HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLNZAD2025-00684 - 58 E HillsideAugust 20, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
DECISION AND FINDINGS
PLNZAD2025-00684
REQUEST:
This is a request for an Administrative Interpretation regarding the Historic Status of the building
located at approximately 58 E Hillside Avenue (tax ID#09-31-308-006-0000) in the Capitol Hill
Local Historic District. The 2006 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS), which is the most recent
historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division, indicates the subject
property is a contributing structure.
Bruce Baird, representing the owner of the subject property, Hillside Ave, LLC, disputes the
contributing rating and is recommending the status of the building be changed from contributing
to non-contributing. The applicant submitted an integrity assessment letter from John Schuttler
of Chronicle Heritage (Attachment B) to support the request to change the historic status rating,
as required by Section 21A.34.020.D.
DECISION:
The Zoning Administrator finds that the Contributing status of the building at approximately 58
E Hillside Avenue should remain unchanged. The Zoning Administrator finds that the building
contributes to an understanding of a period of significance identified in the Capitol Hill Historic
District and retains historic integrity as defined in section 21A.62.040.
Utah Historic Building Records, 1980
1
Z oning map indicating location of the subject property
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is in the Capitol Hill Local Historic District, within the H (Historic
Preservation Overlay District) and is subject to the standards in section 21A.34.020 .H of the Salt
Lake City zoning ordinance. Relevant information is as follows:
•The building is a one-story residential structure that was built c. 1896 per the tax card from
the Salt Lake County Archives. It is set back from the street (Attachment C).
•Historically, there were two structures on the subject property, one in front of the other, with
the subject building being in the rear. The building that was in front of the subject building
was demolished in 1968. As a result, the subject building is set back approximately 120 feet
from Hillside Avenue.
•Historic records sometimes refer to the subject building as “Rear 58 E Hillside Ave” and “58
½ Hillside Ave”.
•The Capitol Hill National Register (NR) Historic District was designated in 1982. T he subject
building is included in the district and was identified as contributing (Attachment E).
•The Capitol Hill Local Historic District was designated in 1984. The National Register
information from 1982 was used to support the designation.
•The subject building is rated “B” or “Eligible, Contributing” in the most recent
Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) for the Capitol Hill Historic District from 2006
(Attachment F).
•The 1898 Sanborn map, which is the first to show this area of the city, shows two buildings
on the property, one in front of the other. On the 1911 Sanborn map, both have different
2
footprints, but are generally in the same location. The footprint of the subject property has
remained consistent since the 1911 Sanborn map (Attachment G).
• A previous entity applied for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in 2020. Consistent with
staff’s recommendation, the Historic Landmark Commission denied this application on May
7, 2020. An appeal of this decision was subsequently submitted and upheld by the Appeals
Hearing Officer on August 24, 2020.
Chapter 21A.62 Definitions of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance defines “Contributing
Structure” and “Noncontributing Structure”. It provides the following definitions:
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay
district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an
adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to generally retain historic
integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the
collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together
may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. A
contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although
minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible.
NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation
Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the process outlined in
Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does
not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to
make the historic form, materials or details indistinguishable and such alterations are
irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include t hose rated out of period, and
therefore, they are not representative of a period of significance as identified in an adopted
historic resource survey.
Historic Resource Surveys are one of the tools used by staff for the purpose of identifying and
evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following
the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The first survey conducted in what became the Capitol Hill Historic District was in 1980. It
identified that it was a one-story hipped roof structure with two -over-two light window sashes.
The 1982 National Register nomination form included the first survey forms that designated this
property as “Contributory” with minor alterations.
The assessor’s tax card dates the building to 1896, based on information from the owner. The first
Sanborn map of this area, dated 1898, shows two buildings on the property, one towards the front
and one to the rear. The 1911 Sanborn map also shows two buildings, but their footprints are
larger. The 1950 and 1969 Sanborn maps are consistent with the 1911 Sanborn map and do not
show changes to the footprint of this building.
In the most recent RLS, each property within the Capitol Hill Historic District was evaluated and
designated. It designated this property as “B – Eligible”. This is defined as:
B -- Eligible: built within the historic period and retains integrity; good example of type or
style, but not as well-preserved or well-executed as “A” buildings; more substantial
alterations or additions than “A”; eligible for National Register as part of a potential historic
district or primarily for historical, rather than architectural reasons. [Additions do not
detract and alterations may be reversible].
3
Consistent with the original 1980 survey form, the data sheet from the RLS noted that it was built
c. 1880, had a stucco/plaster exterior, and that it was set back from the street. It noted the
architectural style of the home as “Victorian: Other”. The RLS indicates that styles linked with the
term “other” tend to be watered-down or unclassifiable versions of a particular style. However, it
also noted that the Capitol Hill Historic District has very few buildings that are pure examples of
a single style.
T he information on the 1980 survey form relates to both buildings that used to occupy the subject
property - the front building (demolished in 1968) and the rear building, which is the subject
building. This seems to indicate an earlier, likely c. 1880 construction date for the front building,
and a later construction date, c. 1909, for the rear (subject) building. Critically for this
interpretation, the 1911, 1950, and 1969 Sanborn maps show the same footprint for this the subject
building. Additionally, the 1980 survey photo, 1984 assessor photo, and current photos do not
show changes to the subject building.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
Section 21A.34.020.D identifies the process and criteria for a historic status determination. When
requesting to change the historic status of a property, applicants shall state in the application the
reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed based on the
considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an intensive level survey (ILS)
conducted in accordance with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office standards for building
surveys addressing the considerations in 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning administrator.
The applicant has chosen the first option (Attachment B) and staff’s analysis to the considerations
follow:
Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination may include
the following considerations:
a.Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible.
Staff analysis:
The current footprint of the building is consistent with the 1911 and later Sanborn maps. The
Chronicle Heritage integrity assessment (Assessment) submitted by the applicant states, “The
Sanborn maps for 1911, 1926 1949, and 1969 all show a single entrance, with an awning, on the
west façade,” and that “All Sanborn maps show a dwelling to the rear (south) of 58 E Hillside
labelled as 58 ½ E. Hillside. That dwelling is no longer extant.”
T his statement in the materials in incorrect – staff could not find any evidence on any of the
Sanborn maps referenced that show the location of the entry on the subject building. The dwelling
referred to as no longer extant is still in existence and is the building that is the subject of this
historic status determination. This is confirmed with the tax card information from the Salt Lake
County Archives (Attachment C). It indicates that the front building was demolished in 1968,
likely before the release of the 1969 Sanborn map, but following fieldwork.
4
Above left: 1911 Sanborn map showing both properties. The front building is shaded brown, reflecting adobe
construction.
Above right: 2024 aerial photo showing the site and the subject building, which is set back significantly from the
street.
T he footprint of the subject building does not appear to have changed since 1911. The 1980 survey
form identified it as contributing. It noted that it was a one-story hipped roof structure with two -
over-two light windows. The 2006 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) survey for Capitol Hill,
also rated the subject property as contributing. These features, along with the entry porches,
remain the primary character defining features of the building.
b.Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance of a
neighborhood, community, or area.
Staff analysis:
The subject building is within the “Victorian Urbanization Period” identified in the RLS Survey,
which extended from 1890 -1911. Most were individual single-family dwellings built by family
members on subdivided land, occasionally building new residences behind established homes
with street frontage. This building is a very simplified form in the neighborhood, which has many
larger, more ornate, and high-style examples of architecture. However, the two -over-two light
windows and stucco are common on other early, vernacular buildings in the neighborhood.
Similarly, the single-story rectangular building form is also common. The elements on the
building are reflective of this period of significance and contribute to an understanding of the
neighborhood and its history.
c.Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. The analysis
shall take into consideration how the building reflects the historical or architectural merits of the
overall local historic district in which the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of
a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and
structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each
individual building or structure in a district.
5
Staff analysis:
The definition in 21A.62.040 matches that of the National Park Service for historic integrity and
its seven aspects of integrity. These are included with staff’s analysis below. Historic integrity
itself is, “The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes.” This is
through the aspects of integrity:
1) Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where a historic event occurred.
T he location of the building has not changed.
2) Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
Nothing has been provided, and staff could not find any records demonstrating any changes to
the building have occurred since 1911. The existing building retains elements described in historic
surveys from 2006 and 1980. The building has a hipped roof, stucco exterior, and several two -
over two light windows. The Assessment identified that a second entrance and awning were
added and were a significant alteration to the original design. There are two entries on the subject
building, but there is no evidence that the second entry was added later.
3) Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
This is generally maintained since the house remains in its location, but historically there was a
house in front of it that was demolished in 1968. The demolition of the front house changes the
setting for this building since it was behind this house and was likely not as visible as it is now.
However, the subject building was determined contributing in both historic surveys, which were
after the demolition of the front building. A dwelling to the rear is common in Capitol Hill and
older areas of Salt Lake generally. There is another example nearby of a “rear” house at 29 E 200
N with the “front” house at 31 E 200 N.
4) Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property.
The historic materials remain intact on the building. It is frame construction with a stucco
exterior. Additionally, the wood windows and other openings are intact. Two brick chimneys are
heavily damaged, but their locations are visible, and they could be restored.
5) Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture
or people during any given period in history.
T he workmanship of the character defining features – its windows, entries, exterior materials,
and roof form are intact. As discussed above, the chimneys are damaged, but physical evidence
remains and they could be restored. The Assessment describes deferred maintenance and
potential neglect of the property, but this is not the workmanship of the building. The elements
contributing to the workmanship of the building are physically evident.
6
6) Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
The building retains its original style (Victorian, Other), exterior materials, and workmanship.
Together, these intact features convey the historic character of the period of time in which it was
constructed – the Victorian Urbanization Period. The Assessment states that the “feeling has
always been compromised” because of its entrance location and visibility. This statement is
unfounded. Records relating to the property demonstrate that the entrance location, which is to
the side of the property rather than on a street facing façade, and the building’s placement on the
site has no t changed since the initial construction of the subject building. These characteristics
are part of the building’s historic design, not a deviation from it. Far from compromising the
feeling, these elements are in essence the feeling.
7) Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person
and a historic property.
T he subject building is a component of the Capitol Hill local historic district. The overall collection
of structures in the District, including the subject structure, collectively share association of the
development of the neighborhood and its transition from small, vernacular structures to larger,
high style architecture within the neighborhood as it developed. The current footprint is from the
“Victorian Urbanization Period, 1890 -1911” in the RLS.
OTHER ISSUES
Separately from the response to the considerations for historic status determination, the
Assessment discusses damage from the 1999 tornado. A note in the city’s permitting software
from 8/12/99, which was the day after the tornado, states, “Tree fell on roof, heavy damage, ok to
occupy” (Attachment H). While damage was sustained, the building was allowed to be occupied,
and it remains a hipped roof building. Repairs to the roof do not require a change to the type of
roof. Additionally, the damaged rear addition is not visible from the right-of-way and is not a
character defining feature of the building. Alterations that have occurred are generally reversible
or do not affect character defining features. Since the addition is not a character defining feature,
it could be removed with applicable approvals and the building would still retain integrity.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds that the alterations that have been made to the subject building are generally reversible,
the building contributes to an understanding of the period of significance, and the building retains
historic integrity. Six of the seven aspects of historic integrity are met. The seventh, “setting” is
generally maintained. However, the demolition of the building in front, prior to this building’s
historic designation, altered how it is viewed from the street. With these findings, the subject
building meets the zoning ordinance definition of a contributing structure, and the historic status
of the property should remain as Contributing.
APPEAL PROCESS:
An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or
interpreting this Title may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer. Notice of appeal shall be filed
within ten (10) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Planning
Division and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision
to be in error. Applications for appeals are located on the Planning Division website at
https://www.slc.gov/planning/applications/ along with information about how to apply and
processing fees.
