Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report - PLNPCM2025-00327 PLNPCM2025-00327 1 April 23, 2025 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Nick Norris, Planning Director nick.norris@slc.gov or 801-535-6173 Date: April 23, 2025 Re: PLNPCM2025-00327 Zoning Text Amendment REQUEST: The purpose of this proposal is to remove the requirement in city code for a public hearing for appeals and variances. During the 2025 Utah Legislative session, House Bill 368 was passed which, among other things, prohibited cities from holding a public hearing for any appeals of a land use decision and requests for variances. The law was signed by the Governor and goes into effect on May 7, 2025. This request would remove the public hearing requirements for appeals of administrative decisions made at the staff level and for variances. The decisions will still be subject to a public meeting and the public will still be notified of the public meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the commission recommends that the proposed zoning text amendment be adopted. ATTACHMENTS: A. ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Text Amendment B. ATTACHMENT B: Zoning Text Amendment Standards C. ATTACHMENT C: Public Process & Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION Title 21A Zoning currently requires that a public hearing be held for appeals of an administrative decision made at the staff level and for requests for variances. HB 368, adopted by the legislature during the 2025 session and signed by the Governor on March 26, 2025 specifically states that a city may not hold a public hearing for appeals or variance requests. The bill goes into effect on May 7, 2025. The state code takes precedence over any city code when city code conflicts. The city PLNPCM2025-00327 2 April 23, 2025 does not have any leeway in updating its code to remove the public hearing requirements for these two application types. The proposed amendment modifies Chapters 21A.14 Appeals and 21A.16 Variances, by changing the requirements from requiring a public hearing to only requiring a public meeting. The primary difference between a public hearing and a public meeting is related to public input. A public hearing requires providing the public with an opportunity to provide input on an application, while a public meeting is open to the public to attend and watch or listen to the meeting, but no public input is received. Appeals of administrative decisions made at the staff level are “de novo” processes, meaning that the role of the hearing officer is to take in all input “anew,” and to determine if the processes were followed, standards applied correctly, and there is evidence related to the standards before deciding. Appeals of a commission decision are not de novo, meaning that no new evidence can be submitted, and the hearing officer can only consider the same evidence that the commission used to make their decision. In Salt Lake City, commission decisions already require a public hearing and the fact that no new information may be presented led the city to not require a second public hearing for appeals of commission decisions. Appeals of commission decisions are not impacted by HB 386. The proposed changes also address how evidence may be presented. For appeals, the purpose of public input is to discover any evidence that relates to the standards of approval that may impact the decision. With the public hearing being prohibited, there is still a need to provide a process for evidence to be submitted because the appeals hearing officer’s decision may be appealed to district court. Without a process to allow an aggrieved party who may have a property right impacted by an appeal or a request for a variance to provide evidence, the due process rights of individuals at the city decision level are denied. The text amendment does allow for evidence to be submitted between the notice date of the public meeting and the day before the public meeting. This allows the hearing officer, who decides appeals and variances, to review the materials provided to determine if the input is related to the standards that apply to the decision. If input is simply public testimony without any evidence, it must not be considered by the hearing officer. APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION AUTHORITY This amendment is necessary to bring the city code into compliance with recent changes to the state code. The process for a text amendment requires the commission to hold a public hearing before making a recommendation to the city council. The city council has final decision-making authority on text amendments. Most text amendments require a 45-day public input period before the commission can make a recommendation. However, the 45-day public input period is not applicable when a text amendment is required to bring the city code into compliance with federal or state codes. Therefore, this amendment did not include a 45-day public input period. PLNPCM2025-00327 3 April 23, 2025 The commission has the same authority over this text amendment and can recommend adoption, recommend modifications, or recommend that proposal not be adopted. However, recommending this amendment not be adopted is not really an option because the city must follow the Utah Code as it relates to public hearings for appeals and variances regardless of what the city code requires. Leaving the public hearing requirements in the city code creates confusion for those seeking an appeal or a variance and increases the risk of the city violating state code. Due to the nature of this amendment being limited to processes managed by the Planning Division and not having any development standards associated with the amendments, the proposed text was not routed to other divisions for input. The planning division is responsible for coordinating all aspects of public hearings and public meetings associated with appeals of land use decisions and variances. Appeals of decision made by other city departments are not impacted by this amendment or the state code changes that generated this amendment. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Consideration 1: Handling of evidence The only real consideration that the city has with this text amendment is to address if evidence should be accepted for appeals and variances. The best practice is to provide for that and allow the appeals hearing officer to determine if the evidence provided is applicable to the issue at hand. The best practice when handling appeals and variances (which are considered quasi-judicial in nature) is to provide a period for discovery of relevant facts. Without having a way to submit evidence, the decision-making body may not have all the relevant facts to consider which could lead to poor decisions (at no fault of the hearing officer). The planning division recommends that the noticing period includes the ability to provide evidence prior to the public hearing to improve the quality of final decisions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the proposed text amendments be adopted. NEXT STEPS The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for a final decision. The applicable state code goes into effect on May 7, 2025, which will be before the city council can act on these changes. Beginning on May 7th, the city will start following the state code regardless of whether a decision has been made. PLNPCM2025-00327 4 April 23, 2025 ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Text Amendment Project Title: Removing public hearing requirements for appeals of land use decisions and variances as required by Utah Code. Petition: PLNPCM2025-00327 Version: Planning Commission Draft Date Prepared: April 2, 2025 Recommended by Planning Commission: Scheduled for April 23, 2025 This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments as necessary to comply with House Bill 368 (HB 368), adopted by the Utah Legislature in 2025 and that goes into effect on May 7. 