League board tests land‑use reforms: engineering standards, ADU rules and planning‑commissioner removal

The Utah League of Cities and Towns board reviewed an array of land‑use reforms proposed by a planning review committee and the League’s advisory groups, focusing on three problem areas: inconsistent city engineering standards, cost and handling of city‑required professional reports, and rules governing detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs).

Staff summarized options and ran Slido polls to prioritize the board’s preferences. The highest board support clustered around: (1) requiring clearer inputs and parameters when cities require professional reports so applicants understand scope and expectations; (2) encouraging informal processes for applicants to provide input while reports are prepared; and (3) creating an executive‑level process for resolving disagreements when a report and city standards conflict. Those three items — all procedural clarifications — outperformed several PRC‑driven prescriptions the advisory group had proposed.

On ADUs the advisory group recommended five concepts including a sliding parking scale tied to unit size, flexible location requirements (rear or interior yards rather than front yards), consistent design standards for DADUs and an expedited conversion pathway for already‑legal accessory structures. Staff noted the advisory group strongly supported design‑standard alignment and flexibility on location; the board asked staff to prioritize the top four concepts and return with draft statutory language.

A more contentious portion of the discussion addressed a PRC proposal to put limited state guidance into code about removal processes for planning commissioners who knowingly engage in outside advocacy that creates a perception of bias. Several board members voiced free‑speech and procedural concerns, warning that poorly‑drafted triggers could invite politicized complaints and "witch hunts." Others said having a clear local removal process and a definition of cause could aid mayors and councils when genuine conflicts arise. The board did not adopt new statutory language at the meeting; staff was directed to refine the concept, focusing on encouraging local removal processes and clearer process expectations rather than imposing a sweeping state mandate.

Next steps
- Staff will continue drafting model language focused on clarifying report inputs, recommended informal applicant input processes and executive disagreements protocols, and will report back at LPC or the next board meeting.
- On ADUs, staff will prioritize the advisory‑backed concepts (design‑standard consistency, parking sliding scale, location flexibility and expedited conversions) and develop draft policy for review.
- On planning‑commissioner removal language, staff will pursue options that emphasize local process and safeguards against misuse and will continue stakeholder outreach.

Sources: Board meeting transcript and Slido poll results provided during the meeting.