7
Sara Javoronok, AICP
Senior Planner
CC: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Michaela Bell, Deputy Planning Director
Mayara Lima, Zoning Administrator
Casey Stewart, Planning Manager
Posted to Web
Applicable Recognized Organization - Capitol Hill
File
Attachments:
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B: Applicant’s Assessment
Attachment C: Tax Cards and Photos
Attachment D: Current Photos
Attachment E: Excerpt from National Register Nomination
Attachment F: Historic Surveys (1980 and 2006)
Attachment G: Clips from Sanborn Maps
Attachment H: Building Permit Card
ATTACHMENT A: ZONING MAP
9
ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT’S ASSESSMENT
10
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
53 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
T: (801) 203-4445
F: (602) 254-6280
info@chronicleheritage.com
June 17, 2025
Bruce R. Baird
2150 S. 1300 E., Suite 500
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
RE: Integrity Assessment for 58 E. Hillside Avenue
Dear Bruce,
The following constitutes a report assessing the integrity of the historic resource
located at 58 E. Hillside Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah in relation to subsection D.7 of Salt
Lake City ordinance 21A.34.020: H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The resource at
58 E. Hillside Avenue, which functioned as a dwelling, was listed as a “contributory”
resource to the Capitol Hill Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) in 1982. Listing the district on the NRHP subsequently granted it
designation as a Local Historic District, also. It is Chronicle’s understanding that its
assessment may be used to support an application to the Salt Lake City Historic
Landmarks Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the resource
at 58 E. Hillside Avenue.
Chronicle initiated its assessment with a review of the Structure/Site Information
Form completed for 58 E. Hillside Avenue as part of the 1982 NRHP district nomination.
While it is not the intention of this assessment to challenge the determination of
“contributory” made in 1982, there are three inconsistencies worth noting:
• The date of construction is listed on the form as 1896, but the 1898 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Company map shows the footprint of a building different from that
appearing on the 1911 edition of the map (see Exhibits A-E). The 1911 depiction is
consistent with the current layout.
• The Sanborn maps for 1911, 1926 1949, and 1969 all show a single entrance, with an
awning, on the west façade. A photograph of the dwelling accompanying the 1982
nomination and a recent photo (see Exhibits F-G) show two entrances on the west
façade, both with awnings.
• All Sanborn maps show a dwelling to the rear (south) of 58 E Hillside labelled as 58 ½
E. Hillside. That dwelling is no longer extant. Additionally, a single car, gable-roofed,
wood frame and clad garage sits immediately to the southeast of 58 E. Hillside now.
That garage is not shown on any of the Sanborn maps.
11
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
53 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
T: (801) 203-4445
F: (602) 254-6280
info@chronicleheritage.com
Assessing 58 E. Hillside in relation to “Considerations for Historic Status
Determinations” defined under subsection D.7 of ordinance 21A.34.020, Chronicle
Heritage made the following determinations per the subsections of D.7:
•a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible – The
alterations to the primary entrances may be irreversible. Enclosing one entrance
to restore the historical configuration could produce stress on structural
elements more than 100 years old.
•b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of
significance of a neighborhood, community, or area – The dwelling, even in a
deteriorating state, does contribute to an understanding of the period of
significance, which was set at 1850s-1930s, but it was determined only as
“contributory” and not “significant” in the 1982 nomination. The dwelling’s
contribution could be considered mitigated by its largely concealed visibility
from the public right-of-way and inability to see its primary façade, where
entrances are located, which face west, perpendicular to the right-of-way.
•c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association as defined in
(Salt City Ordinance) Section 21A.62.040 – Before assessing integrity per each
aspect, it should be noted that the dwelling was damaged in the tornado that
passed over the Capitol Hill Historic District on August 11, 1999 see Exhibit H).
The tornado damaged the rear addition, roof and roofline (damage which
extended to the interior ceiling beneath), and a brick chimney (see Exhibits I-K).