2025. HB 386 prohibits cities from holding public hearings for appeals of land use decisions and variances. The city is required to adhere to the provisions of Utah Code. • Section 1: Amends section 21A.16.030.G to remove the requirement for a public hearing for appeals of administrative decisions and replace the public hearing with a public meeting. The modifications include adding noticing requirements for the public meeting. • Section 2: Amends section 21A.16.030 H by clarifying the timing of the appeals hearing officer to making a decision provided the appellant, city, and original applicant (if different than the appellant) agree to a decision in a different timeframe. • Section 3: Amends section 21A.16.030.I adds provision to submit written evidence for appeals of administrative decisions. • Section 4: Amends section 21A.16.030.K clarifies that the appeals hearing office may remand a proposal back to the commission who made the original decision. • Section 5: Amending 21A.18.040.C by removing the requirement for a public hearing for a variance and replacing that with a public meeting, adds noticing requirements for a public meeting, and provides for a method for written evidence to be submitted prior to the public meeting. Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no proposed change. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ PLNPCM2025-00327 5 April 23, 2025 Section 1: Amending section 21A.16.030 G as follows: G. Notice Required: 1. Public Hearing: Upon receipt of an appeal of an administrative decision by the zoning administrator, the appeals hearing officer shall schedule and hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures for conduct of the public hearing set forth in chapter 21A.10 of this title. Public Meeting: Appeals from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission are based on evidence in the record. Therefore, testimony at the appeal meeting shall be limited to the appellant and the respondent. a. Upon receipt of an appeal of a decision by the historic landmark commission or planning commission, the appeals hearing officer planning director shall coordinate with the appellant and respondent to schedule a date for the public meeting schedule a public meeting to hear arguments by the appellant and respondent. The date shall be far enough in advance to provide all parties adequate time to respond to the appeal. Notification of the date, time and place of the meeting shall be given to the appellant and respondent a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the meeting. b. The city shall send notice of the meeting through e-mail or other method chosen by the appeals hearing officer, a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the public meeting to any recognized community organization in which the subject property is located.The city shall send notice of the public meeting following the noticing procedure for a public hearing found in 21A.10 of this title. Section 2: Amending section 21A.16.030 H as follows: H. Time Limitation: All appeals shall be heard within one hundred eighty (180) days of the filing of the appeal unless more time is agreed to by the appellant, the respondent, and the city. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered void and withdrawn by the appellant. Section 3: Amending section 21A.16.030 I as follows: I. Standard of Review: 1. The standard of review for an appeal of an administrative decision , other than as provided in subsection 12 of this section, shall be de novo. The appeals hearing officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision below. For appeals of administrative decisions, written comments may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. the day prior to the public meeting. 2. An appeal from a decision of the historic landmark commission or planning commission shall be based on the record made below. a. No new evidence shall be heard by the appeals hearing officer unless such evidence was improperly excluded from consideration below. b. The appeals hearing officer shall review the decision based upon applicable standards and shall determine its correctness. c. The appeals hearing officer shall uphold the decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record or it violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the decision was made. Section 4: Amending section 21A.16.030 K as follows: K. Action by the Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer shall render a written decision on the appeal. Such decision may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, refer the matter back to the decision making body, or may modify the administrative decision. A decision shall become effective on the date the decision is rendered. Section 5: Amending section 21A.18.040 C as follows: C. HearingPublic Meeting: Upon receipt of a complete application for a variance, the appeals hearing officer shall hold a hearingpublic meeting with notice provided in accordance with the requirements the noticing File Number 6 January 12, 2022 procedure for a public hearing found in 21A.10 of this title. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. the day prior to the public meeting. PLNPCM2025-00327 7 April 23, 2025 ATTACHMENT B: Zoning Text Amendment Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; This factor is not applicable because this proposal is removing provisions in 21A related to public hearings for appeals and variances to be compliant with recently adopted state legislation that prohibits public hearings for these types of applications. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the applicable purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. This factor is not applicable because this proposal is removing provisions in 21A related to public hearings for appeals and variances to be compliant with recently adopted state legislation that prohibits public hearings for these types of applications. However, the amendment does include provisions for submitting evidence and notice of the public hearings, which align with the purpose of making quasi-judicial decisions. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; This factor is not applicable to this amendment. 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. This amendment does include provisions for submitting evidence and notice of the public hearings, which align with the purpose of making quasi-judicial decisions and ensuring that there is an opportunity for all evidence to be provided to the appeals hearing officer before making a decision, which is a positive characteristic and best practice for decision making. 5. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on city resources necessary to carry out the provisions and processes required by this title. This amendment does not impact city resources. 6. The impact that the proposed text amendment may have on other properties that would be subject to the proposal and properties adjacent to subject properties. Providing a period for people to submit evidence is intended to help the decision maker identify any potential harm to others that may occur due to the nature of the appeal or variance. However, it is anticipated that most input received will not likely be considered evidence related to the proposal, rather personal opinions regarding the appeal or variance request. 7. The community benefits that would result from the proposed text amendment, as identified in 21A.50.050.C. No community benefit is required for this proposal because it modifies city code to align with state code. File Number 8 January 12, 2022 ATTACHMENT C: Public Process & Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The public input period for this proposal is limited to the required notice and public hearing before the planning commission and the public hearing before the city council. The 45-day public input period that normally is provided for text amendments is not applicable to this proposal because the text amendment is necessary to comply with state code. • April 11, 2025 – Public notice provided via the Planning Division’s email list serve and posted on the planning division website and the Utah Public Notice Website. Public Input: