Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNAPP2025-00888DECISION OF THE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER PLNAPP2025-00888 Appeal of Administrative Decision Property Address: 58 E Hillside Ave. (the “Property”) Parcel ID: 09-31-308-006-0000 Zoning District: H Historic Preservation Overlay District Historic District: Capitol Hill Appellant Representative: Amy Walker, Miller Harrison Law, representing the property owner, Hillside Ave, LLC City Staff: Sara Javoronok, Michaela Bell. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Appeals Hearing Officer on appeal from an Administrative Interpretation Decision (PLNZAD2025-00684) dated August 20, 2025, wherein the Zoning Administrator found that the building located at the Property is contributing to the Capitol Hill Local Historic District. The Appellant filed a timely appeal on September 2, 2025, challenging this determination and raising two principal claims: (1) that the Zoning Administrator incorrectly determined the property is contributing, and (2) that the Zoning Administrator lacked authority to decide appropriateness for demolition. A hearing on this matter was held before the undersigned Appeals Hearing Officer on October 16, 2025. STANDARD OF REVIEW This appeal is governed by Section 21A.16.030.I.1, which establishes a de novo standard of review. Under Section 21A.16.030.J, the Appellant bears the burden of proving the decision appealed is incorrect. As established in McElhaney v. City of Moab, 423 P.3d 1284, 1291 (Utah 2017) and Staker v.Town of Springdale, 481 P.3d 1044 (Utah Ap 2020)., administrative decisions must be supported by "substantial evidence," which includes "reasons" and explanations for determinations that permit meaningful appellate review. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Located on the Property is a one-story residential structure built circa 1896, located within the Capitol Hill Local Historic District (the “Building”). The Building is set back approximately 120 feet from Hillside Avenue because historically there were two structures on the property—one in front and one in the rear. The front building was demolished in 1968, leaving the Building (historically referred to as "Rear 58 E Hillside Ave" or "58 ½ Hillside Ave") as the remaining structure. The Building was identified as contributing in the 1982 National Register Historic District designation and rated "B" or "Eligible, Contributing" in the 2006 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The Building sustained damage from the 1999 tornado but was deemed habitable and remains structurally intact with its primary character-defining features. ANALYSIS I. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE PROPERTY IS CONTRIBUTING The Appellant's primary argument challenges the administrative determination under Salt Lake City Code § 21A.34.020.D.7, which requires consideration of three factors: (a) whether alterations are generally reversible; (b) whether the building contributes to understanding a period of significance; and (c) whether the building retains historic integrity as defined in § 21A.62.040. A. Substantial Evidence Standard Contrary to Appellant's assertion that the Decision lacks adequate findings, the administrative record provides significant and substantial evidence supporting each required consideration. The Decision spans seven pages with detailed analysis, photographic evidence, and references to Sanborn maps, tax records, and historic surveys. This kind of detailed consideration satisfies the requirement in Staker v. Town of Springdale, 2020 UT App 174, ¶ 40, for "findings of fact and conclusions of law that are adequately detailed so as to permit meaningful appellate review." B. Generally Reversible Alterations The Appellant argues that alterations are not generally reversible, particularly regarding entrance configurations and tornado damage. However, the administrative record demonstrates that the Chronicle Heritage Assessment relied upon by Appellant contains fundamental factual errors. The Assessment incorrectly identified the Building as the demolished front building and made erroneous claims about entrance alterations based on this misidentification. Appellant acknowledged in the Appeals Hearing that this was misidentified but maintained the argument that the alterations are not generally reversible. The Decision properly found that no evidence supports claims of entrance modifications, as the Assessment's conclusions were based on the wrong building. The footprint has remained consistent since 1911 according to Sanborn maps, and the Building retains its primary character-defining features including hipped roof, stucco exterior, and two-over- two light windows. While tornado damage occurred, the Building permit record confirms it remained habitable, and such damage does not render alterations irreversible as a matter of law. C. Historic Integrity Analysis The Appellant's most extensive argument concerns the seven aspects of historic integrity. However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands the applicable legal standard. 1. The "Convey" Standard While Appellant emphasizes that properties must "convey" historical associations, the ordinance does not require that every property be highly visible from the public right-of- way. Historic integrity is assessed holistically across seven factors, and Salt Lake City Code § 21A.34.020.D.7.c specifically states that "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." 2. Design Integrity The Decision properly found that no evidence demonstrates changes to the Building's form, plan, space, or structure since 1911. The absence of documented alterations constitutes substantial evidence of design integrity. Appellant's contrary arguments rely on the discredited Assessment that misidentified the Building. 3. Setting While the 1968 demolition of the front building altered the setting, this occurred before the Building's historic designation in both 1980 and 2006 surveys, both of which found the Building contributing despite this change. The Decision properly relied on these professional historic assessments. Moreover, rear buildings were common in the Capitol Hill area, as evidenced by the nearby example at 29 E 200 N. 4. Materials and Workmanship Appellant's argument that frame and stucco construction are too common to be historic misconstrues the analysis. The issue is not whether materials are unique, but whether they retain their historic appearance and configuration. The Decision properly found that historic materials generally remain intact on the Building, and while maintenance is needed, deterioration alone does not eliminate contributing status—otherwise property owners could achieve non-contributing status through purposeful neglect. 5. Feeling and Association The Building's classification as "Victorian, Other" in the 2006 RLS reflects its role as vernacular architecture from the period of significance. Not all contributing buildings must exhibit "intricate and highly decorative styles." The Building's simple form and materials are representative of working-class housing from the Victorian Urbanization Period (1890- 1911) and contribute to understanding the neighborhood's development patterns. D. Statutory Construction Principles Appellant's reliance on statutory construction principles requiring interpretation in favor of property owners is misplaced. These principles apply when regulations are ambiguous, but here the ordinance clearly defines contributing structures, and the administrative record demonstrates the Building meets those criteria. The Decision's findings are neither ambiguous nor unsupported by substantial evidence. II. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAD PROPER AUTHORITY Appellant's second claim fundamentally mischaracterizes the administrative action taken. The Zoning Administrator did not make a demolition determination—such decisions are indeed reserved to the Historic Landmark Commission under § 21A.34.020.K. Instead, the Zoning Administrator properly exercised authority under § 21A.34.020.D.3, which states that "Historic status determinations shall be made by the Zoning Administrator in the form of an administrative interpretation." The application submitted was specifically for a historic status determination, not demolition approval. While the Chronicle Heritage Assessment mentioned potential demolition applications, this does not transform a status determination into a demolition decision. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons and based upon the Staff Report and the contents of the Appeals Hearing, I find the following: 1. The administrative Decision provides substantial evidence supporting the determination that the Building at the Property contributes to the Capitol Hill Historic District. 2. The Building meets the three considerations required under § 21A.34.020.D.7: alterations are generally reversible, the building contributes to understanding the Victorian Urbanization Period, and the building retains sufficient historic integrity across the seven required aspects. 3. The collective value principle in § 21A.34.020.D.7.c supports finding contributing status even where individual aspects of integrity may be compromised, as the Building contributes to the overall historic character of the district. 4. The Zoning Administrator acted within proper authority in making a historic status determination of the Building under § 21A.34.020.D.3. 5. Appellant has failed to meet the burden of proving the administrative decision was incorrect. DECISION Based on all the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DENIED and the Administrative Interpretation Decision PLNZAD2025-00684 is UPHELD. The Building at the Property shall remain designated as contributing to the Capitol Hill Local Historic District. DATED this 4th day of November, 2025. Matthew T. Wirthlin Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Officer