►
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Division Administrative Hearing for November 18, 2021
A
B
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
yes,
okay,
good,
so
welcome
to
the
salt
lake
city
planning
division
appeals
hearing
for
thursday
november
18
2021.
My
name
is
mary
woodhead.
I
will
be
the
hearing
officer
tonight.
We
originally
had
three
items
on
the
agenda.
However.
The
third
item,
which
was
an
appeal
of
a
zoning
violation
at
10
40
south
prospect
street,
has
been
withdrawn
and
we
will
not
be
hearing
that
matter
tonight.
So,
if
you're
here
for
that
matter,
it's
no
longer
on
the
agenda.
B
We
have
two
other
items
that
we
will
be
hearing.
First
is
an
appeal
of
a
special
exception
and
minor
alteration:
denial
at
140,
east
first
avenue,
which
is
the
brigham
young
cemetery.
That
matter
is
not
a
public
hearing,
so
we
will
only
hear
from
the
parties
on
that
matter.
The
second
is
a
variance
for
a
modified
yard,
setbacks
back
at
320,
north
800
west.
That
matter
is
a
public
hearing
and
when
we
get
to
that,
if
someone
is
here
to
speak
on
that,
we'll
allow
the
parties
to
speak
to
the
extent
they
need
to.
B
But
public
comment
on
that
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
For
each
comment,
so
if
you're
here
for
that
matter,
think
a
little
bit
about
what
you
want
to
say
in
that
time
limit
as
to
both
matters,
I'm
not
going
to
set
a
time
limit
for
the
presentations,
but
I
will
let
everyone
know
that
I
have
read
the
staff
report
reports
of
both
matters
and
am
fully
familiar
with
what
the
parties
have
had
to
say.
So.
Keep
that
in
mind
and
use
your
time
wisely.
B
We'll
start
with
the
special
exception
relating
to
the
brigham
young
cemetery,
and
I
will
hear
from
the
appellant
the
representing
the
church
of
jesus
christ,
of
latter-day
saints
first
followed
by
representative
of
salt
lake
city,
and
then
I
will
bring
it
back
to
the
to
have
the
final
word.
So
if
the
representative
of
the
church
would
like
to
go
forward,
we're
ready
to
hear
you.
A
B
A
B
A
C
C
C
C
As
noted
in
some
of
the
reports
that
have
been
previously
submitted,
we
have
had
increased
number
of
vandalism
at
the
site.
There
has
been
theft,
there
has
been
defacing
of
historic
graves
and
other
activities
that
are
not
in
keeping
not
only
with
the
cemetery,
but
with
a
property
that
is
owned
by
the
church,
that
we
want
to
kind
of
have
a
a
certain
sense
and
feeling
for
so.
C
C
We
fully
acknowledge
and
support
that
the
fence
has
been
modified
some
over
the
years
and
some
of
those
modifications
have
had
to
be
done,
because
when
the
fence
was
first
installed,
it
wasn't
installed
to
the
depth
that
we
need.
So
the
pickets
already
move
and
kind
of
give
a
little
bit
so
the
fence
to
make
it
stable,
and
so
the
argument
we're
making
is
that
the
the
modifications
that
we
want
to
make
are
by
and
large,
reversible
and
will
be
carefully
documented,
so
that
future
future
people
working
on
this
fence?
C
C
The
other
basis
of
our
appeal
is
what
we
feel
has
been
an
uneven
application
of
the
standards
for
what
is
a
minor
alteration,
as
opposed
to
at
the
same
meetings
that
we
presented.
There
were
other
applications
that
approved
major
modifications
to
historic
buildings,
as
well
as
demolition
of
a
contributing
structure
and
demolition
of
an
addition
to
a
historic
building
that
had
also
achieved
some
significance.
C
C
B
It
was
there
any
particular
error
that
you
thought
landmarks
made.
I
read
through
the
minutes
of
the
different
landmarks
meetings.
I
didn't
actually
watch
the
video,
but
I
did
read
the
minutes
that
were
in
the
staff
report,
and
you
know
they
seem
to
believe
that
the
way
the
new
fence
materials
would
be
welded
together
would
basically
destroy
the
history
of
the
original
fence.
