DECISION BY THE LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER Petition No. PLNBOA2012-00578
2319 South Foothill Drive
Hearing Date: November 7, 2012
Re: A request by Mark Kramer of FastSigns on behalf of the property owner for a variance to allow two monument signs on the same parcel where only one is allowed by the ordinance. The property is in the RO Residential/Office zoning district.
This matter was heard by the Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Office, Craig Call, on November 7, 2012. After reviewing the evidence and testimony presented, I hereby deny the variance request based on the following findings:
1. A variance can only be granted if all five standards for granting a variance are met:
1. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district.
3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district.
4. The variance would not substantially affect the general plan of the City or be contrary to the public interest.
5. The spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice done.
2. The Applicant bears the burden imposed by state statute and the Salt Lake City ordinances to provide substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding establishing that the proposed variance meets the standards.
3. The Applicant failed to provide substantial evidence to establish that the proposed variance meets standard three related to a substantial property right. There are no doubt significant advantages in having two monument signs on the lot. But insufficient evidence exists in the record to establish that the inability of the property owner to build a second monument sign would deny the property owner a substantial property right. While the lot in question could be subdivided into two lots, and a separate monument sign would be allowed on each lot in that instance, the loss of a second monument sign where one monument sign plus other types of signage are allowed has not been established as a substantial property right. No evidence has been provided to establish that the loss of a second monument sign denies any economically viable use of the property or otherwise unreasonably limits any characteristic of the property that the courts have held to constitute a substantial property right.
4. This decision is based on the entire record of this matter, and not only upon those portions of the record specifically cited here.
5. This decision is effective as of November 9, 2012.
Any person adversely affected by any decision of the Appeals Hearing Officer may within thirty (30) days after written decision file a petition for review with the Utah State Third District Court in accordance with Utah Code §10.9A-801.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Thomas Irvin at the Salt Lake City Planning Office at 801-535-7932 or at thomas.irwin@slcgov.com.
Craig Call Appeals Hearing Officer