendment
to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Staff takes into consideration the limiting impact the
proposal would have on incentivizing historic preservation in Salt Lake City. Staff
acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site
specific for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Even though the applicant indicates
that there are 5 properties that could potentially qualify for the allowance, many of those
properties already have secondary dwelling units or are owned by entities uninterested in
pursuing this allowance.
2. As is, the language is unenforceable. This means that without clear language and a framework
to review proposals for a reconstruction of a historic carriage house, there could be very few
limitations. While the applicant provides a suggestion to have the Historic Landmark
Commission review the proposed reconstruction, it doesn’t provide clear framework for such
review.
3. The proposed language doesn’t provide a way to administer the allowance of how an applicant
would apply to reconstruct a historic carriage house.
4. The language does not account for how any potential impacts to abutting and adjacent
properties would be mitigated.
5. Overall, the proposed amendment is missing crucial language for Staff, Planning Commission
and City Council to take the proposal under consideration.
NEXT STEPS:
The Historic Landmark Commission provided a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission
and City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, due to the noted negative
recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission and the issues noted with the proposed language.
Once a recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, the recommendation will be
transmitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is not a final decision; thus,
it is not appealable by the applicant. The City Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning
amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 9 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 8 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 9 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 11 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 10 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 12 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 11 February 16, 2022
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 12 February 16, 2022
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 13 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 14 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 15 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 16 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 17 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 18 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 19 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 20 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 21 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 22 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 23 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 24 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 25 February 16, 2022
Links included in applicant's narrative: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/HLC/2020/07%20July%202020/00106StaffReport.pdf http://
utahcfa.org/architect/richard_karl_kletting
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 26 February 16, 2022
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 27 February 16, 2022
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 28 February 16, 2022
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 29 February 16, 2022
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 30 February 16, 2022
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 31 February 16, 2022
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 32 February 16, 2022
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 33 February 16, 2022
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 34 February 16, 2022
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 35 February 16, 2022
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 36 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 38 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 37 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 39 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 38 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 40 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 39 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 41 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 40 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 42 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 41 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 43 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 42 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 44 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 43 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 45 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 44 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 46 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 45 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 47 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 46 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 48 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 47 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 49 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 48 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-0010650July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-0010649February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 51 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 50 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 52 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 51 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 53 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 52 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 54 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 53 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 55 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 54 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 56 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 55 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 57 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 56 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-0010658July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-0010657February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 59 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 58 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 60 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 59 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 61 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 60 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-0010662July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-0010661February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-0010663July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-0010662February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 64 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 63 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 65 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 64 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 66 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 65 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 67 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 66 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 68 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 67 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 69 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 68 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 70 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 69 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 71 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 70 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 72 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 71 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 73 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 72 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 74 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 73 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 75 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 74 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 76 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 75 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 76 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 78 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 77 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 79 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 78 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 80 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 79 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 81 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 80 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 82 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 81 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 83 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 82 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 84 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 83 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 85 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 84 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 86 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 85 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 87 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 86 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 88 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 87 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 89 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 88 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 90 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 89 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 91 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 90 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 92 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 91 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 93 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 92 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 94 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 93 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 95 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 94 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 96 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 95 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 97 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 96 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 97 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 99 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 98 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 100 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 99 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 101 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 100 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 102 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 101 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 103 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 102 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 104 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 103 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 105 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 104 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 106 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 105 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 107 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 106 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 108 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 107 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106109July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106108February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106110July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106109February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106111July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106110February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106112July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106111February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 113 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 112 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106114July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106113February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 115 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 114 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106116July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106115February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 117 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 116 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106118July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106117February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 119 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 118 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106120July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106119February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 120 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 122 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 121 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 123 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 122 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 124 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 123 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106125July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106124February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 126 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 125 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 127 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 126 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 128 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 127 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 129 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 128 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 130 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 129 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 131 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 130 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 131 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 133 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 132 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 134 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 133 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 135 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 134 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 136 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 135 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 137 020PLNPCM2020-00106 136 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 138 020PLNPCM2020-00106 137 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 139 020PLNPCM2020-00106 138 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 140 020PLNPCM2020-00106 139 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106141 020PLNPCM2020-00106140February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 142 020PLNPCM2020-00106 141 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 143 020PLNPCM2020-00106 142 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 144 020PLNPCM2020-00106 143 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 145 020PLNPCM2020-00106 144 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 146 020PLNPCM2020-00106 145 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 147 020PLNPCM2020-00106 146 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 148 020PLNPCM2020-00106 147 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 149 020PLNPCM2020-00106 148 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 150 020PLNPCM2020-00106 149 February 16, 2022
CM2020 00106 151 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 150 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 152 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 151 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 153 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 152 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 154 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 153 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 155 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 154 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 156 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 155 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 157 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 156 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 158 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 157 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 159 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 158 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106160ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106159February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 161 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 160 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106162ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106161February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106 163 ly 9, PLNPCM2020-00106 162 February 16, 2022
NPCM2020-00106164July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106163February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
There are several adopted master plans and documents that provide guidance for historic preservation,
many of which express general support for the concept of creating and adopting flexible zoning regulations
that create economic incentives for contributing structures and landmark sites. Policy statements and goals
in the Community Preservation Plan, Plan Salt Lake, Avenues Master Plan and Growing Salt Lake
Housing Plan, include statements for increasing housing stock in already developed sections of the city, as
well as creating tools to further incentivize historic preservation for many of the historic property owners
within the City. The master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
• Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
• Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
• Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
• Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
• Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
PLNPCM2020-00106 164 February 16, 2022
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 February 16, 2022
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Staff was originally supportive of the concept of introducing zoning
flexibility into historic districts with the goal of restoring existing structures and creating additional
housing stock. Staff attempted to work with the applicant prior to the submission of the language, as well
as after the application was accepted and assigned. The applicant has not been amenable to Staff
recommendations or direction. Additionally, the applicant has not been amenable to the Historic
Landmark Commission’s concerns, comments and the specific reasoning for the negative
recommendation. It is impossible to support a text amendment proposal that does not include actual text
to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of projects under the
proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered. The applicant could remedy this by
drafting actual code language, productively working with staff of the Planning Division to put the proposal
into an ordinance format, in recognition that the Planning Commission cannot forward a
recommendation to the City Council that is not in an adoptable format.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT F: ANALYSIS OF ZONING AMENDMENT
STANDARDS
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is
a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council considers
the following factors. Although the proposed ordinance is not complete, Staff drafted responses to
the factors based on the concepts of the proposed ordinance.
FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives and
policies of the city as
stated through its
various adopted
planning
documents;
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment
furthers the specific
purpose statements
of the zoning
ordinance;
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
3. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and
provisions of any
applicable overlay
zoning district
which may imposed
additional
standards;
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment
implements best
current, professional
practices of urban
planning and
design.
