►
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting - May 13, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
A
B
B
A
A
B
A
C
C
C
E
A
B
B
A
A
F
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
Mary
just
so
you
know,
we've
been
having
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
webex
over
the
last
couple
of
months,
muting
and
unmuting
people.
So
we
do
a
little
bit
of
a
check
before
we
start
the
meeting
just
to
make
sure
people's
microphones
work
and
whatnot
okay,
and
I'm
I'm
gonna,
try
that
now
steven
this
is
aubrey,
I'm
gonna
unmute
you
can
you
respond.
B
G
E
B
B
E
E
A
H
B
H
B
A
E
Therefore,
we
are
going
forward
in
a
virtual
format
on
webex
today
we
have
two
public
hearings
on
the
agenda.
Today,
the
first
on
before
I
get
started.
I
would
like
to
go
forward
on
both
public
hearings.
Basically
the
same
way
so
people
will
have
some
information
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
appellant
in
each
case
then
from
salt
lake
city,
and
then
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
public
comment
and
then
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
give
the
parties
a
chance
to
have
the
last
word
in
each
case.
E
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
an
appeal
of
an
administrative
decision
at
approximately
1650
south
state
involving
a
billboard
owned
by
reagan.
Outdoor
advertising
and
the
parties
in
this
case
are
salt,
lake
city
and
reagan.
Outdoor
advertising,
salt
lake
city
is
represented,
as
I
understand
it,
by
samantha
slark
reagan.
Outdoor
advertising
is
represented
by
joshua
peterman
and
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
start
that
hearing
and
I
would
like
to
hear
from
joshua
peter
and
first,
oh
and
before
we
go
forward.
E
I've
read
all
the
materials
the
staff
report,
in
this
case
I've
gone
back
and
listened
to
the
audio
of
the
previous
appeals
hearing
and
looked
at
some
of
the
documents
in
that
record,
as
well
as
the
staff
report,
and
I
did
receive
some
new
documents
just
shortly
before
the
hearing
from
mr
peterman.
I
had
a
quick
look
at
those,
but
really
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
through
them
closely.
E
E
J
Well,
good
evening,
as
an
initial
point,
I
I
put
this
in
my
email
that
was
circulated.
I
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that
we
did
request
continuance
today's
hearing
in
order
to
obtain
copies
of
some
ordinances
that
we
believe
will
demonstrate
that
there
was
a
billboard
spacing
requirement
in
1991.
J
That
request
was
denied
and
I
would
direct
you
to
page
18
of
the
staff
report
just
for
reference,
if
I'm
referencing
page
numbers
throughout
this
proceeding,
it
is
the
staff
report
for
the
reason
that
our
appeal
is
in
there,
as
well
as
the
city's
response,
and
I
think
it's
easier
to
reference
one
document,
rather
than
bounce
back
and
forth,
between
several
so
just
direct
everybody
or
to
page
18,
where
we
did
request
those
ordinances
by
grandma.
The
city's
response
was
that
copies
of
the
1991
zoning
ordinance
are
not
readily.
E
Available,
I
let
me
just
add
really
quickly
that
I
did
see
the
request
for
the
continuance.
I
I
don't
think
it
was
that
specific
in
terms
of
what
documents
you
were
looking
for,
but
I'm
interested
as
we
go
forward
and
I'm
certainly
open
to
giving
people
more
time
to
provide
documents
and
arguments
if
we
need
to
following
this.
But
I
would
also
appreciate
some
guidance
from
you
as
to
why
you
think
that's
relevant.
J
J
On
the
record,
at
the
commencement
proceeding
that
we
did
request
those
we
haven't
received
them,
our
understanding
is
that
the
only
place
that
does
maintain
them
is
the
city
recorder's
office
due
cove.
The
city
recorder's
office
is
not
open
to
the
public,
so
it's
even
more
difficult
and
obtain
those
records.
I
spoke
with
the
city.
Recorder's
office
submitted
a
request
and
was
hopeful.
We
would
have
the
ordinances
by
today,
but
we
do
not.
J
Additionally,
just
one
other
point:
the
city
submitted
a
document
identified,
as
exhibit
f
to
its
staff
report
and
it's
captioned
an
official
city,
billboard
map.
This
is
the
first
that
I
or
my
client
has
ever
seen
this,
and
we
would
ask
that
the
record
be
left
open,
so
we
can
obtain
a
complete
copy
of
whatever
this
map
is.
It
appears
to
simply
be
a
portion
of
a
larger
document
and
we
don't
know
exactly
what
it
is
and
so
we'd
ask
the
record
remain
open
for
that
purpose
as
well.
J
J
So
the
first
point
is
rest
judicata.
The
facts
of
this
matter
are
as
follows,
and
these
are
not,
in
dispute
reagan
applied
to
construct
a
billboard
at
1650
south
state
street,
to
utilizing
billboard
credits
that
would
be
banked
by
demolition
of
another
existing
billboard
further
south
on
the
same
street.
J
The
assertive
basis
for
the
city's
denial
at
that
time
was
that
there
was
another
billboard
around
the
corner
from
the
proposed
location
that
was
within
300
linear
feet.
This
denial
was
appealed
and
argued
on
november
12
2020
during
that
appeal.
The
city
not
only
argued
that
the
billboard
around
the
corner
precluded
construction
of
the
proposed
location.
J
A
sign
on
a
tattoo
parlor
104
feet
to
the
north
on
the
same
side
of
the
street
would
also
would
also
support
the
denial
and,
in
its
report,
the
city's
provided
a
link
to
the
audio
from
that
hearing.
I
understand
that
you
have
reviewed
it
prior
to
today,
and
the
argument
surrounding
what
I
refer
to
today,
as
the
tattoo
sign,
was
the
city's
last
argument
in
that
hearing.
This
is
also
noted
by
the
hearing
officer
and
his
decision.
If
we
look
at
page
35
of
the
staff
report.
J
J
2020,
the
city's
denial
was
reversed
and
the
city
never
appealed
that
decision,
reagan
outdoor
subsequently
resubmitted
its
application
for
this
location
in
the
city
again
denied
it
which
brings
us
here
today.
The
city
invoked
the
same
ordinance,
but
this
time
it
alleged
that
the
tattoo
sign,
not
the
sign
around
the
corner,
supported
the
denial.
J
Our
position
is
that
the
city's
instant
denial
is
barred
by
either
branch
of
rest,
judy
caught
a
claim
conclusion
or
issue
preclusion,
and
I
assume
that
you're
familiar
with
the
concept
of
to
raise.
So
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that,
but
I
will
go
through
the
the
individual
elements
of
the
two
prongs
for
his
judicata,
but
before
I
get
to
that,
I
want
to
address
the
city's
general
argument,
which
is
the
first
argument
in
their
response
that
res
judicata
does
not
apply
to
administrative
proceedings.
That's
simply
incorrect.
J
E
J
E
J
J
J
No,
maybe
I
misunderstood
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
minute.
I
believe
that
the
city
has
the
same
burden
as
the
appellant
to
raise
every
reason
why
a
denial
would
be
appropriate.
The
same
is
I,
on
behalf
of
my
client.
If
I'm
appealing
a
zoning
decision,
I
have
to
raise
all
the
reasons
why
we
think
that
decision
was
incorrect
or
those
arguments
are
weighted.
Don't
appeal
so
the
same
burden,
this
it's
the
same
standard
that
applies
to
the
city.
J
We
have
a
final
adjudication
that
the
spacing
requirement,
under
the
ordinance
that
I
just
cited,
does
not
preclude
construction
of
a
sign
at
this
location,
and
that
takes
us
to
the
word
on
claim.
Preclusion
now
I
think
we
covered
a
a
little
bit
of
that,
but
I
noted
in
in
is
there
you
look
like
you
may
have
a
question
and
I
don't
know
okay,
sorry,
I
apologize
so
the
elements
of
claim
preclusion
is
it's
and
I've.
J
I
put
this
in
in
our
brief
and
I
I
know
that
you've
read
it,
but
they
have
to
involve
the
same
parties.
It
has
to
allege
to
the
claim.
That's
alleged
to
be
barred
has
must
have
been
presented
in
the
first
suit
or
here's
what's
important
must
have
been
one
that
could
have
been
raised
in
the
first
action
and
third,
the
first
suit
must
result
in
final
adjudication
on
the
merits.
These
elements
are
easily
met.
These
are
the
same
parties.
J
You
can't
dispute
that
and
it
involves
the
exact
same
spacing
ordinance
and
it's
an
issue
that
not
only
could
have
been
raised
or
a
claim
that
not
only
could
have
been
raised
in
the
first
proceeding
it.
It
actually
was
raised
so
we're
beyond.
This
should
have,
even
if
it
wasn't
raised,
I
think,
claim
preclusion
bars
it
because
it
should
have
been
raised.
There's
no
dispute
that
tattoo
sign
was
there
at
the
time
that
the
first
appeal
was
heard
and
third,
the
first
two
must
have
resulted
in
a
final
judgment
on
the
merits.
J
J
The
city's
position
on
that
is
that
the
claim
conclusion
doesn't
apply
because
it
did
not
it's
a
very
short
argument.
They
say
we
didn't
assert
an
affirmative
cause
of
action,
but
that's
an
oversimplification
of
what
registered.
What
claim
conclusion
covers-
and
it's
also
inconsistent
with
the
case
that
I
just
cited
indicating
that
claim
preclusion
applies
in
administrative
proceedings.
J
You
don't
have
typical
causes
of
action
in
administrative
proceedings.
So
the
simple
fact
that
the
city
didn't
file
a
complaint
alleging
causes
of
action
captioned
that
way
doesn't
mean
that
their
claim
was
not
addressed,
and
so
I
think
the
city
has
misstated.
That's
the
only
argument
they
they
raise
with
regard
to
claim
conclusion
that,
because
they
didn't
have
a
formal
cause
of
action,
claim
conclusion
doesn't
apply
and
again
there
there
are
several
cases.
J
J
That
and
again
I
don't
mean
to
be
redundant,
but
the
tattoo
sign
was
there
at
the
time.
The
first
appeal
was
heard,
and
not
only
should
the
city
have
raised
the
claim,
it
did
in
fact
raise
the
claim
and
under
city
mortgage
inc
versus
stevenson,
2015
utah,
pellet
205
claim
preclusion
operates
as
a
complete
bar
to
a
section
to
a
second
action
based
on
a
claim
that
was
or
could
have
been
raised
in
a
prior
action.
It's
not
a
partial
bar,
it's
a
complete
bar
under
our
case
law.
J
So
moving
on
to
the
second
problem,
which
is
issue
preclusion,
it's
similar
and
they're
fairly
easily
confused,
but
the
elements
are
slightly
different.
The
elements
in
issue
preclusion
are
the
party
against
whom
it's
asserted
must
have
been
a
party.
Again.
We
have
we've
met
that
that's
the
same
parties.
The
issue
decided
in
the
prior
adjudication
must
be
identical
to
the
one
presented
in
the
instant
action.
The
issue
in
the
first
action
must
have
been
completely
fully
and
fairly
litigated,
and
the
first
suit
must
have
resulted
in
a
final
judgment
on
the
merits.
J
Again,
we've
met
these
elements.
It's
the
same
parties,
as
I
just
indicated.
It's
also
the
exact
same
issue,
and
that
is
whether
or
not
the
ordinance
21a
the
300
foot
spacing
requirement
applies
was
also
fairly
litigated
and
we
have
a
final
judgment.
There's
no
allegation
that
the
city
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
raise
that
issue.
There's
no
allegation
that
the
city
didn't
raise
that
issue
again
there.
That
randy
would
have
been
appeal,
an
appeal
of
mr
carl's
decision
if
they
believe
that
he
overlooks
something.
J
But
the
city's
response
to
this
conclusion
argument
is
that
the
tattoo
sign
is
a
new
issue
that
was
not
raised,
but
that's
not
accurate.
As
stated
earlier,
it
was
argued
and
evidence
related
to
the
spacing
of
that
tattoo
sign
was
entered
into
the
record,
allowing
the
city
to
do
this
would
result
in
the
very
type
of
redundant,
wasteful
litigation
that
the
doctrine
of
race
judicata
is
created
to
prevent,
for
example,
what
if
the
city
had
10
reasons
to
deny
a
building
permit,
it
could
assert
them
one
at
a
time.
J
Somebody
applies
for
a
building
permit,
they
could
say
it's
denied
on
this
basis.
You
go.
You
have
an
appeal
if
the
city
doesn't
succeed
on
the
appeal,
it
then
brings
up
its
second
reason
to
deny
the
building
permit.
It
doesn't
operate
that
way.
It's
no
different
from
the
city
side,
and
I
touched
on
this
a
little
bit
earlier.
It's
no
different
from
the
city
side
as
it
as
it
is
from
the
appellant
side.
J
If
you're
appealing
a
denial,
you
have
to
raise
every
basis
in
which
the
denial
was
incorrect
or
those
arguments
are
borrowed
by
rest
judicata.
In
other
words,
if,
if
reagan
outdoor
had
lost
the
first
appeal,
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
come
back
a
second
time
with
a
new
argument
based
on
facts
that
were
already
in
existence
at
the
time
that
that
appeal
was
heard
and
get
a
second
appeal.
You
can
be
certain
the
city
would
would
be
arguing
that
you
had
your
shot.
You
didn't
raise
it
you,
therefore
it's
not
you've
waived.
It.
J
No,
I
think
it's
it's
a
case
where,
if
you
have
multiple
reasons
on
which
to
deny
something
I
mean
sometimes
courts
don't
reach
a
conclusion
on
every
matter.
That's
before
it,
and
I
don't
think
mr
call
did
and
again
the
city
this
city
had
a
remedy.
The
city
could
have
appealed
it
and
said
mr
call,
by
the
way,
you've
you
didn't,
you
didn't
look
at
the
fact
that
there's
a
that
that
tattoo
sign
is
there,
but
they
didn't.
J
So
there
there's
a
case:
it's
nebacar
versus
utah,
state
tax
commissions,
2001,
utah,
74.,
and
in
there
the
facts
aren't
the
same,
but
the
com,
but
the
the
legal
analysis
is
the
same.
It
was
an
appellant
who
filed
a
second
appeal
before
the
tax
commission
and
the
utah
supreme
court
held
that
he
had
waived
those
claims
by
not
bringing
him
in
the
first
proceeding
before
the
tax
commission
and
his
support
for
its
decision.
This
is
what
the
supreme
court
held
said.
J
This
decision
is
supported
by
sound
policy
considerations
to
begin
to
hold
otherwise
would
create
procedural
confusion
and
piecemeal
litigation,
as
demonstrated
by
this
very
case.
We're
now
involved
in
two
actions
over
the
same
subject
requiring
filing
of
the
constitutional
claim,
which
is
the
one
he
tried
to
raise
in
the
second
action
in
the
initial
proceeding
eliminates
such
confusion
by
creating
a
single
action
to
address
all
issues.
J
So
that's
the
burden,
that's
on
the
appellant
and
again
the
same
should
be
applied
to
the
city.
If
the
city
has
numerous
bases
on
which
it
believes
it
can
deny
a
permit,
it
needs
to
raise
them
all,
and
it
can't
just
come
back
time
after
time
after
time
and
raise
new
reasons
based
on
facts
that
were
in
existence
at
the
time.
E
J
J
The
second
component
is
that,
even
if
you
reach
the
merits
of
this
appeal,
that
the
denial
should
still
be
reserved
reversed
as
follows,
as
noted
by
reagan
and
the
city
in
the
briefing
reagan
has
assigned
currently
located
at
1600
south
state
street,
and
that's
noted
on
page
22
of
the
staff
report,
and
this
sign
has
been
in
existence
and
properly
permitted
by
the
city.
Since
the
1960s.
J
So
not
only
does
this
sign
have
a
city
permit,
it's
permit
number
232,
it
has
a
u-dot
permit
and
here's
why
it
has
a
u-dot
permit.
So,
as
I
again,
I
explain
this
in
our
brief
state
street
is
considered
a
controlled
route
and
billboards
on
a
controlled
route
must
not
only
have
a
city
permit.
They
must
also
be
permitted
by
the
utah
department
of
transportation
in
order
to
get
a
udot
permit.
You
must
first
have
a
permit
from
the
city,
and
we've
shown
that
reagan
has
both
for
the
sign
located
at
1600,
south
state
street.
J
We
look
at
page
22
where
the
spacing
issue
between
the
tattoo
sign,
and
that
is
noted,
the
tattoo
sign
on
which
the
city
is
based.
The
instant
denial
is
located
205
feet
south
of
reagan's
existing
sign
at
1600,
south
state
street,
and
so
this
brings
us
to
why
we
need
to
see
the
1991
zoning
ordinance.
The
city's
indicated
that
it
cannot
produce
those
ordinances.
J
What
else
the
city
also
can't
produce
in
its
briefing
it's
acknowledged.
It
cannot
produce
a
billboard
permit
for
the
sign.
What
it
does
is
the
city
speculates
that
it
must
have
been
approved
in
1991,
which
is
almost
30
years
after
reagan's
sign,
was
there
because
a
signed
permit
was
issued
in
1991..
J
H
J
J
J
That's
a
good
indication
that
in
1980
there
was
a
300
foot
spacing
requirement
between
off-premise
signs
in
1986
reagan
applied
for
another
sign
and
a
condition,
as
noted
by
the
city
on
that.
Permit
application
is
that
1986
there's
a
condition
imposed
on
this
permit.
It's
permit
number
72806
says
as
per
applicant
site
plan,
no
other
off-premise
sign
or
permit
issued
for
the
same
within
400
feet
per
section:
51-7-402,
subsection
iii,
city,
sign
regulations
and
that's
dated
november
25th,
1986.
J
J
The
city
asks
you
to
assume
that
it
was
properly
permitted
as
a
billboard,
which
is
simply
that
that
is
that's
quite
the
stretch
and
the
reason
being
because
the
city's
regulations
of
off-premise
signs
did
not
get
less
restrictive
as
time
went
on,
they
have
only
gotten
more
and
more
restrictive.
The
city
has
repeatedly
expressed
or
set
forth
its
policy
of
limiting
the
number
off-premises
signs
in
the
city.
So
if
it
was
400
feet
in
1986,
we
assume
it's
going
to
be
at
least
that
in
1991.
J
a
suit
simply
assuming
that
it
was
permitted
as
a
billboard,
which
is
very
different
than
a
regular
sign,
would
be
against
the
evidence
that
you
have
before
you
now.
I
also
submitted
today
three
building
permit
applications
from
1974,
1980
and
1993,
and
those
are
titled
permit
application,
1990,
74,
permit
application,
1980,
permit
application,
1993.
J
and
the
reason
we
submitted
those.
If
you
look
at
those
building
permit
applications,
the
city
differentiates
between
billboards
and
regular
signs.
If
we,
for
example,
if
we
look
at
the
1980
application,
there's
a
check
box
as
to
what
kind
of
sign
you're
putting
up.
Is
it
a
billboard?
Is
it
a
new
fashion?
Is
it
a
canopy?
You
have
to
identify
that
it's
a
billboard,
because
billboards
are
treated
very
differently
than
other
and
other
sites,
and
the
same
goes
goes
for
the
other
applications
that
we've
submitted.
J
J
Also
supporting
this
is
we've,
provided
you
with
a
copy,
the
udall
udot
outdoor
advertising
control
map,
and
I
indicated
earlier
that
you
can't
get
a
udot
permit
without
a
city
permit
and
that
this
tattoo
sign
does
not
show
up
on
udot's,
billboard
map
and
the
reason
being
because
it's
never
been
permitted
by
udot
and
that's
page
16
of
the
staff
report
and
the
reason
is
uw.
I
just
said
that
will
not
permit
a
billboard
without
a
proper
city.
J
Build
billboard
permit
the
spacing
requirements
in
the
ordinance
cited
by
the
city
to
deny
reagan's
permit
relate
to
billboards.
The
spacing
requirement
does
not
say
that
if
you
have
a
small
sign
located
less
than
300
feet
from
another
sign,
it's
prohibited.
It's
300
feet
from
another
billboard
and
the
fact
that
a
property
owner
north
of
our
our
proposed
location
may
be
using
it.
A
sign
for
off-premise
advertising
purposes
does
not
convert
it
to
a
billboard.
J
E
H
J
You
have
to
have
it's
a
billboard
is
a
is
an
off-premise
side.
The
definitions
go
back
and
forth
with
each
other
and
in
order
to
conduct
off-premise
advertising
on
a
sign,
you
have
to
have
a
billboard
permit
an
off-premise
advertising
permit
from
the
city,
and
so
it
may
have
been
permitted
as
a
sign
in
1991,
but
it
could
not
have
been
permitted
as
a
billboard
because
it
was
too
close
to
reagan's
existing
side.
There
was
no,
I
understand.
J
Yeah
because
billboards
have
special
rights
assigned
to
them.
For
example,
you
get
to
bank
your
credits
when
you
take
a
billboard
down.
If
you,
if
you
demolish
a
billboard,
you
apply
for
a
demolition
permit
and
you
bank
your
credits,
and
then
you
can
use
them
elsewhere
in
the
city,
taking
an
on-premise
sign
and
using
it
for
off-premise
advertising
in
violation
of
the
city.
J
Ordinance
doesn't
convert
it
to
a
billboard,
and
I
suspect
the
city
would
agree
with
that,
because
that
would
create
some
real
problems
for
the
city's
attempts
to
regulate
the
number
of
billboards
in
the
city.
So
simply
because
this
property
owner
may
be
using
it
for
an
improper
purpose,
doesn't
make
it
a
billboard
under
the
ordinance,
and
the
ordinance
relates
to
billboards
that
are
permitted
by
the
city,
and
our
billboard
is
more
than
our
proposed.
Billboard
is
more
than
300
feet
from
the
only
other
permitted
billboard
on
that
side.
J
J
J
Our
proposed
sign
is
310
feet
from
the
existing
sign
at
1600,
south
state
street
we've,
provided
you
with
documentation
showing
the
measurements.
Therefore,
it
fully
complies
with
the
ordinance
it's
310
feet
from
the
next
closest
billboard
on
the
same
side
of
the
street,
which
is
what
the
city's
ordinance
applies
to
and
therefore
the
city's
decision
to
deny
our
permit
based
on
the
tattoo
sign.
Really
the
tattoo
sign
is
a
red
herring
and
the
city's
decision
to
deny
the
permit
should
be
reversed.
Unless
you
have
any
questions
at
this
time,.
E
H
Yes,
thank
you,
so
I
think
mr
peterman
made
really
clear
that
they
essentially
raising
two
arguments
in
response
to
the
city's
recent
denial
at
the
request
for
a
permit
and
just
to
repeat
and
provide
some
structure.
The
denial
on
this
occasion
is
because
this
billboard
is
within
300
feet
of
the
tattoo
built
bacon,
has
responded,
raising
a
red,
judica
argument
and
also
an
argument
that
it
claims
that
this
billboard
isn't
properly
permitted
with
respect
to
res
judica.
H
First,
the
case
started
by
the
city
in
its
briefing
indicates
that
the
arrest
judicata
does
look
like
cop
launch
to
all
administrative
hearings,
and
I
think,
there's
some
very
helpful
language.
In
that
case,
that
says,
you
have
to
look
at
the
nature
of
the
hearing
to
determine
whether
it's
trial
like
enough
to
be
a
type
of
administrative
hearing
to
which
judy
carter
applies.
H
H
So
the
observation
is
that
there's
no
utah
case
law
out
there
saying
you
know
finding
the
land
use
appeal
authority
is
sufficiently
trial-like
in
nature
for
register
dakar
to
apply
the
second
point,
I'll
really
split
into
two
parts.
I
guess
rather
than
making
three
points
is
that
there
are
two
doctrines
of
res
judah
carter.
H
One
of
them
is
claim
preclusion,
and
one
of
them
is
issue
preclusion,
and
you
know
as
the
name
the
speaks,
claim
preclusion
and
prohibits
somebody
from
bringing
the
same
claim
against
somebody
over
and
over
again
and
mr
peterman
kind
of
referenced
this
in
his
argument-
and
I
think
you'll
find
in
the
administrative
cases.
But
the
circumstances
where
shame
preclusion
is
alleged
are
circumstances
where
that
administrative
agency
is
bringing
kind
of
an
enforcement
action
against
somebody.
H
So
one
of
them
was
a
dentist
who
is
having
his
license
taken
away
and
is
the
one
that
comes
to
mind,
but
obviously,
in
that
circumstance,
you've
got
an
administrative
party
bringing
a
claim
against
somebody.
In
kind
of
an
enforcement
scenario,
so
that
fits
exactly
with
the
idea
of
claim
preclusion,
which
is
to
prevent
repeatedly
bringing
the
same
claim
against
somebody.
H
So,
of
course,
here
the
city
is
not
bringing
any
claim
against
reagan,
so
the
doctrine
of
registration
carter,
which
would
be
applicable
in
this
circumstance,
if
it
did
apply,
would
be
issue
preclusion
and
the
idea
of
issue
preclusion
is
not
to
repeatedly
litigate
the
same
issue
over
and
over
again.
So
if
I've
argued
in
a
previous
matter
exactly
the
same
issue
and
it
got
resolved,
you
don't
get
to
argue
it
again
in
the
next
hearing.
H
I
think
mr
peterman
did
a
nice
job
of
setting
out
the
elements
of
issue
preclusion
in
his
briefing,
and
it's
really
the
second
point.
That
is
the
most
pertinent
here
to
our
analysis,
because
it
says
that
the
issue
must
have
been
decided
in
the
prior
adjudication
and
it
must
be
identical
to
the
one
presented
in
the
instant
faction.
H
I
certainly
raised
it,
but
mr
paul
did
not
decide
it
and
the
fact
that
he
just
references
what
documents
are
in
the
record
and
the
prior
matter
doesn't
show
that
he
decided
the
issue,
and
I
think
that
the
transcript
or
the
hearing
makes
clear
that
he
is
not.
He
is
deciding
not
to
decide
that
and
he's
making
the
parties
aware
that
this
is
going
to
be
an
issue.
That's
going
to
be
resolved
or
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
You
know,
regardless
of
if
this
appeal
gets
reversed,
then
it
goes
back
down.
E
Let's
ask
this
question,
which
is
a
little
bit,
maybe
slightly
off
top,
but
what
I
mean.
What
do
you
think
about
the
argument
mr
peterman
made
that
this
is
the
city
should
have
raised
this
to
start
with
and
insisted
that
it
be
decided
because
otherwise
an
applicant
like
reagan
applies
for
a
permit,
it's
rejected
and
it
could
be
rejected
for
multiple
reasons,
but
the
decision
only
lists
one
that
gets
appealed
and
then
something
that
wasn't
listed.
The
first
time
is
now
a
new
reason
to
reject
it,
and
that
could
happen.
You
know
multiple
times.
H
E
H
So
it's
not
a
process
like
you
know,
like
an
appeal
like
to
a
court
of
appeals
where,
like
you've,
got
a
frozen
record,
it's
all
right
there
in
front
of
you.
So
I
don't
think
that
that
argument
really
applies
in
the
permitting
process,
because
it
is
this
sort
of
fungible
process.
It
goes
back
and
forth
a
lot.
You
know
this
constantly
you're
acquiring
you
know
additional
documents
or
this
there,
but
the
next
thing.
So
it's
not
unusual
to
deal
with
like
and
like
issue
by
issue.
H
So
I-
and
I
also
think
it's
a
pretty
unusual
circumstance
where
there
are
two
grounds
to
deny
a
planet
billboard
permit
on
it's
usually
going
to
come
down
to
one
issue:
okay,
go
ahead,
so
really
that
kind
of
summarizes
the
city's
position
with
reject.
With
respect
to
the
res
judica
argument,
one
is
it's
fairly
unclear
whether
that
the
principles
of
residue
to
carter
apply
to
land
use
appeal
authorities
are
created
under
109
a
and
number
two
issue.
H
So
moving
on
to
the
second
round.
That
reagan
is
appealing
under,
which
is
this
concept
that
it's
reagan's
position
that
the
tattoo
billboard
doesn't
have
all
the
permits
that
are
required,
and
therefore
the
city
just
must
ignore
the
fact
that
there
is
a
billboard
sitting
there
and
provide
reagan
its
permit.
H
So
we
have
several
responses
to
that.
The
first
one
is
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
city's
billboard
ordinance
that
limits
this
300-foot
spacing
requirement
to
billboards
that
hold
all
required
permits.
So,
like
I
don't
know,
take
this
example
say
we're
not
con
fighting
over
the
circumstance
with
regard
to
udot
permit
is.
H
Is
the
city
then
going
to
be
compelled
to
provide
a
new
permit
to
somebody
who
wants
to
come
within
100
feet
of
that,
based
on
the
fact
that
this
billboard
company
didn't
go
and
satisfy
state
obligations?
That
doesn't
seem
to
make
very
much
sense
at
all,
so
the
spacing
requirement
exists.
There's
nothing
in
the
ordinance
that
says
that
the
spacing
requirement
is
contingent
on
the
existing
billboard
being
fully
permitted.
H
So
I
think
that's
the
first
and
probably
the
clearest
and
easiest
point
that
I'd
like
to
make
the
second
point
and
I've
kind
of
touched
on
this
a
little
bit
and
it
was
in
mr
peterson's
briefing,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
he
really
touched
on
it
today
an
argument
but
commented
that
the
tattoo
billboard
doesn't
have
a
udot
permit.
Well,
you
know
permits
come
from
the
state
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot.
We
can
do
about
that
if
they
don't
have
a
dog
permit.
H
Third,
the
this
tattoo
billboard
is
marked
on
the
city's
official
billboard
map.
It's
got
this
inventory.
It's
got
all
these
billboards
on
it.
That's
not
really
new
news
to
reagan,
they've
known
about
this
for
a
long
time
and
it's
marked
on
there
as
billboard
number
165..
So
you
know,
we've
got
it
on
there.
We've
recognized
it
as
like
a
billboard.
So
it's
there!
H
Fourth,
you
know:
we've
looked
through
our
we're
talking
about
records
now
that
are
19
30
years
old.
So
obviously
the
city
has
you
know,
retention
schedules
like
everyone
else,
paper
applications
are
subject
to
like
seven
year
retention
schedules,
and
that's
you
know
from
when
these
things
were
done.
So
clearly
we
don't
have
a
whole
lot
left
from
30
years
ago,
including
you
know
a
permit
sort
of
an
issue
to
reagan.
They
obviously
have
a
lot
more
that
they've
kept
for
a
lot
longer.
H
What
we
have
been
able
to
find
and
the
public
facing-
and
this
is
available
on
the
public
facing
website
as
well-
is
that
a
sign
permit
was
issued
to
this
address
in
1991.
So
that
appears
to
be.
I
saw
you
know
a
permit
that
was
issued
to
this
billboard
and
I
guess
the
last
argument
which
I
will
need
to
I'd
like
to
address,
and
it
feels
like
it's
sort
of
in
very
many
parts.
H
And
I
don't
really
know
sort
of
number
one
who
knows
like
we're
talking
30
years
ago,
so
perhaps
the
city
mistakenly
issued
a
permit.
I
don't
know
we
don't
have
the
records.
However,
I
think
a
couple
of
other
things
are
probably
helpful.
To
note
here
is
that
we
reagan
submitted
like
what
looks
like
an
application
for
a
billboard
for
its
1963
permit.
H
It
doesn't
have
like
the
permit
number
up
in
the
right-hand
corner
like
it's
other
permits
do,
and
we
also
went
back
and
you
know,
took
a
look
at
what
limited
paper
records
we
have
for
that
time
and
I'm
told
by
building
services
that
they,
you
know,
keep
index
cards
and
they
would
put
the
permit
number.
We
don't
have
a
record
of
this
their
billboard.
That's
like
this
1963
billboard
either.
H
H
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
what
position
that
leaves
us
in,
but
I
I
would
say-
and
I
think
I
like
I
like
to
finish
on
this-
is
this
idea
that
it's
not
a
billboard
unless
it's
got
all
proper
permits
from
udot
and
from
the
city,
but
I
think
you'll
find
if
you
look
at
the
definition
of
billboard
and
the
city's
ordinances,
that
billboards
are
defined
as
freestanding
signs
without
or
advertising
on
this
nothing
they're
not
defined
in
terms
of
whether
they're
permitted
or
not
permitted.
So
a
billboard
is
a
billboard.
H
If
it's
if
it,
if
it's
you
know
available
structure
that
has
outdoor
advertising
on
it
and
mr
peterman
also
referenced.
You
know
all
these
other
kind
of
rights
that
it
says
that
doubles
have.
I
think
that
it
would
be
pertinent
to
note
that
he's
talking
about
billboard
credits
and
the
use
of
credits
to
build
stuff
that
all
came
in
an
ordinance
in
1993
and
to
the
extent
the
the
sort
of
complaints
about
not
having
that
information.
H
It's
all
public
facing
it's
on
the
city's
ordnance
website
and
it's
public
facing,
and
you
can
find
that
just
by
clicking
on
those
links.
But
that's
when
the
billboard
ordinance
was
enacted
with
the
billboard
credit.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
relevant
that
argument
is
at
all
to
fighting
over
the
legitimacy
of
a
1991
planet
versus
a
1963
permit.
E
A
D
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Yeah,
I'm
kate,
with
scenic
utah,
we're
a
non-profit,
scenic
preservation
organization.
We
work
statewide
to
promote
and
protect
utah's
scenic
resources
among
the
groups
that
we
represent
across
the
state
are
utahns
and
visitors
who
are
opposed
to
the
proliferation
of
billboards
and
in
fact,
we
received
multiple
inquiries
inquiries
about
the
application
to
put
this
new
billboard
on
state
street
and
what
could
be
done
to
prevent
it.
D
It's
clear
that
the
reason
for
the
spacing
requirements,
the
reason
the
city
signed
requirements
have
gotten
more
and
not
less
restrictive,
and
the
reason
for
the
denial
of
the
application
is
that
this
city
doesn't
want
new
billboards.
It
wants
to
reduce
the
number
and
not
increase
it.
Salt
lake
city
and
most
other
cities
in
utah
work
really
hard
to
set
and
enforce
ordinances,
to
stop
the
proliferation
of
billboards
in
our
communities
and,
in
fact,
most
cities
in
utah,
ban
new
billboards
and
they're
trying
to
keep
them
at
a
minimum.
D
But
industry
consistently
raises
complex
legal
arguments.
They
seek
and
receive
legislative
backing
and
hire
armies
of
attorneys
and
lobbyists
and
all
with
the
goal
of
increasing
your
inventory
state
street
is
an
important
gateway
into
salt
lake
city
and
we
support
the
goals
of
it's
a.
I
think
it's
called
life
on
state
street
implementation
plan
to
revitalize
state
street
to
include
more
pedestrian
and
aesthetic
features
that
are
more
consistent
with
walkable
and
livable
communities
and
the
addition
of
more
billboards
is
totally
inconsistent
with
that
goal.
D
And,
finally,
we
think
it's
a
little
ironic
that
reagan
is
arguing
that
this
tonight,
if
the
denial
stands
that
time
and
money
would
be
wasted
on
future
litigation.
Because
reagan
is
one
of
the
most
litigious
companies
in
utah
and
is
responsible
for
many
hundreds
of
thousands
of
hours
of
needless
litigation.
D
In
our
view,
and
also
ironic,
that
they're
claiming
that
the
denial
should
be
overturned
by
claiming
that
the
resolute
tattoo
billboard
is
illegal
because
it's
not
permitted
and
you've
talked
a
lot
about
this,
but
a
huge
number
of
billboards
around
the
city
that
are
owned
by
reagan
were
never
permitted
because
of
how
old
they
are.
They
were
billboards
that
were
elected
erected
long
before
there
were
zoning
laws,
and
so
they
were
never
required
to
obtain
permits.
They
just
simply
grandfathered
in
time
once
the
laws
were
enacted.
D
I
Yes,
my
unmuted,
can
you
hear
me
the
first
thing
that
I'd
I'd
like
to
address?
Is
you
asked
if
that
the
tattoo
sign
was
being
illegally
used
as
a
billboard?
That's
what
as
part
of
your
question
to
mr
peterman
and
from
our
perspective
it
is
in
all
likelihood
it
was
permitted
as
an
on-premise
sign,
not
a
billboard
and
after
a
while
it
was
it
probably
initially
was
used
as
an
on-premise
sign
when
I
say
on-premise
a
sign
for
the
business
that
was
there
and
then
at
some
point
in
time.
I
I
With
regards
to
the
last
person
that
commented
this
approving
this
does
not
increase
the
number
of
billboards
in
salt
lake
city.
In
fact,
the
another
sign
is
coming
down
to
be
erected
here
as
part
of
the
application,
because,
since
1993
salt
lake
city
has
not
allowed
for
for
new
billboards
and
then
finally,
with
the
comment
that
reagan
has
lots
of
signs
that
weren't
permitted
that
were
grandfathered
in
having
done
the
research
personally
for
this
matter,
I
disagree
with
that.
I
So
my
research
that
I
conducted
and
I'm
not
certain
whether
I
I
can't
be
certain
whether
I
got
all
of
them
or
not,
I
was
able
to
find
permits
for
in
our
files.
I
don't
know
if
I
looked
at
every
everyone
that
we
have
in
salt
lake
city,
but
I
was
able
to
find
find
permit
applications
for
them.
Permit
applications
permits
receipts.
E
J
Thank
you.
I
think
I
covered
everything
in
my
initial
argument,
but
I
do
want
to
just
make
one
point
that
the
city's
argument
is
essentially
that
the
ordinance
doesn't
say
that
it's
only
spacing
between
billboards
permitted
billboards
that
it
says
it's
spacing
between
billboards
to
accept
that
you
would
have
to
you
would
have
it
would
result
in
any
property
owner
being
able
to
convert
their
sign
on
premise
site
to
a
billboard
simply
by
illegally
putting
off
premise
advertising
on
the
face
of
that
sign.
J
That
certainly,
is
not
the
intent
of
the
of
the
ordinances.
That's
certainly
not
the
purpose
of
the
ordinances
and
the
city
can
it
sounds
like
the
city's
arguing
that
a
property
owner
can
convert
an
on-premise
site
to
a
billboard
and
be
subject
to
the
laws,
not
only
the
laws
and
regulations,
but
also
the
benefits
that
come
along
with
owning
a
billboard.
Simply
if
you
violate
the
city's
ordinance
and
put
off
premise
advertising
on
an
on-premise
sign.
E
Yes,
so
it's
not
that,
so
we
can't
presume
that
the
owner,
just
sort
of
randomly
you
know,
decided
to
make
it
make
what
wasn't
a
billboard
into
a
billboard.
It's
on
the
map,
it's
just
that
we
don't
know
exactly
how
it
came
to
be
there,
but
assuming
that
it's
not
legal,
your
assumption
is
is
that
if
it's
not
legal,
it
can't
be
held
against
reagan.
Reagan's
distance
is
that
right.
J
That's
correct
and
going
back
to
the
billboard
map,
there
was
a
comment
by
council
that
we've
known
about
it
for
a
long
time.
That's
incorrect.
This
is
the
first
time
we've
seen
this.
We
don't
know
what
it
was
based
on.
Was
it
simply
somebody
from
the
city
driving
around
looking
saying,
there's
a
billboard,
there's
a
billboard
when
was
it
created?
Did
the
city
make
any
effort
to
to
craft
this
billboard
map
based
on
permits
it
had
in
its
system?
I
think
it's
a
little
bit.
J
It's
difficult,
it's
tough,
to
believe
the
city
does
not
maintain
copies
of
building
permits
that
have
been
issued
because
at
the
last
hearing
we
had
in
front
of
mr
call.
The
city
strenuously
argued
that
simply
because
something
may
have
been
permitted
in
the
past
mistakenly
does
not
prevent
the
city
from
now
coming
and
enforcing
its
ordinances
and
in
fact,.
E
J
J
Yeah
and
oftentimes
enforcement
is
is
based
on
reporting
that
it's
reporting
based
enforcement,
but
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
billboard
ordnance
enforcement
is
not
based
on
citizen
complaints.
It
is
rigorously
billboards
are
rigorously
enforced
by
both
the
city
and
the
state,
and
it's
not
again
the
city's
argument.
They
made
this
argument
in
the
first
hearing
that
it's
somehow
our
duty
to
file
some
sort
of
action
against
the
property
owner
that
they're
using
have
an
illegal
billboard.
But
that's
not
that's
not
our
place.
To
do
that.
J
No,
it's
it's
not
it's
not
that
the
bill
that
the
sign
is
illegal.
It's
that
the
use
of
the
sign
is
illegal.
There.
There
apparently
was
a
signed
permit
given,
but
if
you
drive
down
state
street
there
are
thousands
of
signs,
literally
thousands
of
signs
for
on
premise,
and
so
the
issue
is
not
that
this
entire
sign
is
illegal.
The
issue
is
that
the
property
owner
is
using
it
in
an
illegal
manner
for
off-premise
advertising.
J
The
spacing
requirements
would
not
have
allowed
it
based
on
dragon's
existing
sign
from
the
60s,
and
so
that's
an
adjoining
we're
not
into
joining,
but
a
but
a
another
landowner
in
the
vicinity
who
is
is
illegally
using
an
on-premise
science
and
all
preference
premise
sign
does
not
implement
implicate
the
spacing
requirements
between
billboards
as
between
reagan
and
what
happens
to
be
another
one
of
its
signs.
Further
to
the
north.
J
J
I
I
don't.
The
city
alleges
that
the
city
does
not
have
it
and
well
what
they
say
is
they're
not
readily
available
to
the
city.
I
don't
think
not
readily
available
is
a
basis
on
which
the
city
cannot
respond
to
a
grammar
request.
But
that
being
said,
going
to
the
city
recorder
is
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
more
expeditious
than
fighting
this.
The
city's
response
to
our
grammar
request,
so
I
think
I
can
put
in
a
grammar
request
for
this
city,
billboard
map
that
we've
never
seen
before
and
get
some
more
information
on
that.
J
I
suspect
the
city
will
respond
to
that
within
a
couple
of
weeks,
and
I
am
hopeful
that
the
city
reporter
will
do
the
same.
So
we
would
ask
for
21
days
if,
in
fact
we
don't
get
the
information
by
then
we
can
alert
you
that
the
grammar
responses
have
not
been
received
yet
and
perhaps
get
an
additional
extension,
because
we
have
we're
not
in
control
of
when
the
information's
received.
H
H
Second,
I'd
like
to
kind
of
provide
an
example
which
I
think
illustrates
the
difficulty
of
the
argument
that
reagan
is
making
here.
So
the
argument
that
radian
is
making
is
that
the
city
should
ignore
its
spacing
requirements,
because
the
city
doesn't
have
definitive
proof
that
it
issued
the
tattoo
parlor
tattoo,
billboard
a
city
permit
30
years
ago.
H
C
H
H
So
it
looks
like
we
kind
of
have
a
similar
circumstance
with
the
tattoo
parlor.
We've
got
something
that
looks
like
a
billboard.
Planet
was
issued
up
on
time
to
the
tattoo
people
and
it
looks
like
it
was
also
issued
at
one
time
to
the
reagan
people.
So
let's
take
the
argument
that
reagan's
making
today
are
we
if
they
want
to
go
put
another
billboard
within
100
feet
of
their
1963
billboard.
H
We
don't
have
definitive
proof
that
there
was
a
billboard
permit
issued
to
reagan
in
1963..
Are
we
supposed
to
just
disregard
our
spacing
ordinance
and
allow
that
billboard
there?
That
seems
like
an
absurd
result
that
doesn't
make
any
sense,
and
then
I
guess,
to
address
the
last
points.
Mr
peterman
was,
I
guess,
planning
to
make
a
couple
more
grammar
requests
and
one
of
those
with
regard
to
an
ordinance,
and
I
think
if
it
goes
back
and
reviews
the
response
with
respect
to
he
requested
the
title.
H
21A
ordinance
from
1991
and
the
response
informed
reagan
that
the
title
21
wasn't
enacted
until
after
1991..
So
you
know
that's
not
possible
to
produce
that,
but
also
as
we
referenced
before.
All
of
the
ordinances
are
available
on
the
public
facing
website,
and
so
a
grammar
request
will
likely
get
the
similar
response.
Go
to
you
know
when
you've
got
grammar
doesn't
require
you
to
produce
documents
that
are
publicly
available
and
they're
all
publicly
available.
H
E
J
The
city's
grammar
request
that's
correct.
We
we
requested
21a
the
city,
recognized
that
that's
a
recodified
version
of
what
we
were
asking
for
and
the
city
said
in
1991.
The
city
began
the
rewrite
project
of
zoning
ordinances
and
there
is
not
a
readily
available
copy
of
the
1991
zoning
ordinance.
We
asked
for
the
ordinance
in
effect
in
91,
the
city
says
it's
not
readily
available.
Today.
Council
says
you
can
just
go
online.
J
What
we
produce
the
1976
spacing
ordinance
today,
that's
what's
online
and
you
can
see
ordinance
number
four
of
1976
amending
section,
51
7420
established
spacing
requirements
fall
from
science.
That's
what's
available,
you
can't
get
they're
not
available.
It's
ki.
I
would
apprecial
thinks
it's
that
easy.
Then
council
can
simply
access
and
email
them
to
us,
but
we
have
been
unbelievably
frustrated
at
the
lack
of
ability
of
anyone
to
obtain
copies
of
historical
ordinances
from
salt
lake
city.
So
to
say
that
the
readily
available
is
just
simply
not
correct.
E
E
You
know
in
a
reasonable
amount
of
time,
so
I'm
going
to
give
you
that
21
days,
I'm
going
to
give
salt
lake
city
an
additional
10
days
and
then
once
I
get
that
those
materials
should
you
find
something
to
submit,
I
will
review
them
and
make
a
decision
shortly
thereafter.
Is
that
acceptable
to
everyone.
E
I
don't
know
if
you
heard
my
opening
statement,
but
I
have
read
all
the
materials
I'm
familiar
with
the
staff
report,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
hear
from
the
appellant
and
then
I
will
hear
from
salt
lake
city.
I
understand
the
issues.
I
will
then
open
it
for
public
comment
and
then
bring
it
back
to
the
parties
to
respond.
Is
that
acceptable,
yeah?
Okay,
so
I
will,
according
to
my
note,
stephen
miller,
will
be
the
presenter
on
this.
So
I
turn
the
floor
over
to
you.
G
Thank
you,
hello
and
good
evening,
I'm
stephen
miller
and
I'm
here
with
my
wife,
sneha
parikh.
Together
we
are
the
owners
of
the
property
at
2829,
glen
oaks
drive
title
21a
provides
specific
standards
for
variances
in
section
18.060,
it
states
that
a
variance
may
be
issued
if
all
the
conditions
in
that
section
are
met.
Our
application
clearly
demonstrates
with
evidence
that
our
property
and
project
meet
the
standards
set
forth
there.
So
I
just
want
to
quickly
discuss
each
of
the
items
in
that
section
and
share
what
we've
provided
in
compliance
with
them.
G
Page
numbers
I
referenced
throughout.
This
are
from
the
staff
report,
which
contains
all
the
elements
of
our
application,
starting
with
the
first
standard.
Literal
enforcement
of
this
title
would
cause
an
unreasonable
hardship
for
the
applicant
that
is
not
necessary
to
carry
out
the
general
purposes
of
this
title.
G
So
literal
enforcement
of
the
35
foot,
rear
yard
setback
causes
us
unreasonable
hardship
because
we
want
to
expand
the
living
space
within
our
home,
like
others
in
our
neighborhood,
have,
and
there's
only
one
appropriate
area
on
our
property
to
accomplish
that.
Within
the
general
purposes
of
title
21a,
the
northwest
corner.
E
G
Yeah,
I
was
just
about
to
get
to
that.
So,
for
so
first
the
the
rear
of
the
home
is
the
only
area
of
the
property,
that's
naturally
level
and
then
second,
along
the
rear
of
the
house.
Building
the
northwest
corner
meets
the
minimum
variance
standard
in
section
18.050,
as
adding
to
the
southwest
corner
would
encroach
deeper
into
the
setback
due
to
the
diagonal
rear
property
line
addressing
the
side
of
the
house.
G
G
Also,
as
I
just
mentioned,
if
you
look
at
the
images
in
attachment
b
on
page
nine
glen
oaks
drive
and
our
lot
are
quite
steeply
sloped.
So
we
would
need
to
do
significant,
regrading
likely
of
really
the
entire
property
below
the
side
of
the
house
in
order
to
seat
any
new
foundation.
There
we'd
also
need
to
demolish
at
least
six
to
eight
healthy
adult
trees,
maybe
as
many
as
20
in
this
process.
G
How
do
I
know
that
this
makes
this
area
unreasonable
to
consider
to
be
buildable?
The
purpose
statement
from
the
fr-3
zoning
ordinances,
which
reads
the
purpose
of
the
fr-3
foothill
residential
district,
is
to
promote
environmentally
sensitive
and
visually
compatible
development
of
lots,
not
less
than
twelve
thousand
square
feet
in
size,
suitable
foothills
locations.
As
indicated
in
the
applicable
community
master
plan.
G
So
while
it
wouldn't
infringe
upon
a
setback
adding
to
the
southern
side
of
the
home,
as
suggested
in
the
planning
division,
staff
report
clearly
violates
the
intent
and
purpose
of
the
fr-3
ordinances.
It
wouldn't
be
visually
compatible
with
the
existing
home
or
layout
of
the
property.
It
would
harm
the
natural
scenic
characters
of
the
foothills
area
and
would
harm
wildlife,
habitat
and
increase
erosion
by
the
removal
of
a
number
of
healthy
trees.
G
Moving
on
to
the
second
standard,
which
reads,
there
are
special
circumstances
attached
to
the
property
that
do
not
generally
apply
to
other
properties.
In
the
same
zoning
district
we've
provided
strong,
visual
and
numerical
evidence,
demonstrating
that
there
are
special
circumstances
on
our
property
because
of
the
acute
angled
corner
of
glen
oaks
drive
in
scenic
drive,
as
shown
in
exhibit
a
on
page
27..
G
G
So
yeah
we
share
a
property,
a
rear
property
line
with
a
neighbor
on
scenic
drive,
rather
than
extending
all
the
way
back
to
the
commonwealth
avenue,
like
all
the
other
interior.
Lots
on
our
side
of
the
street,
significantly
reduces
our
front
to
back
lock
dimension
compared
to
the
typical
shape
and
size
properties
in
fr3.
G
Just
how
much
more
limited
our
lot
is
in
that
front
to
back
depth
is
supported
by
the
data
set.
I
provided
in
exhibit
b
on
pages
28
and
29.
out
of
the
surrounding
54
parcels
in
our
immediate
neighborhood.
Ours
is
the
fifth
shortest
putting
it
in
the
92nd
percentile
of
shortness.
This
means
that
more
than
9
out
of
10
other
properties
are
longer
than
ours.
G
G
It's
also
more
than
a
full
standard
deviation
below
that
average
depth
of
other
homes
in
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
the
shortest
property
depth
of
any
on
our
street.
A
standard
deviation
is
a
measure
of
how
far
away
an
average
is
from
a
particular
that
a
particular
sample
is
in
this
case.
Sample
is
our
lot.
A
sample
within
the
standard
deviation
would
be
considered
normal
or
close
to
average.
A
sample,
that's
outside
of
a
standard
deviation
like
ours
cannot
be.
G
Most
parcels
in
the
zone
have
been
divided,
so
they
have
large
areas
of
land.
Expanding
back
from
the
street
having
25
feet
less
depth
than
what
is
typical
for
the
neighborhood
means
that
our
house
would
have
to
be
set
25
feet
closer
to
the
street
in
order
for
us
to
have
a
normal
rear
yard.
In
other
words,
the
front
of
our
home
would
need
to
be
in
the
sidewalk.
G
This
is
in
essence,
why
the
variance
process
exists.
An
ordinance
was
created
that
is
appropriate
for
the
vast
majority
of
properties
in
our
zone,
and
it's
just
unreasonable
for
an
exception
to
be
made
for
properties
like
ours
that
did
not
match
those
general
conditions
when
the
ordinances
were
created.
G
Therefore,
I
contacted
the
state
ombudsman
richard
plenn,
to
get
confirmation
that
the
type
of
addition
we
were
proposing
would
qualify
as
a
substantial
property
right.
After
briefly
explaining
our
situation,
cases
response
was
quote.
The
elements
for
variances
are
provided
by
state
code,
so
all
local
ordinances
mirror
the
state's
language.
G
As
for
substantial
property
rights,
the
right
to
develop
and
install
improvements
on
your
property
is
a
quintessential
property
right,
so
other
properties
in
your
neighborhood
have
a
right
to
add
to
their
homes
and
the
reason
why
you
cannot
do
the
same
is
some
unique
characteristic
of
your
property.
Then
what
we've
provided
is
perfect.
G
Thus,
we
conducted
an
extensive
analysis
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
measuring
rear
yard
setbacks
to
see
how
many
of
the
properties
in
our
area
could
accommodate
a
seven
foot
extension
to
the
rear
of
their
home
without
violating
their
rear
of
setback
ordnance.
The
results
of
this
are
shown
in
exhibit
d
on
page
31.,
as
you
can
see
out
of
the
surrounding
53
lots,
only
three
others
cannot
accommodate
similar
construction
to
what
we're
proposing
one
of
which
at
2253
bel
air
only
cannot
because
they've
already
expanded
their
home
to
the
rear.
G
G
G
This
also
again
reinforces
the
conditions
of
our
property,
are
not
general
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
Everybody
else
can
make
this
addition,
except
for
us,
the
planning
division
declined
to
define
the
term
substantial
property
right
when
I
asked
them
directly
deferring
to
the
state
and
the
state
has
confirmed
that
a
home
edition
is
a
substantial
property
right
if
other
properties
generally
have
the
right
to
do
so.
G
We
love
the
scenic,
foothills
neighborhood
and
the
community
of
people
that
are
our
neighbors
and
our
intention
is
to
continue
to
live
in
our
home
for
a
long
time.
Our
project
plan
is
designed
to
minimize
impact
on
the
natural
environment
and
the
surrounding
properties
by
placing
half
of
the
footprint
of
the
addition
within
the
existing
footprint
of
our
home.
G
G
It
doesn't
change
the
overall
shape
of
the
home
or
alter
views
from
any
surrounding
property
in
any
meaningful
way,
and
because
we
want
to
keep
living
in
this
community,
it
was
important
to
us
that
our
addition
would
not
disturb
our
neighbors,
and
thus,
I
spent
time
visiting
surrounding
homes
to
share
our
project
plan.
Why
we
required
the
variance
for
construction
and
how
our
situation
met
the
standards
for
variants
set
forth
in
title
21a.
G
I
also
looked
at
the
east
bench
master
plan
and
found
substantial
evidence
that
our
project
matches
the
intention
of
development
plan
for
our
area.
In
that
document,
I
provided
a
number
of
excerpts
in
our
application
that
support
our
project,
but,
generally
speaking,
it's
clear
from
reading
the
master
plan
that
the
intention
is
to
allow
sensible,
reasonable
development
that
maintains
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
encourages
neighborhood
stability
and
aging
in
place,
all
of
which
are
goals
embodied
in
our
construction
plan.
G
Last
the
fifth
standard
reads:
the
spirit
of
the
title
is
observed
and
substantial
justice
is
done.
The
purpose
of
the
building
ordinances
is
to
shape
a
neighborhood's
development
in
a
specific
way.
Returning
to
the
purpose
statement
for
the
fr03
zone,
one
can
easily
assess
the
development
goals
for
our
neighborhood,
preserving
the
synthesis
of
urban
living
with
the
natural
environment,
maintaining
the
slow
plan
of
the
foothills
by
minimizing
flooding
and
erosion,
promoting
the
well-being
of
the
environment,
wildlife
and
residents
with
open
natural
spaces
between
homes.
G
G
If
our
lot
was
a
regular
rectangular
parcel,
our
addition
would
require
1155
square
feet
of
yard
area
around
the
building
site
to
not
encroach
on
the
setbacks.
Our
actual
property
would
maintain
1826
square
feet
of
yard
area
around
an
addition,
nearly
60
percent,
more
than
what
the
ordinance
is
implied
now
well,
while
there's
admittedly,
some
mathematical
convolution.
G
It
also
illustrates
why
there
have
been
no
complaints
and
only
support
for
our
project
from
the
surrounding
neighbors
that
would
potentially
be
affected
by
it,
the
shape
of
our
law,
the
minimal
additional
footprint,
the
extensive
yard
area
that
will
still
exist
all
add
up
to
a
project
that
is
in
the
spirit
of
limited
development
and
the
citizens
that
we
most
affected
by.
It
agree
that
it
is
a
reasonable
request
for
variants
that
does
not
perceivably
encroach
on
their
rights
or
living
space.
G
Beyond
those
five
items,
which
are
the
general
standards
provided
in
title
21a,
section
18.060
continues
on
to
provide
some
additional
guidelines
further
defining
when
the
issuance
of
a
variance
would
be
appropriate
that
I
want
to
briefly
address
I've
already
thoroughly
detailed
the
circumstances
peculiar
peculiar
to
our
property
and
how
they
are
responsible
for
the
hardship.
So
I'm
going
to
skip
those
sections,
but
I
do
want
to
talk
about
the
self-imposed
hardship
section.
G
While
there
is
alternative
buildable
area
and
theory
that
the
staff
report
suggests
would
not
violate
the
setback
ordinances,
it
would
undeniably
harm
the
scenic
character
of
glen
oaks
drive
from
both
an
environmental
and
architectural
standpoint.
It
would
harm
protect
wildlife,
habitat
increase
erosion
and
at
a
minimum,
would
have
an
unknown
effect
on
flooding
patterns.
G
Our
hardship
can
only
be
considered
self-imposed
as
far
as
it
is
a
choice
to
be
good
citizens
interested
in
the
sensible
development
goals
defined
by
title
21a
and
the
east
bench
master
plan.
We
wish
to
remain
in
good
standing
with
our
community
to
close
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
there's
been
no
complaints,
no
objections,
no
concerns
or
questions
at
all
about
our
project
from
the
other
citizens
surrounding
us
in
fr3.
In
fact,
there's
been
an
overt
show
of
support
and
approval
for
construction,
as
I've
already
shared.
G
One
thing,
that's
I
don't
think
is
in
question-
is
that
our
proposed
construction
is
extremely
modest
respects
the
natural
environment,
the
original
architectural
intent
of
our
home
utilizes,
a
minimal
amount
of
additional
space
and
only
moves
the
exterior
wall
of
the
house.
Six
and
a
half
feet
outside
of
our
inability
to
meet
the
rear
yard
setback
due
to
the
shape
and
size
constraints
of
our
lot.
The
proposed
construction
completely
embodies
the
spirit
of
sensible,
limited
development
described
in
both
the
purpose
statement
for
fr3
and
the
east
benchmaster
plan.
C
So
the
property
is
approximately
70
87
feet
in
width
and
has
an
average
depth
of
111
feet,
as
mr
miller
mentioned,
creating
a
lot
that
is
approximately
eleven
thousand
six
hundred
and
one
square
feet
in
size.
The
minimum
lot
width
in
the
fr3
zoning
district
is
eighty
feet
and
the
lot
size
is
12
000
square
feet,
so
the
property
is
seven
feet
wider
than
the
requirement
and
just
slightly
below
the
required
lot
area
and
as
described
in
the
staff
report.
E
F
F
This
would
really
cause
difficulty
in
our
yard,
but
I
am
a
little
distressed
that
the
the
aesthetics
of
the
facade
that
would
be
on
this
edition-
and
I
don't
know
if
that
is
used
in
making
decisions
or
not
so
but
in
terms
of
the
actual
size
and
the
fact
goes
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
period.
It
doesn't
really
concern
me
it's
more
of
the
question
of
aesthetics,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
is
relevant.
E
G
G
We
had
not
gotten
to
the
point
where
we
had
made
any
you
know
final
decisions
on
specific
building
materials.
So
if,
if
this
does
get
approved
to
move
forward
to
build,
I
I'm
happy
to
consult
with
you
to
make
sure
you're
you're
the
people
who
will
be
looking
at
this.
You
know
directly
the
most,
so
I'm
happy
to
consult
with
you
to
make
sure
that
the
facade
that
you
would
have
from
the
view
from
your
property,
you
know,
looks
agreeable
to
to
you.
G
That
being
said,
if
you
look
out
from
your
rear
yard,
the
spot,
where
we're
trying
to
build,
which
would
be
from
your
view,
the
leftmost
side
of
our
house
does
already
have
aluminum
siding
on
that
portion.
It's
a
you
are
correct.
The
rest
of
the
house
is
done
in
a
in
a
brick
facade,
but
we
have
a
it's:
a
kind
of
dark,
green
gray,
aluminum
siding
over
that
wall
of
the
house.
That's
specifically
where
we're
looking
to
expand.
C
E
G
G
I
don't
want
to
regrade
it
because
we
like
the
natural
environment
around
our
house,
our
house,
when
we
bought
it.
One
of
the
reasons
why
we
bought
it
was
because
we
have
a
number
of
beautiful
oak
trees
around
our
yard,
and
I,
like
I
said
we
reading
the
purposes
of
the
ordinances,
is
to
respect
the
natural
environment,
not
to
destroy
the
foothills
area
and,
frankly,
our
home
and
our
neighbor's
home
and
several
other
houses
in
the
neighborhood
we're
all
designed
by
the
same
architect.