Loading...
Council Provided Information - 8/8/2023 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: August 8, 2023 RE: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment PLNPCM2020-00106 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: July 11, 2023 Set Date: July 11, 2023 Public Hearing: August 8, 2023 Potential Action: August 15, 2023 WORK SESSION SUMMARY During the July 11 work session, the Council received a briefing outlining the key points of the issue, including the fact that there are two potential ordinances that could be considered. 1) applicant’s petition, 2) alternative draft ordinance provided by planning staff. The Council expressed support for moving forward with the draft ordinance the Planning Staff provided. The applicant also stated they would support moving forward with that ordinance as well. The Attorney’s office provided the updated ordinance in collaboration with the Planning staff. The public hearing was set for August 8. The following information was provided for the July 11, briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The City Council will be briefed on a zoning text amendment that would establish a process permitting the reconstruction of an historic carriage house for the purpose of creating a dwelling unit. The applicant owns property at 222 East 4th Avenue (Council District 3) that has the remnants of an historic carriage house. The applicant would like to rebuild the carriage house and use it for a dwelling unit. This is a private petition seeking to make changes to the zoning ordinance. If adopted, the applicant would then be able to Page | 2 submit an application to go through the process to obtain a permit to reconstruct the carriage house on their property. Throughout the process the planning staff identified several barriers to the applicant’s proposed ordinance language that would make it impracticable. The Transmittal letter notes that planning staff reviewed the draft language and made recommendations that would provide “clarification on authority, review process, applicable standards and an identified application.” (Transmittal Letter Page 2) However, the applicant did not accept those recommendations and chose instead to move forward with the zoning amendment without any of the recommended changes by planning staff. Since the proposal is meant to address an historic structure, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the petition and forwarded a unanimous negative recommendation due to the issues outlined above and discussed in detail in the Planning Commission staff report. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and forwarded a negative recommendation. Based on a series of meetings and discussions, Council Member Wharton asked planning staff if they could propose a draft ordinance that would accomplish the goals of the applicant and be in line with City practices and goals. Planning staff drafted the ordinance, and it has been shared with the applicant. That draft ordinance is also in front of the Council for consideration. See background section for more information on the timeline of discussions. In the memo below, Section 1 includes an outline of the applicant’s petition. Section 2 includes the summary of the alternative draft ordinance planning staff provided for consideration. Policy Questions • Does the Council support directing staff to work with the Administration to prepare Planning’s proposed draft for the public hearing and consideration. • The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a summary of how their proposed draft will enable an historic carriage house to potentially be rebuilt by the applicant. Section 1 – Applicant Proposed Changes Planning Commission Recommendation Planning staff found the concept behind the petition was supported by many of the city’s master plans and community plans. Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report, pages 164-166, outlines statements in applicable city plans that express general support for the concept. However, staff felt the proposed ordinance as drafted by the applicant would not be feasible. They attempted to work with the applicant prior to submission of the language, as well as after the application was accepted and assigned; however, “the applicant was not amendable to staff recommendations.” (Transmittal letter, Page 166) Planning staff found they were not able to support the proposed amendment because it “does not include actual text to be inserted into the zoning code, does not address the process for approval of Page | 3 projects under the proposal, and is therefore not something that can be administered.” (Transmittal letter, Page 166) Due to these reasons, The Planning Commission agreed with the planning staff’s recommendation and forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. Outline of Proposed Changes by the Applicant Pages 13-14 of the applicant’s submission outline their proposed changes. Reconstruction of an 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: a. Sanborn maps; b. Historic photographs; c. Planning, zoning or building permit records; d. 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. The following conditions are not required by this text amendment to allow for reconstruction: Page | 4 a. That the property owner be required to keep a permanent address at the site of the reconstruction. b. Meeting the current minimum lot size. Section 2 – Alternative Draft provided by Planning Attachment A is the alternative draft provided by planning staff. This version defines an historic carriage house, establishes the criteria that must be satisfied to reconstruct an historic carriage house, outlines the application requirements, approval standards and modification standards for the process to reconstruct an historic carriage house. Since this draft is within the scope of the original petition, this draft does not need to go back to the Planning Commission for review. 1. Applicability a. The property / address must be a landmark site b. Provide documentation that indicates a carriage house existed on the site. 2. Application requirements a. An application to reconstruct an historic carriage house is considered new construction and must provide documentation that satisfies the documentation requirements required by this section. 3. Approval Standards a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture. b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or considered. e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on the property based on historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the structure. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the original carriage house. f. Entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage houses from the same era as the original carriage house. g. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have been mitigated or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. Page | 5 4. Allowed uses after reconstruction a. A single-family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage. b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district. c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling units. 5. Authorized Modifications a. The Historic Landmark Commission may modify the following if the proposal compiles with the applicable standards: (1) Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an additional dwelling unit. (2). Modifications to 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020 (3) any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050 6. Definition a. 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 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, and may have provided housing for people who worked or provided service to the site. Background – Discussions and timeline • Throughout the process the applicant contacted Council Member Wharton expressing concerns about the application. Council Member Wharton and council staff communicated with the applicant many times, stating the Council has a policy to hold off on meeting with applicants or discussing a zoning petition until an item that requires Council review is transmitted to the Council after it goes through the standard process which included Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission review. • Once the application was transmitted to the council office, Council Member Wharton met with planning staff to discuss the petition. During that meeting he asked if the planning staff has any changes that could be made allowing the petition to move forward with a solution that would work for both the applicant and the City. Planning staff provided an alternative draft ordinance that if adopted, would enable the reconstruction of historic carriage houses. • Council and Planning staff met with Mr. Pace over the course of a few months to discuss the alternative ordinance. After a couple of meetings with him and his representatives, Mr. Pace expressed support to request the City Council review the petition, as well as planning staff’s proposed changes.