The specific proposal is not in
ordinance format and thus, this
factor cannot be fully evaluated
or analyzed.
While the concept may be valid, Staff
cannot evaluate the proposed text
amendment against this factor because
the proposal provided by the applicant
is not in an ordinance format.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 February 16, 2022
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on February
11, 2022, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via
Listserve. All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 February 16, 2022
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 169 February 16, 2022
From:Barbara Hounsell
To:Stephen C Pace
Cc:Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 170 February 16, 2022
From:Carol Foster
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Date:Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020PLNPCM2020-00106 171 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 172 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 173 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 February 16, 2022
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 February 16, 2022
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 February 16, 2022
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
c) Agenda/Minutes
February 23, 2022
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the
following determination by the Planning Commission Chair:
I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID -19
pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases,
that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would
be present.
Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested
in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to
provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property
owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to
be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU
will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the
maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject
property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or
grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273
2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green
Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and
Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting
property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley
is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5,
represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903
3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S
Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting
planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots
for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and
building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested
to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367
square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest
area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development
Pattern Residential) zoning district.
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback
requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958
b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case
number PLNSUB2021-01151
The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff
contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com)
4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis
Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop
the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings
would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by
Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed
as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public
street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy.
(Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2021-00378
5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban
Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use
multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West.
The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls.
It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting
relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and
requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in
the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet
(60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed
project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line
a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping
requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822
b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number
PLNPCM2021-00835
The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact:
Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com)
6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert
Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for
the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the
properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern
Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future
development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or
amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073
7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting
a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house
for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or
restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of
the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The
proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed
as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts:
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or
SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-
7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
a) Staff Report
July 16, 2020
BACKGROUND:
Stephen Pace, the property owner of the Beer Estate located at 222 4th Avenue and 181 N B Street, is
requesting to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance in an effort to provide an incentive to reconstruct
or restore a historic carriage house on his property. The applicant has been working with Salt Lake City on
a solution to reconstruct a carriage house that is located on the southern portion of 222 4th Avenue. This
historic carriage house is associated with the Beer Estate Landmark Site, which was constructed by Richard
Kletting. Additional information on the site specific carriage house reconstruction proposal can be found in
Attachment C.
Aerial of Proposal on 222 4th Avenue
The applicant has approached the City on numerous occasions with the intent of rebuilding the carriage
house to add another dwelling unit on his property. Salt Lake City zoning regulations currently do not allow
the reconstruction due to building location regulations, as well as lot minimums for the applicable zoning
district. Additionally, the applicant’s plan does not conform to the regulations pertaining to accessory
dwelling units. The following provides a summary of these barriers:
1.The dwelling unit located within a restored or reconstructed carriage house would be considered to
be a single-family detached dwelling. Adding another single-family dwelling to this property at the
proposed location would not be allowed because:
a.All principal structures must be located along a street. The home (carriage house) would be
located in back of the existing principal structure on the property.
b.The zoning district where the property is located requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet
per single-family dwelling so 10,000 square feet would be required for two single-family
dwellings. The subject property is 8,184 square feet so it does not meet the minimum size
requirement.
PLNPCM2020-00106 2 July 9, 2020
c. The home (carriage house) would not meet building setback regulations due to its close
proximity to the side and rear property lines.
2. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance would permit an additional unit to the rear of the property
located at 222 4th Avenue; however, there are several conflicts with the reconstructed carriage house
as an ADU. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance (ADU) poses a conflict with the requirement that
the owner of the property reside onsite. While Stephan Pace owns the subject property located at
222 4th Avenue, he resides at 181 B Street. This standard could not be satisfied. Additionally, the
size limitation of ADUs would not accommodate the traditional size of a historic carriage house.
The proposed text amendment, while it is fairly site specific, proposes solutions to the listed conflicts within
the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE:
The applicant provided a list of proposed “conditions” that should be met in order to add a dwelling unit in
a reconstructed/restored carriage house; however, the applicant has not provided actual ordinance
language. The applicant’s proposal is in Attachment B. Staff anticipates that the proposed regulations, when
drafted, will be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance and
will be structured in the following way:
1. Purpose Statement (what are the regulations trying to achieve)
2. Definition of Terms
3. Applicability (what conditions must be met for the regulations to apply)
4. Process (who is the decision maker and what is the decision-making process)
5. Standards/Criteria (what are the specific regulations pertaining to the application)
Staff organized the applicant’s list of conditions into these categories in an effort to better summarize the
proposal for the Historic Landmark Commission and to begin to organize the language into a standard
ordinance format (see below). Staff commentary and requested direction from the Historic Landmark
Commission are at the end of the ordinance summary.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a specific purpose statement, but Staff believes the following should
be considered when developing the legal purpose statement:
o To permit the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house for the purposes of
creating a dwelling unit.
o Incentivize the preservation and restoration of a historic feature on a landmark site.
o Add to the housing units within Salt Lake City, while respecting the appearance and scale
of single-family residential neighborhoods.
o Sustainability objectives are supported by utilizing an existing structure or elements of an
existing structure.
o Increase the economic viability of historic properties and further the City’s historic
preservation goals.
Definitions
CARRIAGE HOUSE: A carriage house is defined as a physically-detached, secondary structure
originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or uses to
store grain or shelter animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, secondary story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in
excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or
house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 3 July 9, 2020
Applicability
For a property to be considered eligible, the property must be listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark
Site and a National Register Site on the National Register of Historic Places.
The property must be located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential), SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential), RO (Residential
Office) and the I (Institutional).
There must be substantial evidence that a carriage house exists or existed on the subject property.
The burden of proof would be strictly on the applicant. The applicant must provide evidence
through at least two of the following methods:
o Historic photographs
o Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
o Planning, zoning or building permit records.
o Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basement, etc.
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
A restored or reconstructed historic carriage house would be required to comply with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which is section 21A.34.020.G
in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Standards/Criteria
A reconstructed or restored carriage house would only be allowed to be used for a single-family
residence.
Off street parking is required for the dwelling unit.
The restored or reconstructed carriage house would be limited to the historic footprint and must
not exceed the size (historic footprint) of the original structure.
If it is determined that the reconstruction or restoration of the carriage house negatively impacts a
neighboring property, additional buffers may be required.
The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or subdivided illegally
The two residences could not be subdivided in the future.
The property owner is not required to permanently reside on the property.
Base zoning restrictions, such as: lot coverage, setbacks, height and density can be modified.
STAFF COMMENTARY AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HISTORIC
LANDMARKCOMMISSION
Staff is presenting the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain feedback and
direction prior to finalizing draft ordinance language. This section is organized to relate each question or
comment to the applicable section within the proposed language above. The following sections provides
Staff’s concerns and opinions on what the language is missing, potential impacts, as well as needed
clarification.
