►
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing for October 14, 2021
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
A
A
A
D
A
D
Okay,
it
looks
like
I
believe,
we're
all
here
and
and
ready
to
go.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
appeals
hearing
for
salt
lake
city.
My
name
is
matt
orthlin,
one
of
the
city's
appeal
officers
and
the
only
agenda
item
we
have
on
this
afternoon's
appeals
hearing
is
for
pln
app
2021.007.
D
D
C
C
And
when
that
issue
was
first
brought
to
us
and
by
the
way,
it's
interesting
that
the
city
doesn't
even
bother
to
put
the
adversely
affected
information
on
their
form
that
people
use
to
appeal.
I
guess
they're
supposed
to
just
know
about
standing
and
the
closest
thing
they
have
is.
What
is
your
interest?
That's
not
exactly
why
you're
adversely
affected
or
why
you
should
have
a
right
to
appeal.
C
That
was
my
case
and
I
had
mr
zimmerman
and
mr
budge
very
and
mr
boor
all
against
me.
They
were
very
able
and
did
a
great
job
in
that
case,
but
that
was
where
they
raised
standing
and
in
that
case,
which
is
that
addressed
in
a
footnote
in
the
mckittry
case.
So
it's
not
like
the
supreme
court's
forgotten
about
it
in
that
in
the
mora
case.
C
I
think
it's
a
little
more
on
point
than
mckitrick,
which
is
a
grandma
case
and
in
the
kitric
being
a
grandma
case,
it's
clearly
there
isn't
any
any
statutory
standing
for
mr
carrie
gibson,
who
was
trying
to
appeal-
and
in
this
case
in
the
moore
case
and
as
as
they
as
they
addressed
it.
Also
in
the
history
case,
what
the
utah
supreme
court
said
as
well.
You
know,
if
you
adversely
affect
it,
is
pretty
much
just
co-extensive
with
the
language
of
traditional
standing,
so
they
treat
it
as
traditional
standing.
C
I
think
that's
still
the
case.
I
don't
think
anything's
changed.
I
don't
think
mckittrick
says
is
you
know,
so
I
think
you
can
use
the
same
analysis
as
traditional
standing,
because
they're
co-extensive,
just
like
the
utah
supreme
court,
said
in
mkhitri,
traditional
standing
and
and
in
this
case
not
in
the
kitchen,
that's
different.
They
have
a
different
language,
but
in
but
in
this
in
the
land
use
statute
here
and
the
definitions
of
in
ludma,
we
have
the
we
have.
C
You
know
pretty
much
the
same
definition
now
it
wasn't
defined
then,
but
it's
still
adversely
affected
and
you
know
obviously
now
there's
a
little
more
contours
to
it.
So
that
being
said,
you
know
when
we
were
asked.
You
know,
there's
been
points
raised.
Well,
it's
too
late.
You
can't
raise
the
standing
well,
you
can't
address
this
now
I
you
know
you
can
raise
standing
at
any
time
and
they
race
it
and
we're
addressing
it.
I
don't
think
it's
there's
any
rule
that
says
you
have
to
address
it
on
their
their
form.
C
I
don't
know
what
is
I
wouldn't
like
to
have
my
building
torn
down
that
I
work
in
and
have
to
relocate
or
my
business
lose
my
business
lease
and
lose
where
I
and
somehow
there's
some
hint
that,
because
some
of
these
people
rent
from
the
redevelopment
agency,
that
they
are
somehow
less
than
real
people,
that
they
can't
raise
this
because
they're
the
tenants
and
you
know
that's
a
pretty
high-hatted-
to
use
a
very
old
term
sort
of
way
of
approaching
this.
These
people
will
lose
their
place
of
business
or
lose
their
employment.
C
They'll
have
to
go,
find
another
place
of
business
or
another
job,
that's
a
real
and
palpable
industry,
and
we
didn't
have
just
one
or
two,
because
we
have
seven
or
eight
of
these
people
that
that
are
in
this
situation.
So
you
know,
I
think,
there's
been
a
lot
of
vinegar
and
whatever
put
into
this
standing
question.
C
I
think
it's
all
for
the
not
because
we
have
people
who
are
standing.
Look
at
the
moore
case
and
the
more
case
their
standing
was.
They
were
concerned
about
water
impacts
of
this
development,
not
what
the
development
looked
like,
not
how
big
it
was,
and
that's
another
thing
that
I
think
is
is
lost
on
us
has
been
lost
in
this
debate
about
standing.
Is
it
doesn't
matter
what
your
motivations
are?
C
You
don't
have
a
different
motivation
if
you
have
one
reason
to
oppose
it,
people
who
oppose
and
adversely
affected
parties
who
oppose
a
development
can't
have
any
motivation
or
reason
they
want,
and
the
fact
is
whether
they
like
a
theater
or
not,
or
they
don't
like
tall
buildings
that
doesn't
make
any
difference,
they're
trying
to
parse
the
standing
here
and
say
well,
this
really
doesn't
affect
what
you're
concerned
about.
Well,
it
doesn't
matter
what
they're
concerned
about
that
comes
later.
C
Well,
then,
as
soon
as
you
showed
up
later,
the
next
thing
you'd
be
hearing
is
oh,
you
should
have
raised
this
issue
long
before
you
know
if
you
were
to
look
at
this,
strictly
speaking,
nobody's
adversely
affected
by
a
new
development
until
the
new
development
is
built,
so
that
would
mean
that
nobody
has
any
standing
because
they're
just
not
no
adverse
effect
until
the
building
permits
issue
and
construction
starts.
Well.
We
all
know
that.
That's
not
when
you
challenge
and
under
our
code
for
land
use,
that's
not
when
the
challenge
is
made.
C
D
Thanks
great,
let
me
if
I
can.
Let
me
just
ask
you
a
couple
of
follow-up
questions
with
respect
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
with
respect
to
the
parsing.
I
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth.
The
parsing
are
you
talking
about,
and
this
is
one
of
the
things
I'd
like
you
to
address
a
little
more
detail.
D
If
you,
if
you
could
the
issue
of
one
of
the
issues
that
brought
up
the
fact
that
the
land
use
decision
at
issue
isn't
the
issue
of
demolition,
this
is
just
you
know.
A
design
review
that
allowed
a
higher
building
to
be
made.
Is
that
a
little
bit
of
what
you
mean
on
the
parsing
out
between
this
is
all
one
continuous
process
kind
of
thing
is
that.
C
Exactly
I
think,
you'd
be
making
a
big
mistake
if
you
bought
this
argument
this,
what
I
call
the
parsing
argument,
because
what
you're
doing
is
looking
behind
to
the
motivations
of
why
people
who
have
standing
oppose
this
and
what's
interesting,
is
in
all
the
briefing
they
say.
Well,
you
know
what
whether
the
pantages
theater
gets,
destroyed
or
not
is
irrelevant
to
this
decision
and
then
the
net
in
the
next
breath
and
the
briefing
we
see
and
then
they
go
into
long
reasons
why
it's
a
piece
of
crap
and
it
should
be,
we
didn't
go
there.
C
We
didn't
make
those
arguments.
Our
arguments
are
is
simply
this.
If
I
pose
a
project
and
I
have
standing,
I
can
oppose
it
at
any
stage
of
the
project.
I
don't
have
to
wait
till
you
know.
Maybe
I
don't
like
you
know
the
color
of
the
I
mean
you
could
have
a
million
reasons
if
you
have
standing
opposite
project.
That's
why
we
have
the
public
process.
C
That's
irrelevant.
What's
relevant
is
every
decision
that's
made
in.
That
is
a
decision.
That's
going
to
move
towards
what
you
don't
want
to
see
happen.
What
you
don't
want
to
see,
occur
and,
and
then
you're
against,
and
so
this
idea
that
it
can
be
parsed
out.
That
would
like
I
say
that
of
the
next
breath.
You'd
say
you
showed
up
and
let's
say
we
just
didn't,
show
up
at
this
hearing
and
then
we
came
and
oppose
it
somewhere
else
and
say:
well,
no,
the
decisions
already
been
made
guys
you
missed
your
chance.
C
We
had
a
public
hearing,
you
didn't
come,
you
didn't
appeal,
you're
done
and
I
guess,
like
I
say,
if
you
buy
the
argument
of
the
city
on
this,
it
wouldn't
be
until
the
demolition
permit
is
issued
that
we
would
have
any
standing
how
much
opportunity
to
oppose
that.