C
I
I
believe
that
that
that
comment
is
an
error.
Having
worked
with
metal
foundries
for
several
years,
even
repairs
defenses
require
new
welding,
new
material
binding
with
the
old
material
and
a
lot
of
the
the
kind
of
industry
standards
in
cast
iron
repair.
Allow
for
that.
Those
kind
of
repairs
to
be
made
and
acknowledge
that
you
know
cast
iron
should
always
be
repaired
with
cast
iron,
so
the
this
idea
that
to
weld
new
pieces
on,
would
destroy
the
historic
material
itself.
B
C
One
of
the
members
two
of
the
members
had
some
conflict
of
interest,
one
recused
himself,
the
other
that
didn't
recuse
himself
works
for
an
architectural
firm
that
has
a
number
of
current
projects
underway
with
the
church,
which
I
think
puts
him
and
us
in
a
hard
spot.
If
he
agrees
with
us
and
disagrees
with
staff
that
you
know,
are
you
privileging
the
client?
B
D
D
They
stressed
this
evening
that
they
felt
that
quote
the
proposal
generally
kept
with
the
standards.
Well,
if
we
review
the
city
code
and
the
commission's
decision
that
night,
we
know
that
you
have
to
comply
with
all
of
the
standards
and
the
commission
found
that
it
did
not
comply
with
all
the
standards.
So
it's
not
one
of
those,
unfortunately
close
enough,
that
we
comply
type
thing
and
therefore
should
be
approved.
It's
that
we
have
to
comply
with
the
standards
and
the
commission
found
that
there
wasn't
compliance
with
all
of
the
standards.
B
And
I
think,
everyone's
in
agreement
that
the
security
issues
are
probably
valid.
You
know
these
are
are
really
important.
Historical,
it's
an
important
historical
site.
We're
talking
about
human
remains
some
really
sort
of
serious
precious
history
for
salt
lake
city
and
for
utah,
but
the
standards
say
even
if
you
do
have
security
concerns,
you
need
to
address
them
in
a
way.
That's
consistent
with
the
ordinance
is
that
right.
D
Yes,
that's
the
position,
it's
one
of
the
things
that
you
know.
Somebody
may
argue
that
the
policy
set
forth
by
ordinance
preserves
the
historic
nature
of
things
over
protecting
the
physical
security
of
other
things,
but
and
whether
that's
a
good
or
a
bad
policy
decision
isn't
what
we're
here
to
talk
about
tonight.
What
we're
here
to
talk
about
is
whether
those
standards
are
met,
and
I
guess,
with
respect
to
the
sort
of
question
or
the
more
specific
error
raised
tonight,
being
the
ability
to
sort
of
undo
the
modification.
D
Late
in
the
day,
we
do
have
a
process
for
resolving
that
sort
of
concern
which
I
think
is
separate
from
this
process.
I
suppose
you
know
we
could
argue
about
putting
this
on
hold
pending
an
outcome
there,
but,
as
was
argued
in
our
briefing,
it
doesn't
get
the
appellant
the
remedy
she
seeks,
which
is
approval,
even
sort
of
best
case
scenario.
Here.
C
I
don't
I
don't
know
what
the
right
word
is
to
demonstrate
that
they
could.
You
know
that
is,
in
my
experience
with
landmarks
commissions
and
as
a
as
a
preservationist
myself,
the
bar
I
find
is
generally
very
high
to
approve
a
demolition
and
to,
as
the
commissioner
said
in
the
meeting
that
evening.
Well,
we
need
to
approve
this
for
the
good
of
the
overall
project
and
there
are
other
you
know,
properties
in
salt
lake
city
that
are
probably
should
be
demolished.
C
B
C
I
could
yeah,
I
I
I
I
understand,
and
I
I
think
I
can
see
the
city's
point
that
going.
You
know
the
conflict
of
interest.
Probably
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
change
the
final
vote
it
would.
It
was
interesting
that
evening
you
know,
as
the
discussions
going
are
going
back
and
forth
and
hearing
all
of
those
is
and
people
are
are
talking.
C
C
B
So
the
record
in
this
is
the
record
that
was
before
landmarks.