Purpose
The applicant did not provide a purpose statement for the proposed ordinance. Staff developed some ideas
to incorporate into the purpose statement. The ideas and potential language were pulled from the
applicant’s narrative, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and applicable master plans.
Point to Discuss
Does the Commission agree with the statements and/or have anything to add?
Definitions
The applicant provided the definition of Carriage House to Staff. Staff believes that there are additional
definitions that will be needed to provide direction and clarity for the proposed language.
PLNPCM2020-00106 4 July 9, 2020
Points to Discuss
Should Historic Footprint be defined as part of this proposal?
Are there other needed terms that the Commission can identify?
Other terms may be included in the definition section as the ordinance is developed.
Applicability
The Historic Landmark Commission does not have the authority to review alterations to properties listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the proposal encompasses properties listed on both
the National Register of Historic Places and properties listed as Salt Lake City Landmarks.
Points to Discuss
Should the proposal be modified to strictly include properties that are Salt Lake City Landmarks
and listed in the applicable zoning districts?
This change would clarify the review authority but would not significantly modify the number of
properties eligible for the reconstruction or restoration of a historic carriage house, due to the
limiting zoning districts.
The applicant provided a list of 4 items that could be used to determine the existence of a carriage house,
which include; historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, zoning and building permit history and
identifiable structural elements. The applicant proposes that only 2 of the 4 would be required to satisfy the
burden of proof.
Points to Discuss
Staff is concerned that the proposed criteria is too loose.
o This concern is directly connected to the potential impact that a reconstructed historic
carriage house could have on abutting properties, due to height and setbacks.
Pictorial evidence or information should be required to understand the design, materials and height
of the historic structure.
o If pictorial evidence is not available, the structure would likely be conjectural.
o Does the Commission have concerns that a conjectural structure would impact the status
of the landmark site?
o Without pictorial evidence, the proposed language would essentially permit the building of
a new single-family structure, which is not the purpose or intent of this language.
o Without pictorial evidence, how would the design, height and footprint be reviewed and
determined?
o If pictorial evidence is found to be too difficult to obtain, is there other information that
would satisfy the intent and ease the concerns?
o What would be the review process for a historic carriage house that does not have any
pictorial evidence?
The suggested zoning and building permit history would be difficult to satisfy, since the full records
are not available or encompass all of the permit history.
Does the Commission have any additional concerns or recommendations with other provisions in
the proposed applicability section?
Review Process
The applicant has not specified a review process; however, the proposed language implies that the design,
construction and alterations would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Points to discuss
The Landmark Commission does not have the authority to approve projects that increase density
beyond what is allowed by ordinance. Staff proposes to draft the ordinance so that an extra
dwelling unit would be permitted by right within a restored or reconstructed carriage house. The
Landmark Commission would then review the restoration or reconstruction.
Construction in the H Historic Overlay is reviewed in a number of ways.
o Minor Alteration Applications are the most commonly submitted applications for the
alteration of a site. These applications are also applicable for the construction of a detached
garage or a detached accessory dwelling unit.
PLNPCM2020-00106 5 July 9, 2020
Since minor alterations are applicable for the ADUs and detached accessory
structures, Staff initially considered this the most appropriate application for the
proposal. However, this type of reconstruction has potentially more impacts to the
abutting and adjacent properties.
The potential impacts include the location, setbacks, height and footprint.
o Major Alteration or New Construction Application requires the review and approval of the
Historic Landmark Commission.
Due to the potential for impacts, would the process for new construction or a
major alteration be more appropriate?
A new construction or major alteration application would require Historic
Landmark Commission review and approval.
Depending upon the recommendation regarding the pictorial evidence, the new
construction process may provide clearer guidelines and standards for the design
of the structure.
Does the Commission have a recommendation on the process?
Standards/Criteria
Points to Discuss
Applicant proposes that it could only be used as a single-family residence.
o Are their pitfalls with simply allowing it to be reconstructed for typical accessory uses?
Currently, proposed construction in the Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not
conform to dimensional zoning standards, such as setbacks and building coverage requires Special
Exception approval by the HLC. The applicant proposes that the HLC should be able to approve
dimensional zoning exceptions through the Certificate of Appropriateness.
o Staff supports this idea, due to the need for zoning flexibility for reconstructed historic
carriage houses.
o Staff does have a concern with coupling the review process and any needed special
exceptions, due to the potential for impacts to the adjacent and abutting properties.
There should likely be a notification process to provide notice to effected property
owners and tenants.
The applicant suggests that the reconstructed carriage house be limited to the historic footprint.
o The Sanborn Fire Insurance maps are fairly accurate for the historic footprint
determination.
Is the Landmark Commission comfortable with the utilization of the Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps for this purpose, if the historic foundation or walls are no longer
visible?
The applicant suggests that additional buffers may be required if an impact is determined.
o How will the size of an additional buffer be determined?
Are there additional criteria that the Commission has for consideration?
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Limitations of the Proposed Language:
Staff acknowledges that the applicant wishes to limit the proposed language to be primarily site specific
for the subject property located at 222 4th Avenue. Through limiting the language, as proposed, the
proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance would potentially impact 5 properties.
While the proposed language is narrow in focus and addresses rather specific issues, the overall goal
of the proposal is in line with adopted policies and guidelines. The proposed language incentivizes the
preservation or reconstruction of historic features on historic properties.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION:
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation. The master plans
that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
PLNPCM2020-00106 6 July 9, 2020
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outlined in this master plan.
o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
The above documents have a variety of policies and guidelines that relate to creating incentives for historic
preservation, as well as zoning flexibility to create additional housing units. All of the applicable policies
and guidelines are discussed in Attachment E and F. As discussed in those attachments, the proposed
zoning changes are generally supported by the associated adopted City policies.
NEXT STEPS:
One of the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission is to make recommendations on applications for
zoning amendments that involve historic preservation overlay districts and landmark sites. After the
Historic Landmark Commission reviews and makes recommendations on the concepts of the proposed
ordinance, Planning Staff will work with the applicant to develop the actual ordinance language, which will
be presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission will consider
the proposed ordinance in a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will make the final decision on the proposed zoning amendment.
PLNPCM2020-00106 7 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP OF POTENTIAL SITES
The applicant provided a list of 5 properties that are potentially eligible for a reconstructed or
restored carriage house. The map on the following page highlights the subject properties.
PLNPCM2020-00106 8 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 9 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE
PLNPCM2020-00106 10 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 11 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 12 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
April 9, 2020
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are
met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, an
identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn
vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all
related to serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the
primary structure located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples
incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or open interior space under a
pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the roof peak, and may have
provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven,
with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least
two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within
the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00106 13 July 9, 2020
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards.
If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
PLNPCM2020-00106 14 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Stephen C. Pace Zoning Text Amendment Proposal for
Historic Carriage House Structures
UPDATED APPLICATION AND NARRATIVE
April 3, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
As of April 2, 2020, the city has chosen not to provide an advance copy of draft
language or alternatives for their proposal, so we are not yet in a position to
comment on the pros and cons or details of whatever the city's position may be. We
are therefore requesting through this updated application to proceed with this
application without further additions by the city.