Damage done by the tornado made the property uninhabitable. The following
provides an assessment of each aspect of integrity for 58 E. Hillside:
o Location – The resource retains integrity of location.
o Design – The addition of a second entrance and awning constitute a
significant alteration to the original design.
o Setting – The growth of vegetation between the resource and the public
right-of-way, addition of fencing around three sides, loss of the
secondary dwelling, and addition of a non-historic garage, have altered
the setting of the resource, diminishing its relation to associated historic
resources on the same property and those nearby.
o Materials – The exterior walls, windows, and roofing consist of historic
materials, though the Sanborn maps denote various roofing materials
present at different times. The addition of aluminum screen doors on all
entrances is non-historic.
o
12
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
53 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
T: (801) 203-4445
F: (602) 254-6280
info@chronicleheritage.com
o Workmanship – There has been significant deterioration in workmanship
with chipping of the plaster/stucco exterior walls; excessive wear on
window frames, sills, caulking, and muntins; broken windows resulting in
planking over the openings; collapse of a brick chimney, and collapse of
some exterior siding on the rear addition, leaving the interior exposed to
the elements.
o Feeling – The historic feeling of the resource has always been
compromised because the primary/entrance façade is not visible from
the public-right-of-way, leaving only a non-descript façade with two
windows (one of which is now covered) visible from the street.
Additionally, when vegetation is in bloom, the resource is barely visible.
o Association – The resource’s association to the other resources in the
Capitol Historic District is compromised by its low visibility and its vastly
different design from nearby resources. That different, simple design
gives indication of the resource’s roots in the early era of development in
the district, but the inability to view the primary façade detracts from
gaining full appreciation of it association to other resources in the
district.
The damage incurred by the tornado in 1999 significantly diminished the integrity of
workmanship and feeling, but integrity of design, setting, and association were diminished
by alterations made by previous owners of 58 E. Hillside Avenue and before the tornadic
event. The overall effects on integrity have left a resource that does not resemble its
historic appearance and has minimal ability through its setting, feeling or association to
convey the factors defining the Capitol Hill Historic District. Chronicle Heritage determines
that the significant damage and overall compromised integrity of the resource at 58 E.
Hillside Avenue warrants a change in its status from contributory to the Capitol Hill Historic
District to non-contributory.
Sincerely,
CHRONICLE HERITAGE
John Schuttler, M.A., | Senior Architectural Historian
13
Memo Title
4
Exhibits
Exhibit A. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1898.
Exhibit B. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1911.
14
Memo Title
5
Exhibit C. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1926.
Exhibit D. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1949.
15
Memo Title
6
Exhibit E. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1969.
Exhibit F. View of the west and north facades, looking southeast, 1982.
16
Memo Title
7
Exhibit G. View of the west façade, 2024.
Exhibit H. Path of the August 11, 1999 tornado that damaged 58 E. Hillside Avenue.
17
Memo Title
8
Exhibit I. Damage and deterioration to rear addition area, with view of collapsed chimney.
Exhibit J. Damage to the interior space of the rear addition.
18
Memo Title
9
Exhibit K. View of the east façade, looking southwest, showing damage to the hipped roof/roofline,
chimney, and windows.
References
Nation Park Service
1982 National Register of Historic Places Nomination-Capitol Hill Historic District, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
National Weather Service
2025 “Salt Lake City Tornado – August 11, 1999.” Accessed at www.weather.org.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1898 Salt Lake City. Volume 1.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1911 Salt Lake City. Volume 1.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
11926 Salt Lake City. Volume 1.
19
Memo Title
10
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1949 Salt Lake City. Volume 1.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1969 Salt Lake City. Volume 1.
Utah State Historic Preservation Office
1982 Structure/Site Information Form-58 E. Hillside Avenue, Capitol Hill Historic District.
20
ATTACHMENT C: TAX CARDS AND PHOTOS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
ATTACHMENT D: CURRENT PHOTOS
Front/North elevation
Front/North elevation from sidewalk.
56
Side/west elevation
Rear/south elevation
57
East/Side elevation
Garage to the east of the building
58
ATTACHMENT E: EXCERPT FROM NATIONAL
REGISTER NOMINATION
59
FHR-8-300 (11-78)
United States Department of tlie Interior
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Por HCRS use only
National Register of Historic Places '«<^>''«d
Inventory—Nomination Form
Continuation sheet Item number 7 Page ^
Christensen, 1912; 424 Wall St., Eiima C. White, 1912) are clustered near the
top of the slope on land that had not been built upon previously or which had
been built with insubstantial houses that were subsequently razed.
