Planning commission tables Wendy’s lot-size variance appeal for 3300 South/200 East to April 3

The South Salt Lake Planning Commission on March 6 agreed to table an appeal of a community development director decision denying a variance to the Commercial Corridor minimum lot-size requirement for a proposed Wendy’s drive-through at the corner of 3300 South and 200 East. The commission set the next hearing date for April 3, 2025.

The city’s planner had told commissioners that the applicant’s four combined parcels total about 0.804 acres on the Elta survey submitted with the application, below the zone’s 1-acre minimum for new development. City staff recommended denial, finding the appellant had not shown the five statutory variance criteria: (1) enforcement would cause an unreasonable hardship; (2) special circumstances attach to the property; (3) the variance is essential to enjoyment of a substantial property right; (4) the variance won’t substantially affect the general plan or public interest; and (5) the spirit of the ordinance will be observed. Staff concluded the shortage appeared to be an economic or self-imposed hardship and recommended denial.

Representing the applicant, Farley Eskelson of Dominion Engineering said the combined site is close to one acre and pointed to a longstanding driveway and a claimed prescriptive easement east of the property that, together with the parcels, would effectively bring the site to roughly one acre. Eskelson said the driveway and adjacent parcel are owned by “SYU FY Properties Incorporated” and that the owner is unwilling to sell. "We respectfully request the grant of the variance for the Wendy's to clean up the corner and put a new building, new colors, new landscape," Eskelson told the commission.

City staff and several commissioners emphasized two technical points that the applicant must address if they wish to proceed: the city does not treat an easement as part of a parcel’s acreage for minimum-lot-size calculations, and for the city to rely on a claimed prescriptive easement there would normally need to be a court order establishing that easement. Staff told the commission they would welcome a reapplication if a court decision established a prescriptive easement.

Commissioners raised questions about fairness and precedent. Several members said granting a variance in this case could make it harder to hold the 1-acre standard in future cases and that any change to the lot-size requirement should be pursued through a citywide code amendment rather than an ad hoc variance. Other commissioners also noted the public interest in reducing blight at the corner but that the variance standards remain the controlling test.

Faced with outstanding legal and factual questions, the commission voted to table the appeal to April 3 to allow the applicant and staff time to address inquiries and for the commission to consider outside counsel advice on the quasi-judicial standards. The motion to table was made by Commissioner Ewell and seconded by Commissioner Spencer and passed by roll call vote; the minutes record the motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: the applicant may pursue a court action to establish a prescriptive easement, reapply with documentation, or seek a city-led code amendment affecting the Commercial Corridor minimum lot-size standard. The commission explicitly noted that any change to the 1-acre standard would need to be applied uniformly rather than to a single applicant.