We have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the specific sections of the
city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within the zoning code. In the
event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we believe that this will need to
be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later date. Instead we have presented
a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the zoning code should allow for in the
reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of documented historic carriage houses
associated with current or potential National Register of Historic Places-listed sites and
located in areas with current multi-family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the
city should support this measure and what we believe the limited impacts on
development could be.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and desires
to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate. Four
structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake City
Landmark Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The following text
amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and comment. The applicant
desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission consideration to resolve a property
size issue in the Avenues historic district. The current property is zoned RMF-35 and is
located in the Lower (West) Avenues neighborhood. There are three primary issues that
PLNPCM2020-00106 15 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 2
are not satisfied by any section in the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the
following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner does
not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
To address these shortcomings, the following draft language is proposed as a text
amendment to Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation
Overlay District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under
this text amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission. Utilizing this process will give the public an opportunity for input before one
public commission.
In the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as defined under Chapter 21A.34.020,
reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site as defined within Chapter
21A.34.020.
2) The property and address are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, either
individually or as a Contributing structure in a National Register-listed Historic District.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had, a
carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a physically-
detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-drawn vehicles and
related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter animals; all related to
serving the private transportation needs of the owner/residents of the primary structure
located on the same or adjacent property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second
story or half-story, or open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from
the floor to the roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house
servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 16 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be proven, with
the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed through at least two of
the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls, basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built within the
historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Salt
Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow original/
historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback standards. If
unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for adjacent properties,
additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new dwelling unit
on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review standards
and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built or
subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
PLNPCM2020-00106 17 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 4
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the
reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
3) Meeting off-site parking standards.
Submitted on February 4, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted on
behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The applicant
desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration of and
prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the subject
property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of adaptive use/reconstruction
of a historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt Lake City
Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A. Kletting.
Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar details for
Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South in 1893. The
Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a “steeple”
top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to shelter (at least)
nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two buggies, and as a
residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half about World War I, for
use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original brick
and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and according
to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-family
residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage, architectural
PLNPCM2020-00106 18 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 5
replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely privately funded, the
housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some original materials have
already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse as much of the existing
material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The proposed design for
reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and initially submitted for
discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues that are
obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section in the
current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance (in process), revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification (in process), and are
not addressed through the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34 Overlay Districts
under 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. As a point of application
process, it is acceptable to the applicant to utilize the city’s existing process for
Conditional Use to obtain approval for use of the property. We believe that utilizing the
Conditional Use process along with Historic Landmarks Commission review for design
will adequately give the public two opportunities for input before two separate
commissions. However, if the Planning Division can determine another acceptable
application and review process that would only involve review before one commission
and administrative review, the applicant would be open to receiving information about this
possibility. The applicant reserves the right to approve or deny any proposed process
change.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well supported
by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those that are
PLNPCM2020-00106 19 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 6
neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following is a
summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage private
restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through financial
assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of proximity
to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements that
are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake City
Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies, including
Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major or minor
additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake City may
be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
PLNPCM2020-00106 20 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 7
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail
of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic] appeared at
a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application follows the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures, including the
Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating Historic Accessory
Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if
one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures
covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards for
space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
PLNPCM2020-00106 21 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 8
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals of
the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are also
supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized as
a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets, and
other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic
districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31), and
Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better compliance
with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior
of the structure.
PLNPCM2020-00106 22 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 9
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the local
economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout
all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of
life.
PLNPCM2020-00106 23 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 10
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including those
with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the provision of
local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to play
in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10, are
supportive of this application.
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
PLNPCM2020-00106 24 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
Page 11
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects our
diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 25 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE
PLNPCM2020-00106 26 July 9, 2020
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
AMENDED APPLICATION NARRATIVE
April 9, 2020
TO: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division
FROM: Kirk Huffaker, Principal/Consultant, Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies
CC: Stephen Pace, Applicant and Property Owner
NOTE
Because, as we understand it, the purpose of the “open house” is to seek broad public
input on our proposal, we have not attempted to draft our suggestions in terms of the
specific sections of the city code that will satisfy final location of the amendment within
the zoning code. In the event that our proposal is carried forward to city council, we
believe that this will need to be done under supervision of the city attorney at a later
date. Instead we have presented a synopsis below of what we believe provisions in the
zoning code should allow for in the reconstruction/rehabilitation/restoration of
documented historic carriage houses associated with current National Register of
Historic Places-listed residential sites and located in areas that already have multi-
family zoning. The narrative highlights reasons why the city should support this
measure and what we believe the limited impacts on development could be.
Stephen C. Pace, the applicant, is the owner of 222 4th Ave., Salt Lake City, and
desires to rebuild a carriage house associated with the historic William F. Beer Estate.
Four structures, including the carriage house, of the estate are listed as a Salt Lake
City Landmark Site and listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.
The following text amendment is submitted to the Planning Division for review and
comment. The applicant desires Administrative and/or Planning Commission
consideration to resolve a property size issue in the Avenues historic district. The
current property is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West) Avenues
neighborhood. There are three primary issues that are not satisfied by any section in
the current Zoning Ordinance, including all of the following:
• Two residentially-used structures on the same property where the property owner
does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
PLNPCM2020-00106 27 July 9, 2020
Page 2
As it is the desire of the applicant to obtain approval for an application under this text
amendment with one review and public process through the Historic Landmarks
Commission, we believe this language should probably be included in Chapter
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed text amendment will be applicable citywide to residences listed
individually as Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and where the residence and historic
carriage house (as defined below) are both listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as an individual listing (not simply in a National Register-listed historic district).
The applicant believes that at least four (4) residence/historic carriage house
complexes currently could meet this qualifying test. This is based on best information
available to the applicant, which in part, is included as an attachment. In the event the
city grants future Landmark Site designations, and National Register landmark status is
sought and granted by the U.S. Department of Interior, the number of qualifying sites
may increase in the future.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following
conditions are met:
1) The property and address are a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
2) The property and address are individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
3) The property and address in the application currently have, or historically had,
an identifiable carriage house on the property.
4) For the purposes of this text amendment, a carriage house is defined as a
physically-detached, secondary structure originally constructed to house horse-
drawn vehicles and related equipment, or horses, or used to store grain or shelter
animals; all related to serving the private transportation needs of the
owner/residents of the primary structure located on the same or adjacent
property. Some examples incorporate a hay loft, second story or half-story, or
open interior space under a pitched roof in excess of 15 feet from the floor to the
roof peak, and may have provided housing for a livery man or house servants.
