►
From YouTube: Planning Division Appeals Hearing - March 10, 2022
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing - March 10, 2022
www.slc.gov/planning
A
B
B
B
D
D
D
A
D
Well,
first
here
the
the
first
appeal
for
the
930
north
900
west
property,
and
just
a
a
reminder
that
this
was
originally
heard
on
december
9th,
but
because
of
a
noticing
issue
that
we
are
re
hearing
this
issue.
So
just
as
a
reminder,
nothing
from
that
previous
hearing
is
is
applicable
here.
It's
as
if
that
carrying
back
on
the
surface,
never
happened
so
we're
starting
over,
and
that
was
long
enough
ago.
I
can't
even
remember
it
anyway,
so
so
I
think
we're
in
in
in
good
shape
there.
D
D
If,
if
amy
or
anyone
from
the
city
wants
to
give
any
preliminary
sort
of
just
general
information
about
the
the
matter
before
us,
and
maybe
for
the
purposes
of
anybody
from
the
public,
I
realize
that
I
don't
think
anybody
from
the
public
is
is
here
to
participate
in.
Although
it
is
a
public
hearing,
maybe
beneficial
at
a
minimum.
E
E
The
request
was
denied
because
under
salt
lake
city's
billboard
regulations,
new
billboards
are
prohibited
within
600
feet
of
a
gateway,
and
the
proposed
location
of
the
billboard
is
on
a
parcel
that
abuts
interstate
I-15,
which
is
identified
as
a
gateway
in
the
city
code.
We
did
get
a
couple
public
comments.
Those
were
forwarded
you
to
you
earlier
today
by
aubry.
Hopefully
you
got
those,
and
I
do
think
that
we
actually
have
some
people
from
the
public
that
are
ready
to
speak
on
both
of
these
matters.
D
Oh
good,
thank
you
for
that
and
I
apologize
for
not
recognizing
that
beforehand.
I
I
didn't
want
to
give
the
impression
to
any
members
of
the
public
that
we're
not
wanting
to
hear
from
you.
We
are
a
citizen
public
hearing,
so
thank
you
for
clarifying
it
by
the
way
I
did
receive
for
the
record
those
items
that
were
forwarded
on
to
me
by
by
aubry
so
thank
you,
amy
anything.
E
E
D
C
C
C
Now,
admittedly,
nothing
in
the
application
says
it's
supposed
to
be
under
state
law,
state
relocation
law,
but
there's
no
requirement
for
that.
So
it's
just
a
you
know,
and
it's
just
an
application.
You
submit
that
doesn't
even
have
space
for
something
like
that,
but
but
reagan
did
notice
that
after
that
was
submitted,
that
they
do
send
a
letter,
at
least
on
occasion,
specifying
hey.
C
C
We
have
and
continue
to
state
that
if
the
city
will
agree
that
our
our
second
application,
the
4949,
will
be
considered
on
its
own
without
making
some
argument
that
we're
now
barred
from
making
that
application
under
some
principle,
like
rest,
judo,
conor
waiver
or
any
equitable
or
legal
argument,
and
we
we've
told
them
before
we
will
agree
to
dismiss
this
appeal,
but
they
they
won't
agree
to
that,
or
at
least
that's
my
understanding
candidly,
I'm
new
to
this
case
right.
So
I
don't.
C
C
Frankly,
if
they
don't
agree
to
that,
then
you
know
we
should
win
our
appeal,
because
our
appeal
is
under
you
know.
Our
our
request
for
relocation
is
allowed
and,
frankly
required
under
state
law.
The
city
only
provided
ordinances
in
as
an
objection
to
it,
which
are
essentially
all
due
respect
meaningless.
C
When
state
law
allows
for
the
relocation
and-
and
it's
109
513,
which
basically
says
this
happens,
if
they
don't,
if
the
city
doesn't,
you
know,
start
condemnation
proceedings
within
180
days
of
the
application
we
get
to
do
it
now,
we
don't.
I
have
no
interest
in
sort
of
you
know,
railroading
this
issue
through.
I
think
the
you
know
the
the
proper
way
to
do.
It
would
be
for
the
city
to
agree
that
the
first
application
has
no
bearing
on
the
second
application.
C
B
C
C
Obviously,
as
amy
just
said,
this
was
a
decision
based
entirely
on
city
code,
not
on
state
law.
So
I
don't
even
know
why
that
argument
is
being
made
here
and
second,
the
city.