So
if
what
he's
going
to
say
is
something
that
would
be
new
evidence
in
the
record,
I
don't
know
that
it
would
be
appropriate
or
helpful
or
consistent
with
the
rules.
I
will
say
I
don't
think
salt
lake
city,
or
at
least
my
understanding
from
the
record
that
there's
any
dispute
that
there
are
security
concerns.
C
B
B
B
B
So
I
think
I
understand,
what's
in
front
of
me,
so
we'll
hear
from
the
petitioner
we'll
have
any
additional
information
provided
by
salt
lake
city
staff
and
then
we'll
open
the
matter
for
public
comment
and
public
comment
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
if
there
is
public
comment,
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
petitioner
and
give
you
a
chance
to
respond
to
anything.
People
say
so.
Hopefully
that
works
for
everyone,
and
so
I
would
like
to
hear
from
mr
stevens
or
his
representative.
E
Thank
you
mary.
My
name
is
trevor
I'll,
be
discussing
a
few
of
the
points
here
regarding
this
request
for
variance
side,
dart
setback
modification.
Just
according
to
the
to
the
staff
notes,
it
looks
to
be
that
there
were
just
a
few
requests
specifically
related
to
myself,
providing
to
this
committee
or
in
this
setting.
E
We
had
run
a
title
report
quite
a
while
ago,
and
there
is
a
warranty
deed
that
was
recorded
june
7
1905,
defining
the
right-of-way.
It
is
a
10-foot
right-of-way
which
does
allow
access
to
the
property
and
that's,
of
course,
with
the
county
reporter's
office.
So
I
think
that
that
should
answer
the
question
and
can.
E
E
E
The
warranty
is
a
little
hard
to
to
read,
but
if,
if
their
needs,
you
know
if
there
needs
to
be
clarification,
I'm
happy
to
provide
that
and
and
or
try
to
you
know,
provide
a
better
copy
from
the
recorder's
office,
but
that,
unfortunately,
it's
an
old
document,
it's
over
100
years
old
and
that's
the
best
I
think
the
city
has
on
file
and
anyway,
that's
what
I'm
stuck
with.
That's
fine.
E
Need
to-
and
I
know
you
read
the
staff
report-
basically
just
to
give
you
some
personal
background
into
it.
My
dad
had
actually
bought
the
property
from
someone
that
he
knew
she
was
in
kind
of
a
difficult
situation,
and
I
understand
why
the
house
was
pretty
much
in
disrepair.
So
in
good
faith.
I
think
he
he
helped
this
lady
out
to
try
to
you
know,
do
what's
good,
if
you
will
for
the
community,
it's
just
the
way
my
dad
operates.
E
Unfortunately,
my
dad
gets
in
over
his
head
13
years
later,
I'm
I'm
able
to
purchase
it
from
him
as
he
had
basically
done
nothing
with
the
property.
You
know
we've
had
significant
numerous,
I
mean
I.
I
can't
even
count
how
many
criminal
activities
have
gone
on
in
the
home.
We've
had
attempts
to
remodel
the
home
and
things
were
stolen
out
of
the
property.
E
We've
had
multiple
sets
of
windows,
damaged
and
replaced
and
broken
again,
so,
unfortunately,
it
is
an
eyesore,
it
is
a
magnet
for
crime
and
I
think
for
us,
that's
that's
the
the
number.
One
reason
we
would
like
to
to
you
know:
accelerate
the
the
building
permit
or
that
I
should
say
that
the
variance
process,
then
the
building
permit
process,
then
the
demolition
process
and
as
a
segue
from
from
basically
the
criminal
activity
into
the
demolition
and
rebuilding.
E
We
have
looked
in,
which
I
believe
my
father
had
an
inline
edition
that
was
approved,
but
really
going
into
it.
We
had
multiple
general
contractors
out
there,
looking
at
the
stone
foundation
and
specifically
with
the
recent
earthquake.
You
know
a
lot
of
people
just
did
not
feel
comfortable
building
on
top
of
that
and
the
the
cost
of
having
to
modify
the
existing
structure
was
just
significantly
more
expensive
than
than
we
had
researched
to
just
tear
the
structure
down
and
start
over
from
scratch,
which
is
doesn't
make
sense.