PLNPCM2020-00106 28 July 9, 2020
Page 3
5) Previously existing carriage houses proposed for reconstruction must be
proven, with the burden of proof on the application, to have previously existed
through at least two of the following methods:
• Sanborn maps;
• Historic photographs;
• Planning, zoning or building permit records;
• Identifiable surviving structural elements such as foundations, walls,
basements, etc.
6) The site is located within and possesses a multi-family zoning classification.
7) The reconstruction will not exceed the size of the original structure (i.e. built
within the historic footprint).
8) Proposed alterations of a carriage house – including rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction – will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and successfully obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission.
9) If no adjacent neighbor impacts are determined, the reconstruction will follow
original/ historic setbacks and thus not be required to meet modern setback
standards. If unintended neighbor impacts are determined to be present for
adjacent properties, additional buffers may be required.
10) The reconstructed carriage house will result in a maximum of one new
dwelling unit on the property.
11) The reconstruction will only be for residential use.
12) The design of the reconstruction and will meet all applicable design review
standards and criteria through the Historic Landmarks Commission review
process
13) The site has a clean record, such that buildings on the property were not built
or subdivided illegally.
14) The site will be restricted from further subdivision at any time in the future.
PLNPCM2020-00106 29 July 9, 2020
Page 4
The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for
reconstruction:
1) That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of
the reconstruction.
2) Meeting the current minimum lot size.
Submitted February 4, 2020 / Amended April 6 and 8, 2020
This application and accompanying narrative for zoning text amendment is submitted
on behalf of Stephen Pace, property owner for 222 4th Avenue, Salt Lake City. The
applicant desires Administrative, Planning Commission, and City Council consideration
of and prompt action on the application to resolve multiple zoning issues with the
subject property that prevents the owner from achieving his goal of reconstruction of a
historic carriage house. This former carriage house was one of the four primary
structures of the historic William F. Beer Estate, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1977 and is an individual landmark site in the Salt
Lake City Cultural Register.
According to historic research, the Beer Estate residence and carriage house date to
circa 1899. Both were constructed according to design by architect Richard K.A.
Kletting. Kletting also served as architect for a house and carriage house with similar
details for Albert Fisher (Fisher Mansion and Carriage House) at 1206 West 200 South
in 1893. The Beer Estate carriage house is described in the NRHP nomination as
follows:
Area residents describe it as originally a two-story brick structures with a
“steeple” top. Dimensions were approximately 47’ x 40’ and it was used to
shelter (at least) nine draft/riding horses, cattle, chickens, rabbits, etc., two
buggies, and as a residence for the caretakers. The structure was cut in half
about World War I, for use as a garage. Current condition is deteriorated.
Since 1977 when the paragraph was written, the carriage house has continued to
deteriorate. Current site conditions exhibit severe structural deficiency but original
brick and stone foundations, wood floors, and wood framing and walls are present.
The owner desires to rebuild the carriage house within the original footprint and
according to the original design. Use of the carriage house is proposed to be single-
family residential with a single-car garage. Due to the cost of material salvage,
architectural replication, and construction, and given that the project is entirely
privately funded, the housing unit is not proposed to be affordable housing. Some
PLNPCM2020-00106 30 July 9, 2020
Page 5
original materials have already been salvaged for reuse, and the owner desires to reuse
as much of the existing material and structure as possible in the reconstruction. The
proposed design for reconstruction of the carriage house has been completed and
initially submitted for discussion with the city.
The property at 222 4th Ave. is zoned RMF-35 and is located in the Lower (West)
Avenues neighborhood and Avenues Historic District. There are three primary issues
that are obstacles to adaptive use and reconstruction and not satisfied by any section
in the current zoning ordinance, including:
• Allowance for two residentially-used structures on the same property where the
property owner does not keep a permanent address;
• Allowance for reconstruction of a previously existing structure;
• Allowance to reconstruct without meeting the minimum lot size within the zoning
district.
In addition, we believe that these issues will not be resolved by the proposed Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance (in process), proposed revisions to the RMF-30 zoning classification
(in process), and are not addressed through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit
ordinance.
Therefore, to address the shortcomings, the following supportive documentation and
zoning text amendment draft language are proposed for Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic
Preservation Overlay District. As stated above, it is the desire of the applicant to obtain
approval for an application under this text amendment with one review and public
process through the Historic Landmarks Commission. Utilizing this process will
streamline the process for the applicant, for city review, and provide the public an
opportunity for input.
The goals of this application to address the three current deficiencies and well
supported by the city’s wide range of plans and guiding documents, including those
that are neighborhood-specific, for historic preservation, and for housing. The following
is a summary list of those plans and supportive statements from each.
Avenues Master Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Planning Goal: Continue to encourage
private restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Avenues Community through
financial assistance and supportive zoning and building code enforcement. (pg. 3)
Historic Preservation Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and
architecturally significant sites and the established character of the Avenues and South
Temple Historic Districts. (pg. 4)
PLNPCM2020-00106 31 July 9, 2020
Page 6
Future land use map indicates Medium-Density 8-20 Unites per Gross Acre (pg. 7)
Property is situated between an urban trail (A Street) and within one block of two
Collector streets (B Street and Second Avenue), as well as a half-mile from the Central
Business District, therefore meeting this plan’s and many other plan’s goals of
proximity to transportation and for walkability.
Urban Design Planning Goal: Design public facilities to enhance the established
residential character of the Avenues, and encourage private property improvements
that are visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (pg. 10)
Residential Design Guidelines
The applicant’s overall goal is most closely defined as Rehabilitation in the Salt Lake
City Design Guidelines, but could also be viewed as a combination of strategies,
including Reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined in Part I, page 3:5:
“Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property to a state which makes a
contemporary use possible, while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural
values. Rehabilitation may include the adaptive reuse of the building, and major
or minor additions may also occur. Most good preservation projects in Salt Lake
City may be considered rehabilitation projects.”
A definition for Reconstruction is provided in the Appendix, pg. C:3, and states that
Reconstruction is:
“The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and
detail of a vanished building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as if [sic]
appeared at a specific period of time.”
Accessory Structures (Part II 9:1)
This application is consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 9: Accessory Structures,
including the Context & Character, Design Objective, Preserving or Rehabilitating
Historic Accessory Structures, and subsections with the headings:
• Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible.
• New accessory buildings should be constructed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
• Attaching garages and carports to the primary structure should be avoided.
PLNPCM2020-00106 32 July 9, 2020
Page 7
The Avenues (Part III 13:1-14)
This application complies with the stipulations on page 13:12 under the heading
Accessory Structures within the specific chapter for The Avenues:
• Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley,
if one existed. This should be continued.
• Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they
should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if
possible.
• Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood
structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof.
• A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of material and
form.
