Transmittal - 4/15/2024
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Salt Lake City Council
From: Mayara Lima, Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator
Date: April 12, 2024
Re: Follow-up to Council Briefing on a Text Amendment for Enforcement on Work Done
Without a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA).
On April 2, 2024, the City Council held a briefing regarding a text amendment for Enforcement on
Work Done Without a CoA (PLNPCM2023-00336). During the briefing, the City Council asked staff
to further research some aspects of the proposal. This memo includes the staff’s response to those
items:
Proposed penalty
A separate petition (PLNPM2023-00868, Building Code Administration and Enforcement) has been
transmitted to council. The petition contains related enforcement provisions. The changes proposed
to 21A.20, as it relates to fines for work without a CoA, will be transferred to this petition and
included as part of the enforcement for work without a CoA text amendment. This update has been
reflected in the ordinance.
Council also inquired about the penalty for demolition of a contributing structure or landmark site
without a certificate of appropriateness proposed as $250. This is a new fee that does not currently
exist in our code. The figure was assessed as compared to what is proposed for other code violations:
Penalty per day by type of violation
Residential
zoning
General
work
without
COA
Housing
code
General
building
Commercial
zoning
Violation
of stop
word order
Demolition
without COA
$25-$50 $50 $50-$200 $100 $100-$200 $250 $250
A demolition without a COA of a contributing building or a landmark site is similar in gravity to a
violation of a stop work order and thus, is held to higher standards. Some cities in the country impose
a one-time fine, ranging from $1,000 to $10,000. Our proposed fine, which accumulates daily, is
proportional to the violation and comparable to what is done in other cities because of the time it
would take for a property owner to resolve the violation.
The reconstruction process would be lengthy, and a property owner would accumulate daily fines
until the reconstruction is approved. In addition to the fines, the owner would incur costs to obtain
the required documentation. After that, redevelopment of the property will continue to be restricted
for 25 years. Considering the entire process, the penalty is proportionate to the violation.
Page 2
Additionally, we recommend starting within a range of other penalties and potentially increasing it
later since this is the first instance of such a fine in Salt Lake City.
• Increased penalty for demolition of a landmark site:
Council suggested that landmark sites be held to even higher standards. The ordinance has
been updated to reflect an increase for demolition of landmark site to $500 per day, which is
double that of a demolition of a contributing building.
• Penalty based on property value:
Council asked to consider a penalty that is proportional to the property value of the
demolished structure. This solution is problematic because it could be found arbitrary and
capricious. A property value is not always consistent with its historical value. For example, a
building that has not been maintained or is physically small could have a lower property
value than its value to the city in terms of historic preservation. Additionally, the value could
easily fall outside the penalty threshold permitted by state code (Class B misdemeanor,
$1,000 maximum).
• Penalty for vacant property:
The Attorney’s Office indicated that this solution may conflict with state law. Utah law
recognizes the common law principle that property owners have a right to exclude others. As
a general proposition, penalizing that choice (i.e. by imposing fines for leaving a property
vacant) is likely to conflict with that right.
Landmark Site Assessment
A suggestion was made to conduct annual assessments of locally designated landmark sites. There
are constraints with doing these assessments, including staff resources, owner’s permission to inspect
and lack of city’s ability to require that deficiencies be corrected. From a historic perspective, the
zoning ordinance only regulates the exterior of landmark sites. Staff cannot legally conduct an
inspection of a landmark property without permission from the property owner. If permission is
granted and staff finds a deficiency with the exterior of the building, the City cannot require the
property owner to obtain the necessary approvals and conduct the work, unless the deficiency is a
health or safety violation. At best, a visual inspection of the exterior could be conducted for
documentation purposes. This could also have an impact on the division’s budget and resource
allocation.
Property Owner Outreach
The Planning Division is dedicated to ensuring property owners are informed about they live in a
local historic district and the corresponding regulations outlined in the H Historic Preservation
Overlay. To achieve this, we employ several outreach strategies. Firstly, a notice is recorded on the
property, accessible through any title search, to highlight its inclusion in a historic district. Moreover,
annual postcards are mailed out to notify property owners of their designation, accompanied by links
to the Preservation section of the Planning Department's website. This online resource hub offers
comprehensive information on standards, guidelines, and available resources for maintaining
historic properties. Looking ahead, we plan to extend this notification process to owners of
Landmark Sites. Furthermore, we operate a dedicated preservation email staffed by knowledgeable
planners who are equipped to address inquiries and offer technical assistance concerning historic
Page 3
structures. Through these concerted efforts, we aim to foster a proactive and informed approach to
historic preservation within our city.