Frankly,
I
know
we're
getting
a
little
technical
here,
but
the
city
should
be
a
stop
for
making
that
argument,
because
in
its
correspondence
to
us
in
the
denial
it
told
us
exactly
how
we
should
proceed
under
administrative
rules
and
it
even
gave
us
the
form.
C
C
D
C
A
D
C
D
D
F
F
It
is
helpful
to
here
today
that
perhaps
the
concern
that
reagan
has
is
the
the
letter
that
was
sent
with
regard
to
their
second
state
law
application.
Had
these
application
number
from
the
previous
one,
and
I
haven't
brought
to
my
attention
previously
and
perhaps
that
is
what's
causing
such
consternation.
I
don't
know
with
respect.
F
It
was
mr
peterson
that
was
representing
reagan
at
the
time
and
he
was
asking
for
the
same
acknowledgement,
and
we
said
yes,
we're
processing
the
application.
We've
requested
information
from
you
waiting
for
the
information
to
come
back
and
he
kept
asking
for
more
affirmatives,
and
I
was
asking
what
the
concern
was
like.
What
are
you
concerned
about?
I
don't
understand,
and
it
would
have
been
helpful
at
that
point.
F
If
perhaps
it
had
been
brought
to
our
attention
that
they
were
concerned,
that
the
application
numbers
was
were
the
same
and
there
was
a
typographical
error
and
we'd
be
happy
to
address
that
for
him
at
that
time.
I
don't
know
what
class
that
we
can
say
where
we
are.
We
have
application
number
one
with
one
number
application
number
two
with
another
number,
where
we're
processing
application
number
two:
we've
requested
information
with
respect
to
application
number
two
and
we
haven't
received
it.
I
don't
know
what
else
I
could
I
mean.
F
D
F
C
Well,
I
mean
I
kind
of
heard
matt.
We
we
answer
man,
we've
all
heard
witnesses
testify
or
politicians
speak
in
a
way
that
doesn't
quite
answer
the
question.
I
didn't
really
hear
an
answer
to
the
actual
question,
because
my
concern
is
that
the
city
comes
back
and
says
we're
denying
the
second
application
on
the
basis
of
something
like
res
judicata,
something
like
estoppel,
some
sort
of
any
sort
of
legal
or
equitable
argument
that
isn't
actually
based
on
the
merits
of
our
application.
C
I
mean
just
so
we're
clear
just
so
we're
crystal
clear
here
the
application-
and
maybe
I
I
miss
I
I
I
may
have
misheard
something
you
said
and
didn't
clarify
it
earlier.
So
I
just
want
to
do
that
now,
if
that's
all
right
sure
the
application
that
reagan
originally
made
like
I
said
it
didn't
state
anything
on
it.
Reagan
notified
the
city
prior
to
their
prior
to
their
rejection
of
the
application
that
this
is
under
state
law.
C
So
so
they
had
that
knowledge,
and-
and
my
concern
is
that,
because
we
deal
with
with
all
sorts
of
defenses
that
actually
never
get
to
the
merits
of
our
application,
is
that
somehow
that's
going
to
preclude
consideration
of
the
second
application?
What
I
need
is
an
acknowledgement
that
nothing
in
the
first
application
will
be
used
as
a
basis
almost
like
as
to
deny
that
to
deny
the
second
application.
Almost
like
you
said.
The
other
thing
never
happened
right.
C
F
Yeah,
my
understanding
is
that
the
first
application
has
been
denied
because
we
considered
it
under
citico.
We've
received
a
second
application
and
we're
considering
it
under
the
provision
of
state
code,
and
I
think,
to
the
extent
that
mr
strasberg
is
stating
that
he
wants
like
wider
athena
affirmations,
and
I
think
mr
strasberg
and
I
have
been
in
a
lot
of
litigation
together
over
the
years
with
respect
to
billboards
and
we
have
received,
we
have
been
the
end
of
arguments
where
our
words
have
been
taken
out
of
context
and
distorted.
F
But
yes,
the
way
that
these
are
being
treated
is
application.
One
was
considered
to
see
if
it
complied
with
city
code,
it
was
denied
based
on
that
we
have
application
number
two.
We
are
considering
whether
it
complies
with
the
provisions
of
state
code
that
reagan's
identified
that
it's
requesting
us
to
consider
it
under
we've
asked
for
additional
information
from
reagan
to
be
able
to
process
the
application
we
asked
for
that
in
november,
and
we
still
haven't
received
it,
but
that
application
is
in
process
and
being
considered
under
state
code.
Okay,.
D
D
As
much
as
as
we're
gonna
gonna
get-
and
I
think
we
probably
ought
to
just
move
on
to
a
a
a
public
hearing
at
this
point
and
then
give
the
parties
any
any
final
words
just
so
we
can
move
forward
unless,
unless
that
response
from
ms
lark
is
enough
for
you
mistral
mr
strasberg,
to
be
comfortable
to
drop
this
appeal
at
this
stage.
But
again
we
can
go
through
and
hold
the
public
hearing
again,
I'm
not
trying
to
short
circuit
the
process
by
any
means.
D
D
So
so,
given
that,
let's,
let's
at
least
open
it
up
to
to
a
public
hearing
before
doing
so,
let
me
just
let
the
members
of
the
public
know
again.
It's
it's
helpful.
If
you
speak
to
it's,
it's
not
helpful
for
me
as
an
appeals
hearing
officer
to
tell
I
don't
I
don't
like
a
billboard.
I
don't
want
this
or
what
whatever,
if
you
can
speak
to
the
merits
of
of
of
the
case
that
helps
me
if
this
is
not
a
a
a
vote,
a
a
majority
vote
type
of
outcome.
D
This
is
application
of
of
of
law
and
to
the
extent
those
in
the
public
would
like
to
share
that.
That's
what
is
most
helpful
to
me.
You're
welcome
to
share
whatever
you'd
like.
I
would
like
to
limit
the
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person.
So
if
the
city
can
help
sort
of
monitor
that
timing
for
those
wishing
to
speak.
B
B
A
A
We
support
the
city's
position
on
this,
have
a
fairly
extensive
background
on
this
issue,
both
in
terms
of
the
law
and
in
terms
of
its
background
and
application
over
the
years
and
feel
that
the
city's
denial
is
both
well-founded
and
consistent
with
city
code
and
with
good
policy
for
the
city,
and
I
realize
you're,
making
a
determination
based
on
law
but
hope,
you'll,
consider
our
comments
that
we've
submitted
in
writing
and
I
think
they
cover
anything.
I
would
say.
B
D
Okay,
mr
becker,
thank
you
and
recognizing
not
that
we're
not
seeing
or
hearing
any
others
wishing
to
speak.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
for
any
final
comments.
If,
if
any
from
mr
strasberg
and
miss
lark,
why
the
city?
Why
don't
you
go
first,
we'll
give
the
appellant
the
last
word.
D
D
I
I
just
haven't
seen
or
heard
anything
that
that
would
persuade
me
otherwise
than
the
plain
language
of
the
city
code,
which
is
where
I
received
my
authority
as
the
appeals
hearing
officer.
So
I
am
dismissing
this
appeal
simply
because
I
don't
have
have
that
authority
to
apply
state
law,
and
so
given
that
I
think
that
that,
with
respect
to
this
appeal,
it
would
seem
that
the
the
the
appellant
has
the
option
to
take
this
to
a
district
court.
And
and
again
I
apologize
for
the.
D
D
Not
telling
you
what
what
to
do,
but
I
I
think
you
probably
wouldn't
need
to
make
an
appeal
to
the
appeals
hearing
officer
if
the
outcome
of
that
second
application
and
I'm
not
trying
to
give
anybody
advice
so
I'll
just
stop
talking.
But
I
just
just
just
want
to
make
make
that
clear
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
So
if
we
could,
let's
move
on
to
the
second
issue
and
on
the
533,
what
the
south
400
west
on
regarding
raising
the
height
of
the
billboard-
and
this
is
a
pln-
a
pvp
2021.
E
They
are
represented
by
bradley
strasburg
salt
lake
city,
made
an
administrative
decision
to
deny
a
request
by
reagan,
outdoor
advertising
to
raise
the
height
of
an
existing
billboard
at
approximately
533
south
400
west.
This
appeal
is
related
to
an
administrative
decision
for
building
permit
bld
2021-07175.
C
None
of
that
is
contained
in
this
letter.
In
fact,
the
the
final
sentence
of
this
letter
is
almost
like
a
question.
You
know
a
remark
that
we'd
be
happy
to
consider
a
new
application
requesting
a
height
adjustment,
the
lower
the
height
of
the
sign.
So
there's
no
indication
in
the
letter,
as
there
should
be
that
this
is
actually
a
final
decision
or
that
we
have
a
right
to
appeal
it.
The
you
know
the
city
code,
21a
6240,
defines
an
administrative
decision
as
a
final
order.
C
C
We
don't
know
we
need
to
know
when
and
where
to
appeal,
and
this
has
been
another
issue
that
we've
dealt
with
now
for
for
a
few
months,
based
on
all
the
denials
of
permit
requests
and,
frankly,
based
on
the
lack
of
final
decision
this.
We
think
this
should
be
remanded
back
to
the
city
to
actually
issue
a
final
decision
and
tell
us
where
to
appeal
and
when
the
time
we
have
because
they're
different
under
state
law
and
city
ordinance,
depending
on.
C
D
Can
interrupt
you?
Thank
you.
Just
a
question
did
the
city,
I
think
I
know
the
answer,
but
did
the
city
tell
you
then,
to
provide
any
kind
of
guidance
or
tell
reagan
to
appeal
to
this
to
the
appeals
hearing
officer?
Is
this
something
you
just
at
again?
I
think
I
heard
out
of
the
out
of
abundance
of
caution.
You
appealed
on
your
own
yeah,
or
was
there
any
city
guidance
given
to
you.
C
No
they're
there
to
my
knowledge
now
sam
may
have
a
document
I
don't
have.
But
to
my
knowledge
this
is
the
only
communication,
the
november
first
letter,
and
they
don't
tell
us
what
to
do.
They
don't
tell
us
that
it's
even
a
final
decision
and,
frankly
so
look.
I
don't
want
it
it's
difficult
to
get
into
the
whole.
I
understand
what
you
said
last
time.
The
the
city
ordinance
tells
you
you're
you're
not
supposed
to
make
decisions
based
on
state
law
right
you're
supposed
to
apply
city
ordinances,
but.
C
We
need
some
direction
here
and
frankly,
in
every
decision
made
by
the
city,
but
specifically
now
in
front
of
you
matt
this
decision,
we
need
direction
as
to
is
it
final,
because
if
it
is
a
clock
starts
running
and
is
it
and
it?
It
also
helps
us
now
determine
which
court
we
need
to
go
to
right
if
we
need
to
go
to
district
court
or
if
we
need
to
go
an
appeals
officer-
and
this
has
been
part
of
our
problem
too
right-
we
never
know
where
to
go
and
when
to
do
it.
C
So
we
have
to
do
things
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution
like
we
did
here,
but
yeah
I
mean,
I
think
in
this
case
it
would
be
very
appropriate
to
get
a
final
decision
from
the
city
stating
it's
a
final
order
and
telling
us
this
is
a
state
decision.
You
have.
You
know
this
much
time
to
go
to
the
district
court,
and
I
that
I
mean
look.
That's
due
process.
That
would
be
fairness
having
to
guess
every
time
is
not
that's
the
opposite
of
due
process.
C
C
Now,
just
on
the
issue
of
I
I
will
say
this
and
that
I
didn't
even
know
you
were
a
administrative
appeals
officer,
and
this
is
it's
nice
to
know
that
you
are
the
the
last
time
I
did.
This
was
before
craig
call
and
frankly,
he'd
been
doing
it.
I
think,
since
the
city
was
established,
and
but
he
he
was
denying
these.
C
These
arguments
on
the
administrative
tribunal
doesn't
have
jurisdiction
consistently
because
he
was
applying.
He
was
basically
saying
well,
look.
I
have
to
abide
by
utah
law.
The
city
has
to
abide
by
utah
law
and
109a.
104
prohibits
a
city
or
a
hearing
officer
from
imposing
requirements
that
conflict
with
state
law
and
even
the
city
code
still
requires
hearing
officers
to
reverse
if
a
decision
violates
state
law.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
that
you
know.
C
But
it's
the
confusion
of
the
whole
thing.
That's
that's
a
problem
for
us,
because
the
utah
code,
the
1098-701,
still
says
as
a
conditioned
precedent
to
judicial
review.
The
adverse
you
know,
diversely
affected
party,
has
to
timely
and
specifically
challenge
the
land,
use
authority's
land
use
decision,
and
so
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
do
that
right.
But
then
we
have
timing
requirements
for
bringing
it
to
the
state
court
and
we
don't
know
how
those
sort
of
work
together
or
opposing.
C
D
I'll,
certainly
let
you
know,
but
if
I
could
ask
miss
slark,
to
address
the
issues
raised
by
mr
strasberg
on
the
jurisdictional
issue.
That
would
be
help
helpful
and-
and
you
know
again
his
arguments
about
the
not
being
a
final
decision
and
guidance
on
where
and
how
to
do
an
appeal.
So
anyway,
that
would
be
helpful.
F
I
would
just
direct
the
hearing
officer
and
perhaps
mr
strasberg
to
utah
109a
in
the
700
series,
where
it
clearly
states
that
a
municipality
is
to
identify
which
type
of
cases
are
heard
by
its
hearing
officers
and
which
ones
are
to
go
directly
to
district
court,
so
contrary
to
and
sort
of
any
statements
that
it
is
contrary
to
utah
code
to
identify
that
state
law
provisions
go
to
the
district
court.
It's
actually
specifically
provided
for
in
in
the
700
series.
F
F
With
respect
to
this,
I
can
certainly
tell
you
that
I
have
not
received.
I
personally
have
not
received
any
communications
from
reagan's
council
asking
me
if
it
was
a
final
decision
or
asking
for
clarification
if
it's
a
final
decision
or
asking
for
any
kind
of
position
or
where
an
appeal
would
need
to
be
found.
In
fact,
there's
been
zero
communication
other
than
receiving
the
appeal.
So
with
respect
to
that,
I
just
unfortunately
can't
address
at
this
point
the
question
with
regard
to
other
materials
going
out.
F
D
A
A
We,
as
in
the
other
case,
I
realize
you're
you're
on
some
other
kinds
of
issues
here,
not
so
much
the
substance
of
the
case,
but
we
we
really
just
commented
on
the
substance
of
this
appeal
and,
like
the
other
case
before
you,
we
strongly
support
the
city's
position
on
this
and,
and
I
I've
got
to
say,
really
have
a
difficult
time,
even
understanding
how
the
the
the
appellant
has
been
damaged.
This
is
a
billboard.
That's
been
there
for
a
long
time.
There's
been
advertising
on
it.
A
Obviously,
if
those
purchasing
advertising
didn't
believe
there
was
any
value
in
that
billboard
because
their
views
were
obstructed,
they
wouldn't
be
using
the
billboard.
So,
in
addition
to
the,
I
think,
the
things
that
we
saw
from
from
the
city's
rationale-
it's
it
seems
like
an
odd
case
to
bring
after
a
billboard,
that's
been.
A
G
B
D
E
D
C
C
Just
just
so,
I
have
it
on
the
record.
If
that's
okay,
yes,
please
the
the
the
bases
for
which
we
were
going
to
dispute.
The
the
actual
merits
were
very
plain
that
the
city
gave
four
reasons
for
its
denial,
the
first
of
which
has
apparently
been
abandoned
on
appeal
and
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
anyway,
and
the
second
of
which
that
the
statute
itself
was
enacted
to
deal
with
obstructions
relating
to
I-15
was
not
actually
part
of
the
statute
that
we're
talking
about.
C
C
And
the
last
thing
I
was
going
to
say
is
that
the
the
final
basis
for
denying
our
application
that
it
wasn't
obstructed
long
enough,
isn't
a
proper
denial
of
the
appeal
and
it's
contrary
to
the
statute,
which
basically
says
if
it's
blocked,
which
our
picture
that
we
submitted
clearly
shows
it's
entirely
blocked.
We
get
to
move
it,
and
so
we
don't.
We
believe
that
none
of
the
bases
that
provided
were
legitimate
and
each
of
them
were
either
illegal
or
arbitrary
and
capricious.
D
Very
much
bro.
I
appreciate
appreciate
your
time
so
again
as
as
much
as
I
would
prefer
to
make
a
decision
on
on
the
merits.
I
again
I
I
just
haven't
been
able
to
see
any
way
around
a
very
clear
statute
that
limits
my
authority,
which
is
different
than
a
zoning
administrator.
I
mean
a
zoning
administrator
is
not
specifically
prohibited
from
applying
state
law
or
hearing
this.
This
issue,
at
least
as
best
as
I
can
understand.
D
D
I
I
I'm
trying
to
I'll
save
you,
everyone,
the
the
the
issue
of
remanding
it
and
then
just
being
adding
a
sentence
and
being
told
you
can
go
appeal
to
the
district
court
by
my
decision
to
essentially
dismiss
the
appeal
because
of
lack
of
jurisdiction.
It
gets
you
to
the
same
place
that
that
I
think
you
can
that.
D
So
with
that
that
completes
the
the
matters
before
us
tonight
again,
I
appreciate
everyone's
participation,
both
the
appellant
and
representative
city,
representative
city
staff
and
and
members
of
the
public
who
have
participated
tonight,
and
that
concludes
our
our
hearing
tonight.
Thank
you
very
much.