Community Historic Preservation Plan
“The need to preserve the unique character of the City’s urban neighborhoods, while
allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today’s current living standards
for space and convenience are important City policies.” (pg. I-8)
The CHPP references the city’s Community Housing Plan (II-7,8), and while those
references are supportive of this application, they are not from the city’s most current
housing plan. The city adopted the Growing SLC Housing Plan in 2018 and references
from that plan are included in a later section. However, the CHPP does reference goals
of the city’s Strategic Plan and Futures Report on pages II-10 and II-11. Those that are
also supportive of this application include:
- Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods.
- Our historical heritage, including historic buildings and neighborhoods, is recognized
as a vital component of an exciting, livable city. Preserve historic structures, streets,
and other landmarks in all new development strategies.
- Assist property owners with solving the challenges of adaptive reuse.
Policies and Actions Relating to Regulations
3.3I Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic
structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 33 July 9, 2020
Page 8
3.3k Support modifications of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use
that will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in
historic districts in an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Regulatory Incentives
Two sections that support this application are Flexibility in Zoning Regulations (III-31),
and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Buildings (III-32). These are further supported by:
3.4a Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
3.4c Modification to lot, bulk and signage standards should be allowed in local historic
districts and to Landmark Sites where the modification would allow for better
compliance with the historic preservation standards than the underlying zoning
standard would allow.
3.4d Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that the negative impacts can be mitigated and
where the uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the
interior of the structure.
Economic Development
6.4c Historic preservation is identified as an important means of providing employment
opportunities for local crafts persons and skilled workers which keep money in the
local economy.
Housing
6.5a Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and
non-residential buildings.
6.5b Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
6.5e Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
PLNPCM2020-00106 34 July 9, 2020
Page 9
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Goal 1: Increase Housing Options
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing
options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing
structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
Goal 3: Equitable & Fair Housing
Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity
throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity.
Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the
city.
3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life.
The SLC Comprehensive Housing Policy (2016) also includes supportive statements for
this proposal:
1. Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition;
2. Respect the character and charm of predominantly residential districts, including
those with historic character and qualities, while also providing opportunities for the
provision of local goods and services easily accessed by neighborhoods;
4. Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City;
7. Recognize that residents, business owners, and local government all have a role to
play in creating and sustaining healthy neighborhoods.
Plan Salt Lake
Under Sustainable Growth & Development on page 9, the paragraphs on Placemaking
and Density, and those that reference Compatibility and Green Building on page 10,
are supportive of this application.
PLNPCM2020-00106 35 July 9, 2020
Page 10
On page 14, supportive Guiding Principles of Plan Salt Lake include the following:
2) Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
8) A beautiful city that is people focused.
9) Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
10) Vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural resources that showcase the
community’s long standing commitment to a strong creative culture.
Under Chapter 1 - Neighborhoods, the supportive Initiatives on page 17 include:
1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character.
4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
6. Incorporate artistic elements and support cultural events on a neighborhood scale to
reinforce neighborhood character and identity.
Under Chapter 2 - Growth, the supportive Initiatives on page 19 include:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as
transit and transportation corridors
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the city’s population.
Under Chapter 3 - Housing, the supportive Initiatives on page 21 include:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have
the potential to be people-oriented.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Under Chapter 6 - Natural Environment, the supportive Initiatives on page 27 include:
3. Practice responsible waste management by: reusing and repurposing materials,
including promoting the reuse of existing buildings over demolition.
Under Chapter 8 - Beautiful City, the supportive Initiatives on page 31 include:
5. Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure that: reflects
our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.
7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood district character and a strong sense of place.
Under Chapter 9 - Preservation, the supportive Initiatives on page 33 include:
1.Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas of structures of historic and architectural value.
PLNPCM2020-00106 36 July 9, 2020
Page 11
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Under Chapter 13 - Government, the supportive Initiatives on page 41 include:
2. Provide opportunities for public participation, input, and engagement throughout the
decision-making process.
PLNPCM2020-00106 37 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 38 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 39 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 40 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 41 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 42 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 43 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 44 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 45 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 46 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 47 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 48 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 49 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-0010650July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 51 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 52 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 53 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 54 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 55 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 56 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 57 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-0010658July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 59 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 60 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 61 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-0010662July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-0010663July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 64 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 65 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 66 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 67 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 68 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 69 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 70 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 71 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 72 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 73 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 74 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 75 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 76 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT D: ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
The applicant provided the following list of eligible properties:
1. Fisher Mansion and Carriage House (1206 W. 200 S.)
2. Kearns Mansion (603 E. South Temple)
3. Keith Mansion (529 E. South Temple)
4. William F. Beer Estate (222 4th Avenue)
5. McIntyre House (259 7th Avenue)
The following attachments include the applicable nominations and photographs.
PLNPCM2020-00106 77 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 78 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 79 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 80 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 81 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 82 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 83 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 84 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 85 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 86 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 87 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 88 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 89 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 90 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 91 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 92 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 93 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 94 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 95 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 96 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 97 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 98 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 99 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 100 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 101 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 102 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 103 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 104 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 105 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 106 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 107 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 108 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106109July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106110July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106111July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106112July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 113 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106114July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 115 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106116July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 117 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106118July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 119 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106120July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 121 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 122 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 123 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 124 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106125July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 126 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 127 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 128 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 129 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 130 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 131 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 132 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 133 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 134 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 135 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 136 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 137 020
CM2020 00106 138 020
CM2020 00106 139 020
CM2020 00106 140 020
CM2020 00106141 020
CM2020 00106 142 020
CM2020 00106 143 020
CM2020 00106 144 020
CM2020 00106 145 020
CM2020 00106 146 020
CM2020 00106 147 020
CM2020 00106 148 020
CM2020 00106 149 020
CM2020 00106 150 020
CM2020 00106 151 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 152 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 153 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 154 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 155 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 156 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 157 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 158 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 159 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106160ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 161 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106162ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106 163 ly 9,
NPCM2020-00106164July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT E: CITY PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
Zoning text amendments are reviewed for compliance with Salt Lake City master plans and adopted
policies. There are several documents that provide guidance for historic preservation and housing. The
master plans that address historic preservation goals and policies include the following:
Community Preservation Plan
o The comprehensive plan for Historic Preservation, includes many related policies for
incentivizing preservation.
Plan Salt Lake
o Plan Salt Lake includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development.
Utilizing the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit
would be in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
o Includes guiding policies that preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourages the retention of areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
o Promotes a balance of preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
Avenues Master Plan
o The comprehensive plan for the Avenues encourages historic preservation of historically
and architecturally significant sites.
The master plans that address housing goals and policies include the following:
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
o The housing plan encourages the creation of the flexible zoning tools and regulations to
create additional housing stock.
Plan Salt Lake
o Includes guiding policies that encourage housing options that accommodate gaining in
place, as well as the promotion of rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
o Also includes guiding policies that address sustainable growth and development. Utilizing
the embodied energy of an existing carriage to create an additional housing unit would be
in line with the policies outline in this master plan.