In the late 1920s Tudor Revival period cottages began to replace the
bungalow in popularity. Characteristic allusions to the Tudor style included
simulated haIf-timbering in gables, steeply-pitched cross-gables, often swept
on one side, (a roof line frequently repeated over an entry pavillion), round
arched doors and windows, external fireplace chimneys, casement windows with
numerous panes, and a variety of small details intended to achieve a quaint or
rustic effect. Houses were often massed and oriented in such a way as to
present a deceptively small facade to the street (88 Hillside, E. M.
Jorgensen, 1932, duplex; 30 Hillside Ave., William T. Salisbury, c. 1930; 12
W. 500 North, Ira B. Mann, 1936; 48 Apricot, Sebron W. Golding, 1932).
Existing houses were sometimes Tudorized, most commonly by the addition of a
Tudor-- style entry porch or gateway and wall attached to the side of the
house (324 N. 200 W., Alonzo H. Raleigh, 1888). New construction in the Tudor
Revival style is most commonly found high in the Marmalade and throughout the
Arsenal Hill area. ^
The architectural development of the Arsenal Hill differs substantially
from that of the Marmalade. The city arsenal occupied a substantial portion
of the upper slope of the hill and the accidental explosion there of 40 tons
of blasting powder in 1876 may help account for the absence of other examples
of early construction. The fine view and proximity to the center of the city
made Arsenal Hill a fashionable residential area in the 1890s after the water-
powered mills at the foot of the hill had been become obsolete and been
dismantled. Earlier houses were razed to prepare building sites for houses
built from the 1890s through the 1920s. Only three examples of vernacular
architecture remain (J.Golden Kimball, 36 E. 200 N. c. 1880; Baskin carriage
house, 22 Hillside Ave, 1877; and 58 Hillside, John Johnson, 1880). Because
of this pattern of development, Arsenal Hill preserves examples of the high-
style, architect-desigied houses that are almost absent elsewhere on Capitol
Hill. The Cterles P. Brooks house (204 N State St., 1890) is one of the best
examples of monumental Queen Anne Style architecture in the city. The Alfred
B. McCune house (201 N. Main Street, 1906) and the Edward D. Woodruff house
(95 E. 200 N., 1906) are fine examples of Beaux Arts and what has been called
Oriental Shingle Style.
The construction of substantial houses on Arsenal Hill continued into the
1930s, long after such construction had stopped in the Marmalade. Conse
quently there are excellent examples there of styles that are represented in
the Marmalade only by remote stylistic references on period cottages of
standardized plan. The Craftsman Style is represented by the Emma R. W. S.
Willes house, 151 N. State St., 1910; the Prairie Style by the Ashby Snow
house, 158 N. State Street, 1909, and the Tudor Revival by the Willard T.
Cannon and Edwin Gallacher houses at 180 and 170 N. State St., 1918 and 1925.
The International style and the Spanish revival style are represented by the
Richard Bird house, 235 E. Capitol St 1936 and the George A. Fisher house, 239
E. Capitol St., 1936. Early apartment construction for the upper middle class 60
ATTACHMENT F: HISTORIC SURVEYS
61
Property Type :
Utah State Historical Society
Historic Preservation Research Office
Site No. ______ _
1 z o
~ c (J
~
~ z w c
2
3
Street Address:
Name of Structure :
Present Owner:
Owner Address:
Structure/Site Information Form
58 Hillside Ave
Jensen, Lois G.