At
that
point
we
have
well
I've
looked
at
the
code.
D
None
one
other
following.
Thank
you
craig
is
this
issue
of
ownership,
and
you
know
in
the
brief
the
language
seems
to
be
that
will
with
respect
ownership,
does
mention,
owns
real
property
and
then
there's
the
second
one.
If
they'll
they'll
suffer
some
damage,
that's
different
than
than
the
rest
of
the
community,
but
it's
mentioned
that
they
own
or
employed
in
a
business,
but
clearly
is
not
ownership
of
real
estate.
Can
you
just
help
again
help
me
focus
on?
C
Well,
that's:
there
are
two
ways
you
could
have
standing.
One
is
through
ownership
of
real
estate
and
if
you're
joining
owners,
usually
you're
going
to
have
maybe
one
or
two
adjoining
owners
with
that
the
only
people
would
have
standing
under
the
ownership,
because
you
know
I
I
guess
you
could
argue
that
across
the
street
is
adjoining,
but
it
probably
is
not
or
too
too
way.
So
it's
that's
pretty
narrowly
drawn,
and
it's
neither
or
or
you
have
you
know.
C
D
C
D
So
your
argument
is
not
that
the
the
the
appeal
since
their
own
property-
it
is
basic
based
on
sort
of
the
the
last
yeah.
Okay,
all
right.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Let
let's
see
I
don't
know
if,
if
this
city
or
the
applicant,
I
see
mr
baird's
on
or
mr
nelson,
if,
if
either
of
you
want
to
address
you're,
both
certainly
welcome
to
address
any
of
this
now.
E
Yeah
matt,
I
I
would
like
to
sorry
mr
worthland
paul
nielsen
salt
lake
city
attorney's
office
representing
the
city.
I
don't
think
I
could
disagree
with
more
than
what
I
just
heard.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
point
out
that
counsel
for
the
propellants
in
their
response
to
the
standing
question,
have
added
a
bunch
of
appellants,
which
is
impermissible.
E
This
is
this
is
the
definition
of
who
is
an
adversely
affected
party
and
those
are
the
critical
works,
but
it
is,
as
you
noted
somebody
who
owns
real
estate,
that
is
a
budding
or
someone
will
suffer
damage
different
in
time
then,
or
an
injury
distinct
from
that
of
the
general
community
as
a
result
of
the
land
use
decision.
So
we're
talking
about
the
land
use
decision.
E
What
the
planning
commission
had
authority
to
decide
upon
here
was
design
review.
They
did
not
have
authority
to
determine
whether
demolition
was
appropriate.
Despite
mr
smith's
clever
parsing
argument,
there
actually
is
a
specific
land
use
application
for
demolition
and,
despite
the
fact
that
he
says
that
they
have
virtually
no
opportunity
to
appeal
that
there's
a
case
fox
versus
park
city,
that
is
on
point
which
talks
about
specifically
when
you
may
appeal
a
land
use
decision,
particularly
in
cases
when
you
don't
have
specific
notice,
and
that
was
like
a
demolition
permit.
E
E
A
second
here
this
is
on
at
the
top
of
page
three.
Obviously,
those
who
may
be
displaced
from
either
their
business
or
place
of
employment
will
suffer
damage
different
in
kind
then,
or
an
injury,
distinct
from
that
of
the
general
community
as
a
result
of
the
land
use
decision.
The
land
use
decision,
mr
workland,
does
not
displace
anybody.
Now,
let's
be
clear
about
that.
The
current
property
owner
is
the
redevelopment
of
agency.
E
They
could
have
applied
for
demolition
long
long
ago,
long
before
this
design
review
application
come
came
in,
they
could
apply
for
demolition
today
or
tomorrow,
and
that
is
a
separate
application
from
design
review.
The
design
review
allows
an
applicant
to
have
some
flexibility
from
the
general
code
requirements,
but
it
could
either
be
heinz
or
it
could
be.
The
redevelopment
agency
could
submit
an
application
right.
Well,
clients
could,
when
they
own
it,
they
could
submit
an
application
to
demolish
the
structure
and
build
up
to
a
hundred
feet
without
design
review.
E
E
He
thinks
that
mora
is
a
more
appropriate
case
to
look
at
than
mckittrick
and
I'll.