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Plan, adopted in 2012, indicates that the City needs to adopt a “wider
ranger of preservation tools.” Historic preservation tools are generally identified as incentives, which
can include an array of policies that encourage the preservation, restoration or reconstruction of
important historic features on historic properties.
Policy 2.1a: Ensure the long-term viability of existing local historic districts.
Policy 2.1b: Ensure consistency between the Community Preservation Plan and all other adopted
City plans.
Policy 2.3a: Identify historic preservation as an important component of the City’s sustainability
efforts based on its important economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the City.
Policy 3.2o: Explore a variety of tools to determine the appropriate method for implementing
historic preservation policies of a specific historic resource.
Policy 3.3a: Align preservation-related City regulations with the goals and policies of this plan.
PLNPCM2020-00106 165 July 9, 2020
Policy 3.3b: The Historic Preservation Overlay District standards are to be used as the basis for
decision making when considering applications and the standards should be applied in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
Policy 3.3g: Ensure that underlying zoning is supportive of preservation policies for the area in
which historic or character preservation is proposed.
Policy 3.3i: Encourage amendment of the building development code to clearly enable
appropriate historic renovation and remodels as well as adaptive reuse of historic structures.
Policy 3.3k: Support modification of existing historic resources to allow for changes in use that
will encourage the use of the structure for housing or other appropriate uses in historic districts in
an effort to ensure preservation of the structure.
Policy 3.4a: Continue to broaden the range of regulatory tools available to encourage the
preservation of historic properties.
Policy 3.4b: Develop a wide range of incentives to encourage the protection of historic properties.
Policy 3.4d: Adaptive Reuse of Historic Structures should be allowed for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations where it is found that he negative impacts can be mitigated and where the
uses do not require significant alterations to the historic integrity of the interior of the structure.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt
Lake City.
Policy 6.1b: The energy benefits, including life-cycle costs of preserving older buildings, should be
understood by property owners, development professionals, decision makers, City Staff and the
general public.
Policy 6.5b: Support the renovation and use of historic apartment buildings and the adaptive
reuse of historic non-residential buildings for residential units.
Policy 6.5e: Allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation
of historic structures.
Plan Salt Lake
Guiding Principle: Maintaining places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past.
Initiatives:
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
2. Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public spaces,
streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
3. Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value.
4. Integrate preservation into City regulation, policy, and decision making.
5. Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth.
6. Improve education and outreach about the value of historic preservation.
Plan Salt Lake Housing Goals and Policies
Guiding Principal/ Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the
city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
1. Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the
potential to be people-oriented.
PLNPCM2020-00106 166 July 9, 2020
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
6. Promote energy efficient housing and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
7. Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
8. Support homeless services.
Avenues Master Plan
Planning Goal: Encourage preservation of historically and architecturally significant sites and
the established character of the Avenues and South Temple Historic District.
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while
minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Staff Discussion:
The above stated policies and guidelines relate to the proposed language for the historic carriage
house reconstruction or restoration for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The policies and
guidelines encourage the creation of additional housing through flexibility and incentives within the
Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language also promotes the sustainability through
the restoration or recreation of a historic carriage house.
PLNPCM2020-00106 167 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 168 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 169 July 9, 2020
PLNPCM2020-00106 170 July 9, 2020
ATTACHMENT G: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The zoning text amendment was posted on Salt Lake City Planning Division’s website on April 6,
2020, for public engagement and comment purposes. Notice of the post was provided via Listserve.
All of the public comments that have been submitted are attached.
PLNPCM2020-00106 171 July 9, 2020
May 8, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
Dear Mr. Lindquist,
I am writing to you regarding the petition to amend Title 21A-Zoning of the
city code to allow for the reconstruction of a documented historic carriage house
at 222 4th Avenue. My wife and I reside in our home in the upper avenues and we
own three units in the Carlton Towers at 266 East 4th Avenue; which is less than a
quarter of a block from the subject property.
The proposed amendments seem quite reasonable if a process for approval
includes safeguards that assures conformity to historic values. With appropriate
reviews, the preservation and/or reconstruction of historic landmark sites
acknowledged by the National Register of Historic Places would be possible and
would serve to enhance the aesthetic of the Avenues Historic District as well as
several other unique sites and neighborhoods in our city.
I believe that the request to obtain approval for an application under the
proposed amendment utilizing the Historic Landmarks Commission’s review and
public scrutiny process provides the safeguards necessary to maintain historic
integrity.
I would encourage the City to approve the Zoning Amendment request.
Respectfully,
Jim Bradley
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
PLNPCM2020-00106 174 July 9, 2020
From:Barbara Hounsell
To:Stephen C Pace
Cc:Lindquist, Kelsey; Scott S. Cruze
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Stephen C. Pace Carriage House Project
Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:44:04 AM
Hello Stephen,
Barbara and I enjoyed talking with you on Sunday about your Carriage House
reconstruction project.
Assuming proper engineering and construction practices are followed, we are
in full support of this historically important project as described as the Stephen
C. Pace Historic Carriage House proposed zoning text amendment, 222 4th
Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The proper engineering and construction to which we refer must protect the
integrity of the existing retaining wall on the north side of our Peery Apartment
property. The project must not compromise our retaining wall with additional
loads, including loads that come from structures, dirt or fill, landscape
materials, vegetation, or water and water retention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hounsell
Alex Cross
Owners of the Peery Apartments, LLC
Cc:
Scott Cruze
Kelsey Lindquist
PLNPCM2020-00106 175 July 9, 2020
From:Carol Foster
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Cc:Paul Foster
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00106, 222 4th Ave
Date:Friday, May 15, 2020 10:12:32 AM
To whom it may concern:
We are writing in support of Stephen Pace’s renovation of 222 4th Ave. We are neighbors at
163 B St.
We have spoken with Stephen and support his renovation plan.
Our primary concerns were regarding keeping the community feeling of our neighborhood,
promoting house ownership over renting, against Airbnbs / apartments and for more long-term
housing for families or individuals.
Stephen explained that his rentals have very little turnover of renters and we have witnessed
that, living here since 2002.
Another concern was windows overlooking our property (backyard of 163 B Street) and
Stephen explained there weren’t any.
Feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Many thanks,
Carol and Paul Foster
PLNPCM2020-00106 176 July 9, 2020
Kirk Huffaker
Preservation Strategies
kirk.preserve@gmail.com
(801) 949-4040
children had taken over his property, they executed a sale of the strip to me in exchange
for $10. I began paying property taxes on the strip in 2018.
A third person, Mr. Thomas Mulcock, 212 4th Ave, (801) 864-3881 owns a four-plex and
garages on the southwest corner of the 222 lot. I provided him with the zoning change
package in April but did not reach him by phone until May 11. He indicated that he did
not carefully read my proposal, that he had no necessary objection to it, but that due to
his wife's critical illness he doubted he would get to it in the near future. I told him that
under the circumstances I would not bother him again.
