Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 10/7/2025 COUNCILSTAFFREPORT CITY COUNCILof SALT LAKE CITYTO:City Council MembersFROM:Brian FullmerPolicy AnalystDATE:October 7, 2025RE:Sampson and Altadena Apartments Local Landmark Site PLNHLC2025-00357BRIEFING UPDATEDuring the September 16, 2025 briefing, the Council clarified the difference between a property being listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designation as a local landmark site. Planning staff noted that the national register does not offer protection from building demolition. Local landmark sitedesignation also requires maintaining historic elements of the buildings. Council Members expressed general support for the landmark site designation and thanked the applicant and other owners in the buildings for their commitment to preservation.The following information was provided for the September 16, 2025 Council meeting. It is included again for background purposes.ISSUE AT A GLANCEThe Council will be briefed about a proposal to designate the Sampson and Altadena Apartments at 276 East 300 South, and 310 South 30o East respectively, in Council District Four, as a local landmark site. The buildings share one parcel on the southwest corner of 300 East and 300 South as shown in the image below.The Sampson and Altadena buildings have been converted from apartments to condominiums and members of the homeowner’s association voted unanimously in support of designating the buildings as a landmark site. If approved by the Council, the zoning map would be amended to apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District to the property.The buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. However, this listing does not provide protection from demolition that a local landmark site designation would.This item was reviewed by the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions at their respective July 10and July 23, 2025 meetings and public hearings were held.A total of five people spoke at the hearings, all supportive of the proposal. Both Commissions followed Planning staff’s recommendations and voted unanimously to forward a recommendationfor approval to the City Council.Goal of the briefing:Review the proposed local landmark site designation, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal.Aerial image with the subject buildings outlined in red. The Sampson building faces 300 South and Altadena faces 300 East.Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning DivisionADDITIONAL INFORMATIONDesignation of a landmark site is governed by Chapter 21A.51.040.A Salt Lake City Codeand follows a similar process as other zoning map amendments. Applications are reviewed by the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions before consideration by the City Council, which is the decision-making body.Both buildings were constructed in 1906 and are Neoclassical architectural style “urban apartment blocks.” These were a popular housing option at the time for young people moving to the city from rural areas, and for newly arrived immigrants. The buildings are typical apartment block style of a three-story walkup, with two apartments that include deep porches on each floor. The buildings are well preserved and retain their original design elements. It is not common for twin buildings from this era to be located so close to each other. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATION Attachment D (pages 132-135 of the Planning Commission staff report) outlines standards for designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation that are to be evaluated. They are summarized below. Please refer to the staff report for additional information.Chapter 21A.51.040.A Salt Lake City Code has the following standards for consideration:Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following:Events that have made significant contributionto the important patterns of history, orLives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, orThe distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, orInformation important in the understanding of the prehistory of Salt Lake City.Finding: Planning staff found that the buildings meet standards 1.a, and 1.c.Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040.Finding: It is Planning’s opinion that the standard is met as both buildings’ historic integrity is intact.The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.Finding: Both buildings are listed on the National Register, so this standard is met.The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts.Finding: Planning found the buildings are notable examples of the city’s development patterns and architecture, so the standard is met.The designation is generally consistent with the adopted planning policies.Finding: It is Planning’s opinion that the proposed landmark site designation is generally consistent with goals and objectives in adopted policies and plans.The designation would be in the overall public interest.Finding: Planning staff stated “Based on the interest expressed by the property owners and the adopted City policies noted above, designation of the Sampson and Altadena Apartments as a local landmark site appears to be in the best interest of the City. The proposal meets this standard.”Chapter 21A.51.040.B Salt Lake City Code includes factors the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council may consider to help determine whether a proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed above.Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance.Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city.Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture.Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey.Finding: Planning found that applicable factors to consider have been met.Chapter 21A.51.040.C Salt Lake City Code – Boundaries of a proposed local landmark site: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries.Finding: The standard is met as both buildings will be included in the proposed local landmark site.Attachment E (page 136) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.FactorFindingWhether a proposed map amendment is consistent with and helps implement the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents.CompliesWhether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.CompliesThe extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties.CompliesWhether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.CompliesThe adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection.CompliesPROJECT CHRONOLOGY April 11, 2025 – Petitionsubmitted by applicant. May 7, 2025 – Petition deemed complete and assigned to Noah Elmore, Principal Planner. May 23, 2025 – Notice of petition sent to all City-recognized community organizations. May 27, 2025 – Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. Public comment period ended July 23, 2025. June 26, 2025 – Historic Landmark Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. July 9, 2025 – Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. July 10, 2025 – Historic Landmark Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. July 23, 2025 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. A positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. August 14, 2025 – Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s Office. August 26,2025 – Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. September 4, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.