Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission approves relocation and partial reconstruction of contributing house near Trolley Square

The Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission voted 4-1 to approve an application to relocate a contributing Craftsman-style house from approximately 632 South 700 East to a nearby vacant lot at about 635 East 700 South, and to allow a modification of the required 10-foot east side yard setback to 5 feet 6 inches.

Staff recommended approval of Case PLNHLC2025-00330. Noah Elmore, planning staff, told commissioners the house sits on a 33-foot-wide lot in the Central City Local Historic District and that the proposed new site lies within the same historic district and the same RMF-30 zoning. Elmore said staff’s recommendation included conditions listed in the staff report.

The applicant told the commission the existing building has a brick foundation, wood novelty siding, wood-shingle gable siding, exposed rafters and other Craftsman details. Architect Dustin Glazier said because the building has a brick foundation and significant deterioration it cannot be moved in one piece: “Our intent is to thoroughly measure the entire house and replicate it with the new modern products that will look identical,” he said, adding that salvable exterior character-defining materials would be refurbished and reused where feasible and structurally deficient elements would be replaced.

Attorney Doug White, representing the applicant, said the move is tied to a larger redevelopment plan for the Trolley Square block and that “if approved, we would use this space for the larger development that is planned for Trolley Square. If that plan is not approved, the house will not be moved.” Owner Wendy Mendenhall confirmed the destination lot is vacant and that she has owned it about 20 years.

Public comment included Council Member Eva Lopez Chavez (District 4), who expressed support for protections and adaptive reuse in the district, noting the city’s broader zoning and downtown development context. Resident Cindy Cromer opposed handling substantial design decisions at the staff level and said she was concerned the proposal appears to be a reconstruction rather than a relocation: “I was thinking we were talking about the relocation of an historic structure. And, I don't think that's what we're talking about,” Cromer said, citing uncertainty about how much original material would be reused and the lack of inventory photos for the street-facing facades.

Several commissioners questioned whether the proposal met the city’s relocation standards because the project disassembles exterior elements and re-creates much of the building on a new foundation. Commissioners discussed the city code standards read into the record by staff, which include (a) that the relocation abates demolition, (b) that relocation not diminish the district’s integrity or the structure’s significance, (c) that relocation not harm structural soundness, (d) that a professional mover protect the building, and (e) that a financial guarantee be provided to ensure rehabilitation after relocation.

Commission discussion emphasized the difference—both practical and legal—between moving an intact structure and dismantling exterior materials for reconstruction. Commissioner comments ranged from concern about the number of on-the-fly decisions that will be made during reconstruction (including window and opening details) to arguments that the proposed work would restore street-front density and preserve contributing historic character in the block.

After discussion, the commission approved the relocation application as recommended by staff. The motion recorded was: “I move that the commission approve this relocation application as recommended by staff.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kearns. The roll call recorded: Commissioner DeLay — Aye; Commissioner Kearns — Aye; Commissioner Barnett — No; Commissioner Abridson — Aye; Vice Chair Carlton Goetz — Aye. The outcome was approved.

The commission closed the formal meeting and moved on to a training session. Staff indicated the approved relocation will be subject to the conditions in the staff report and any follow-up reviews required by code (for example, minor alterations such as window replacements would be reviewed separately).