Tell
you
why?
That's
not
true!
If
you
look
at
footnote
13
in
mckittrick
or
if
you
have
the
luxury
of
having
access
to
westlaw,
you
will
see
that
westlaw
says
distinguished
when
you
look
at
mora.
It
says
distinguished
by
mckittrick
versus
gibson
and
here's
why?
In
footnote,
13.
E
gibson
sites,
national
parks
and
conservation,
association
versus
board
of
state
lands,
utah
chapter
of
the
sierra
club
versus
air
quality
board
and
maura
vs
grand
county
for
the
proposition
that
utah
case
law
shows
a
wide
variety
of
circumstances
under
which
traditional
standing
has
been
granted.
Despite
a
statutory
limitation
but
a
national
parks
and
sierra
club.
We
look
solely
at
whether
petitioners
had
constitutional
standing
under
the
traditional
end
or
alternative
tests
and
mora
like
cedar
mountain
addressed.
A
statutory
right
found
a
review
that
we
found
equivalent
in
scope
to
our
traditional
judicial
test
for
standing.
E
We've
acknowledged
here
that
that
part
b
of
103.2
is
essentially
traditional
standing.
I
don't
know
why
we
would
resort
to
maura
other
than
the
fact
that
it's
very
clear
in
mckittrick
that
there
is
no
alternative
standing,
and
I
believe
mr
smith
wants
his
clients,
the
friends
of
the
theater,
to
be
able
to
remain
in
this
case,
which
is
not
possible
under
mckittrick.
E
The
supreme
court
made
it
very
clear.
They
do
not
have
authority
now,
let's,
let's
take
a
moment
to
think
of
the
farce.
That
is
the
argument
that
they
have
traditional
standing,
that
the
friends
of
the
theater
and
the
other
entity
related
to
the
theater
have
traditional
standing
because
they're
prospective
buyers
of
the
property.
A
A
B
A
B
A
E
E
E
E
So
I
and-
and
I
guess
I
want
to
be
careful
here,
but
there's
no
indication
in
any
of
the
briefs
that
council
actually
is
representing
any
of
these
so-called
appellants
there's
nothing
that
they've
submitted.
That
says
attorneys
for
appellants,
and
I
I
have
you
know.
I
don't
know
whether
these
folks
actually
have
consented
to
put
their
names
in
this
appeal
material
beyond
a
few
individuals
that
we
know
are
leading
an
effort
with
respect
to
the
pantages
theater.
B
Thank
you,
mr
mr
worthlin
there's
a
simple
answer:
why
maura
isn't
applicable
and
mckitrick
is,
and
that
simple
answer
is
because
some
of
us
didn't
like
in
the
land
use
task
force,
didn't
think
that
it
was
appropriate
to
have
goody
two
shoes.
Cat
flies
have
standing.
I
apologize.
I
don't
know
why
my
camera
isn't
working,
but
some
of
us
thought
that
it
was
inappropriate
in
the
land
use
task
force
to
have
goody
two-shoes,
with
no
actual
impact
have
absolute
standing
under
maura.
B
So
we
changed
the
law
and
the
statute
now
reads
as
it
reads,
which
requires
a
distinct
injury.
Therefore,
mckittrick
is
100
controlling
because
there
is
a
statutory
standard
and
they
don't
meet
the
statutory
standard
in
any
way
and
I'll
go
into
that
for
a
minute.
Traditional
standing
or
alternative
standing
doesn't
exist,
it's
two
standings
and
that's
it,
the
owner
or
the
applicant
and
the
owner
of
a
property
next
adjacent
or
somebody's,
who
has
a
distinct,
individualized
interest
injury.
B
So
these
people
are
not
the
applicant.
That's
one
strike
they're,
not
an
adjacent
owner.
That's
two
strikes.
The
question
is
for
the
third
strike:
do
they
have
a
distinct
injury?
They've
alleged
two
different
kinds
of
distinct
injuries
and
I'm
going
to
take
the
dumbest
one
first
and
the
dumbest
one
is
the
two
corporations
claim
that
they
want
to
be
a
prospective
buyer
of
the
theater.
