Salt Lake City hearing officer takes under advisement appeal over historic status of 58 E. Hillside Ave.

Salt Lake City appeals hearing officer Matt Wortham heard arguments on an administrative appeal over the historic-status determination for a building at 58 East Hillside Avenue and said he would take the matter under advisement, issuing a written decision within two weeks.

The appeal, filed by Hillside Avenue LLC and represented at the hearing by Amy Walker, challenges a zoning administrator’s determination that a rear outbuilding on the parcel is a contributing structure to the Capitol Hill Historic District. The city maintained the building was identified as contributing in historic surveys and retains sufficient aspects of historic integrity to remain contributory.

The hearing focused on three criteria in Salt Lake City’s Historic Preservation Overlay District code (cited in the hearing as Salt Lake City Code 21A.34.020): whether alterations are generally reversible; whether the building contributes to an understanding of the district’s period of significance; and whether the building retains historic integrity across factors such as location, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

Amy Walker, representing Hillside Avenue LLC, argued the record does not show the building is "generally reversible," a term she said the city did not define or apply with adequate factual findings. Walker pointed to a structural assessment and photographic evidence submitted by the appellant and said those materials show the building’s condition makes meaningful reversal impractical. She said the property’s current physical state—including damage from the 1999 tornado and later deterioration—means it no longer communicates the historic attributes relied on in earlier surveys.

City planning staff and counsel defended the administrative interpretation. Sarah (last name not stated), a city planner, said the structure is set back from the street but was listed as contributing in both the original district survey and a 2006 re-survey, and staff reviewed the seven aspects of historic integrity in reaching its conclusion. "The subject property meets the 3 considerations identified and is contributing to the Capitol Hill Historic District," Sarah told the hearing panel.

City counsel Courtney Lords cited case law and the standard of review for administrative decisions, noting that an agency decision need not be perfect to be upheld under the substantial-evidence standard. Lords quoted the Staker decision, saying an administrative decision "need not be perfect or even laudable," and argued the city had documented findings tying the record to the ordinance standards.

A city staff member identified in the record as Mikaela explained the difference between the review now before the appeals officer and other city processes. She said that if the administrative interpretation were changed to make the building noncontributing, the owner could pursue building permits or demolition through different processes; separate paths exist for a demolition review by the Historic Landmark Commission and for an economic-hardship/takings review that examines the physical condition and financial burden on the owner.

Walker emphasized that the appellant had provided an independent architectural-historian report and photographs to support its claim the building is not generally reversible, and restated the point that the current owner has held the property for only a few years, which, she said, undercuts any claim that the owner let the property deteriorate for decades.

After questioning from the appeals hearing officer and rebuttal from both sides, Matt Wortham said he would take the record under advisement and prepare a written decision after reviewing the materials. "My decision is just to take it under advisement and have a written decision within, two weeks' time," Wortham said. No final determination was made at the hearing.