4) HISTORIC LANDMARK
COMMISSION
b) Agenda/Minutes
July 16, 2020
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
IMPORTANT MEETING INFORMATION
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect
remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings can still access the
meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Historic Landmark Commissio n meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comment s, email;
historiclandmarks.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at:
http://tiny.cc/slc-hlc-07-16-2020
Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning. It is recommended to login 10 minutes prior to
the start of the meeting.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes for June 4, 2020
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Director’s Report
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Commission will hear public comments not pertaining to items listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf of Stephen
Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark Sites and National
Register sites located within the RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), SR-1A (Special
Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored historic carriage house would be
utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended
as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number
PLNPCM2020-00106
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2020, unless a special meeting is scheduled
prior to that date.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
July 16, 2020 at 5:30 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b).
For Historic Landmark Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two
days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
APPEAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION
Anyone who is an “adversely affected party” as defined by Utah Code Section 10-9a-103, may appeal a decision of the Historic
Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing officer within ten (10) calendar days following the d ate
on which a record of decision is issued.
The applicant may object to the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission by filing a written appeal with the appeals hearing
officer within thirty (30) calendar days following the date on which a record of decision is issued
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Thursday, July 16, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:30:00 PM . Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Kenton Peters,
Commissioners Rocio Torres Mora, Victoria Petro- Eschler, Michael Vela and Paul Svendsen. Vice
Chairperson Robert Hyde and David Richardson were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner and Rosie Jimenez, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Peters provided participation options and instructions to the public.
APPROVAL OF THE June 4, 2020, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Petro- Eschler moved to approve the June 4, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Svendsen seconded the motion. Commissioners Vela, Maw, Petro-Eschler,
Svendsen, and Torres Mora, “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Peters reported, Commissioner Esther Stowell has stepped down from the Historic
Landmark Commission. We appreciate her service and wish her well on her next steps. We are working
on filling her seat.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Commissioner Adams will not be reappointed he has chosen to step down. There are now two vacancies.
There have been several people who have applied. We will update as we find out new information.
5:30:36 PM
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoni ng text amendment petition from Kirk Huffaker, on behalf
of Stephen Pace, to permit the reconstruction of historic carriage houses associated with Salt Lake City Landmark
Sites and National Register sites located within the RMF -35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential
Office), SR-1A (Special Development Residential) and I (Institutional) zoning districts. The reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house would be utilized as a dwelling unit. The proposed text amendment is City wide. Relat ed
provisions of Title 21A Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact Kelsey Lindquist (801) 434 -
7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2020-00106
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission
review the proposed regulations and make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Reasoning behind approving demolishing and reconstructing versus creating and ADU
• Clarification on owner occupancy on an ADU
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission July 16, 2020 Page 2
• Clarification on Staff Report in reviewing alterations
• Questions on zoning codes
• Restoration or Reconstruction of the existing structure
Kirk Huffaker and Stephen Pace were available for questions.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• How does the Proposal benefit the City as a whole
• Total of Carriage Houses and explanation
• Clarification of proposed qualifying zones
• Clarification of the request and building renovation
• More clarification on the existing structure
• Preservation clarification
• Definition of Carriage House
• Lot line adjustment or consolidation
PUBLIC HEARING 6:30:46 PM
Chairperson Peters opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – In support of proposal and asks city and commissioner to approve
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Peters closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:54:18 PM
Commissioner Svendsen made a motion that the Historic Landmark Commission Move that the
HLC forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission is generally very supportive of the applicant’s goals of increasing density
on the property and making the property more economically sensible.
2. The Commission also suggests that there are significant shortcoming both procedural and
substantive with the current zoning ordinance that are preventing reasonable development
on properties like this.
3. This seems like an end around of the existing City’s ordinance regarding Accessory
Dwelling Units and also the RMF-35
4. Because of the application is so limited it is like spot zoning and that can have unforeseen
consequences with respect to future neighbors and a variety of ci rcumstances.
In summary, the HLC forwards a negative recommendation to this particular proposal but urges
the Planning Commission to consider other changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
or RMF-35 Ordinance that would permit the applicant to move forward with what he is proposing
and applies to the City more broadly as a whole.
Commissioner Torres-Mora seconded the motion Commissioners Vela, Svendsen, Petro- Eschler.
Maw, Torres-Mora, voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:07:58 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman,
Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne
Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning
Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann,
Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban
Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick,
and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner,
has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in
the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and
650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a
425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000
(Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff
contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-
01273
Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff
recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking
location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it
should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code.
The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2
The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a
presentation.
Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30
days. The applicant stated that he was aware.
PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by
the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions
listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3.
Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike
Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street,
is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison
Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners
have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000
(Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano.
(Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-
00903
Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff
recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy t he land
or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family
residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property
owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or
commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the
alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties
on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows
asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was
correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace
stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found
the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have
signed the form and the approval of the church for this application.
Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of
his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9
Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman
clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with
the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman
also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the
existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in
their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be
required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John
Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts.
Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also
stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce
housing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073.
Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee,
Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted
“yes”. The motion passed unanimously.
Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a
zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the
purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored
historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable
base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language
requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site
of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern
Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00106
Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that
Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text
amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark
Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the
existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live
on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot
minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on
language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic
Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10
the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC
did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going
before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address
Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning
commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the
ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria.
She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and
City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She
reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect.
The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left
center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building
referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no
drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city
and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction
in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the
block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that
about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent
example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that
there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth
avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property
and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the
properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address
you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own
about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th
avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built
in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just
take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the
belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're
willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief
of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage
house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I
said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they
chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just
give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the
photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the
carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty
imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together
with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in
front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and
behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please
so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take t he 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead
center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah
that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the
Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that
same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map
shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the
Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from
the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind
the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of
resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11
that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a
pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some
context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error
that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they
would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge
on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500
years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of
pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's
conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we
talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist
has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's
all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or
that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.”
Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time
remaining.
The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's
go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone
through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years
worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was
just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks
commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still
champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation.
Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages
that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks
mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've
proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for
it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.”
Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application.
Mr. Pace said no.
Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace.
Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing
would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other
properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some
deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the
text amendment he was requesting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing.
Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12
Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a
negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist
said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission
being the second step.
MOTION
Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment
for carriage house reconstruction.
Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee
Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”.
The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council.
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT
PETITION
6) MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADD OWN_CITY OWN_ZIP OWN_STATE
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 181 N 'B' ST SALT LAKE CITY 84103 UT
AIC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 490 JACKSON WY 83001
Current Occupant 529 E SOUT Salt Lake City UT 84102
STATE OF UTAH 450 N STAT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Current Occupant 603 E SOUT Salt Lake City UT 84102
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
JUSTIN R PADAWER; SALLY G PADAWER (JT259 E SEVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103