E
But
having
going
through
a
remodel
myself
and
bountiful,
I
can
understand
where
you
know
three
or
four
times
the
labor
aspect
comes
into
play
when
we
try
to
kind
of
keep
an
existing
structure
there
and
and
build
with
what
we've
got
with
with
old
technology
and
mending
new
technology,
and-
and
you
know,
new
standards
of
building
and
building
codes
and
so
forth.
So
what
we
had
ultimately
decided
is
is
what
I
felt
should
have
happened.
All
along
is
to
request
a
variance,
explain
the
reasonings.
Why?
E
Obviously
we
we
know
that
non-conforming
lot
is,
you
know,
provides
a
significant
hardship
in
terms
of
building
a
structure.
That's
literally
makes
any
sense
at
all
in
terms
of
even
moving
about
the
interior
of
the
structure
functionally
it's
just
an
odd
lot.
We've
approached
all
these
electrical
drawings.
E
Yeah,
it's
tough,
as
is,
and
I
know
there
are
some
other
variances-
that
we
included
that
were
that
were
granted
by
the
city
that
unfortunately
had
some
quirky
aspects
from
an
aesthetic
and
architectural
perspective,
but
ultimately
was
able
to
meet
both
the
criteria
of
the
city
and
the
criteria
of
the
variants
and
allow
the
homeowner
and
the
builder
or
the
landowner.
I
should
say
to
move
forward
with
something
functional.
E
I
I
think
for
the
most
part,
it's
fairly
simple,
we're
not
building
something
extravagant
or
out
of
the
ordinary.
I
think
it
will
fit
with
the
area.
I
think
you
know.
Salt
lake
city
is
certainly
in
need
of
of
housing,
and-
and
this
will
certainly
be
one
additional
home
of
the
many
thousands
that
we
need
that
ultimately
has
not
been
available
in
the
last
14
or
15
years,
which
will
now
be
available,
ultimately
helping
the
community.
So
we
feel
that,
hopefully,
the
city
feels
the
same
way.
F
F
So
the
salt
lake
city
and
county
records
indicate
the
parcel
was
created
in
1934
and
is
considered
to
be
legally
non-complying
and
say.
The
existing
structure
is
also
considered
to
be
a
non-compliant
structure,
so
the
width
of
the
lot
presents
a
hardship
when
applying
the
required
side
yard
setback
dimensions
as
they
limit
the
potential
exterior
width
of
the
building
to
11
feet,
resulting
in
a
very
near
structure
that
is
pretty
limited
in
function
functionality.
B
F
In
addition,
there's
the
private
alley,
which
is
10
feet
in
width
located
along
the
southern
property
boundary,
which
does
provide
some
additional
space
and
buffering
between
the
subject
parcel
and
the
neighboring
properties
to
the
south.
So
staff
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
request
for
reduced
side
yard
setbacks
is
appropriate
and
the
case
meets
all
standards
for
granting
a
variance,
as
discussed
in
the
staff
report.
So
stuff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
variance
with
that
condition
listed
in
the
staff
report
that
it
sounds
like
the
applicant
has
some
evidence
to
submit
for
so.
E
No,
I
mean
I
appreciate
you
guys
even
going
into
this,
we've
tried
it
for
a
few
years
actually
to
sell
the
property.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
knew
what
was
entailed
with
trying
to
even
get
a
variance
going
to
even
make
something
of
this.
We
tried
to
sell
it
as
is,
and
unfortunately,
the
home
was
purchased
during
the
height
of
the
market
previously
and
up
until
recently,
even
even
in
a
distressed
situation
that
the
property
itself
is
just
really
it's
junk.
E
B
A
A
B
Okay,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing.
I
am
inclined
to
grant
this
variance,
but
I'm
not
going
to
completely
commit
until
I
see
the
documents
that
the
applicant
is
provide
is
going
to
provide,
and
once
I
have
those
I'll
issue,
a
written
decision,
hopefully
in
about
the
next
week,
memorializing
what
we've
discussed
here.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
coming.
I
appreciate
your
time.
I
think
that
closes
our
hearing
agenda
for
tonight.
Anything
else,
joel.