48 Hillside Ave.
SLC, UT 84103
01 Effective Age : 1920 Year Built (Tax Record): 1896
Legal Description Kind of Building: residence
UTM: 11269 11270
T.01.0 N R.01.0 E
Tax ,: 04 2358
com S 80-E 56 ft fr SW cor lot 8 b1k 2 plat E SLC sur
TESS 1/12 ft S to beg
N 80-W 56 ft N 76 F
Original Owner: John Johnson ConstructiOR Date : c. 18H Demolition Date :
Original Use : single family Prestflt Use: single f amlly
Building Condition : Integrity : Preliminary Evaluation: Final Register Status :
S . 31
. Excellent o Site
Ru ins
n Unaltered o .J lgnll icant
.,. Contr ibutory
o Notolthe
Histor iC Per iod
o National Undmark 0 Distr ict rf Good ~ Minor Alterations
U Ma jor Alterations
National Reg ister . J Multl·Resource
r. Deter iorated U Not Contributory State Reg ister
Photography : Date 01 Sli des : Slide No .: Date 01 Photographs: 1980
Views:
R,search Sources:
~ Abstract 01 Title ~I at Records /Map
: j Tax Card & Photo
Build ing Permit
C Sewer Permit
. Front 0 Side G Rear 0 Other
~ SanbOrn Maps r: City Director ies
Biograph ical Encycloped ias
Oblturary Index
D County & City Histor ies
Views: ~ont
DJ-ewspaper s
~ ~ State Historical Society o Personal Interviews
D lOS Church Arch ives
U lOS Genealog ical Soc iety
Other
D U 01 U library
BYU l ibrary
D USU library
SlC library
( Other
Bibliographical References (bookS , art icles , recordS , Interv iews , old photographs and maps, etc .~
SLC Building Permit, 11581/2
Salt Lake County Plat Records, 1860-1940
Sanborn Maps, SLC, 1898,1911,1930,1969
Sloan, SLC Directory, 1869,74
Hannahs,"" , 1873
Culmer," " , 1879-80
U.S. Directory, 1885
Stenhouse, 1888
Kelly, 1889
Polk, 1892-1940
Researcher: Robet:'t Hi.gie
() Thematic
Photo No .:
Date :
5/80
62
4
UJ a: :J l-t) UJ t:: :I: t) a: «
5
> a: o I-!Q :I:
Street Address: 58 Hillside c.1875
Architect/ Builder:
Building Materials: stucco
Building Type/Style:
Description of physical appearance & significant architectural features:
(Include additions , alterations , ancillary structures , and landscaping if applicable)
Site No:
This is a hipped roof structure of one story. Windows are the two-over-two sash
type.
Statement of Historical Significance: Construction Date:
This structure maybe one of ~he older homes located on Arsenal Hill. It was
built by John Johnson sometime around 1880. Johnson was a shoemaker whose
wife, Elma Johnson, continued to live in the home until (her death?) in 1898. In that
year the court decreed the property to Mary E. Osborne who in turn resold it to Thomas & Anna Marmane that same year.
Marmane was a dealer in wholesale and retail selling of hay, grain, flour
and coal. He bought the property as an investment. In c.1909 he had another home built
behind the original structure. Michael F. Boyle purchased the older home as an invest-
ment, while the second was sold to Gustav and Marie Venz in 1909. Boyle sold his home
in 1916 to Frederick Mugleston and they to Rose Mugleston in 1935.
63
Johnson John. 58 Hillside Ave. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County.
64
65
66
ATTACHMENT G: CLIPS FROM SANBORN MAPS
Sanborn Map, 1911.
Sanborn Map, 1898.
67
Sanborn Map, 1950.
68
ATTACHMENT H: BUILDING PERMIT CARD
69
Building and Housing
Permit Report for:
July 28, 2025 Page 1 of 1
58 E HILLSIDE
59383
Updated By:
Inspector:JOE SCHMIDTKE
Issue Date:06/04/1991 Building
Job Status"
Fee:$21.00
Last Update:
Contractor:
Permit Number:
Job Type:
Valuation:
Owner:
SALT LAKE ROOFING, INC
BUILDING PERMIT
$800.00
JENSEN
Garage
Carport:
Attach Detach:0 Garage Sq Ft:0
Certificate Occ:Cert
Type:
Inspect Every:120
Nmbr Stories:Nmbr
Buildings:
1
REPAIR 1 FAMILY
0
1
Building
Type:
$800.00Est Cost:
Sq Ft:1,200
Constuction
Kind:Res
Units:
0
Frame:Brick:Brick Var:Block:
Steel:Concrete:Asphalt:Stucco:
Comments:
5003456
Updated By:nk6293
Inspector:PERMIT OFFICE
Issue Date:08/12/1999 Flag
Job Status"
Fee:
Last Update:08/12/1999
Contractor:
Permit Number:
Job Type:
Valuation:
Owner:
Not on File
ADDRESS FLAG
$0.00
Comments:
70