B
Well,
there's
two
problems
with
that:
one:
the
theater
is
already
under
contract,
so
they
aren't
a
prospective
buyer
and
second,
I
was
in
new
york
last
week
and
I
walked
over
a
bridge
these
appellants.
These
corporate
appellants
have
about
as
much
chance
of
buying
the
utah
theater
as
they
have
of
buying
the
brooklyn
bridge,
just
to
say
that
they
want
to
buy
it
in
their
wishes
and
hopes
and
fantasies
for
an
lc
with
no
assets
with
an
apartment,
as
a
registered
address
formed
three
four
months
ago
is
absurd
and
does
not
grant
them
standing.
B
B
B
B
There
is
not
a
single
word
in
any
of
the
entire
briefing
or
any
of
the
comments
written
or
oral
as
to
how
the
height
or
the
setback
impacts
these
people
in
any
way
at
all,
much
less
how
it
impacts
them
in
any
way,
that's
different
from
how
those
two
things
impact
everybody
in
the
city
and
with
that
I'll
submit
it
on
standing.
This
is
there's
a
reason.
The
supreme
court
made
the
decision
and
there's
a
reason
for
standing,
and
that
is
goody.
Two-Shoes,
don't
get
a
waste
all
of
our
time.
D
C
You
I'm
happy
to
be
a
dumb
and
demented
person.
I've
been
a
lot
of
things
in
my
life
and
I'm
that
today-
and
thank
you
thank
you,
mr
baird,
for
that
I
I
always
expect
that
from
you
and
you
never
disappoint
me.
Thank
you.
Yeah
we
made
a
written
offer
to
buy
the
property
I
had.
The
person
made.
The
written
offer
right
here
would
be
happy
to
talk
about
that.
C
We
didn't
just
want
to
buy
the
property,
and
I
guess
I
guess
we're
stupid,
because
mr
baird
knows
what
our
assets
are
and
that's
not
even
part
of
the
case.
Wow
we're
just
dumb
people
here
and
demented
people.
Here
we
don't
know
we
can't
read
other
people's
minds.
We
can't
look
into
other
people's
bank
accounts.
C
You
know,
that's
that's
the
level
around
here
and
that
has
no
effect.
When
do
we
get
a
chance
to
have
standing
yeah,
nobody
has
standing
in
this
case.
It's
just
this
is
this:
is
it's
just
ridiculous
to
parse
this
and
and
and
finally
I
did
something
clever
everything
else.
I've
done
is
really
stupid,
but
this
idea
about
them
being
able
to
parse.
This
is
ridiculous.
It
doesn't
matter
why
we're
against
it.
It
doesn't
matter.
This
is
part
of
a
step
if
they
will
stipulate
right
now
to
build
a
100
foot
tall
building.
C
That's
all
I
need
to
hear
we
know
they're
not
going
to
build
100
foot
building,
and
this
is
an
important
cornerstone
to
their
plan
to
build
there,
which
we
oppose,
because
we're
good,
e2
shoes
and
we
shouldn't
have
any
rights
but-
and
mr
barrett
is
now
in
charge
of
the
legislature
again
wow.
I
wish
I
could
tell
the
legislature
what
to
do.
I'm
not
that
powerful.
C
I
just
I'm
not
just
a
simple
person,
doing
a
simple
job
representing
simple,
straightforward
clients
and
I'm
sorry,
I'm
wasting
time
a
big
and
important
inflated
ego
people
who
think
that
they're,
you
know
what
and
that
god
himself
came
down
to
anoint
them
to
be
the
smartest
people
in
the
room
and
everything
is
black
and
white
and
guess
what
they're
always
right
and
we're
always
wrong.
Isn't
that
amazing?
Isn't
that
amazing?
We
have
somebody,
that's
that
smart
they're,
not
in
the
white
house,
they're,
not!
C
D
I
I
recognize
the
emotions
are,
are
very
high
on
this.
I
appreciate
the
the
work
that
everyone
on
all
sides
have
have
put
into
this,
and
hopefully
hoping
we
can
keep
things
relatively
civil,
so
I
I
I
hope
we
can
avoid
any
name
calling
going
forward
with
respect
to
this
standing
issue
based
on
the
written
materials
received
in
our
discussion
this
afternoon
and
based
on
what
I
understand
the
latest
on
the
law
of
standing
with
respect
to
this
issue.