SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. David Fitzsimmons and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, was also present.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Thomas Mutter, Chair of the Central City Community Council, stated that there was still no action on the Juel Apartment Building, at 340 South 600 East. Mr. Mutter said that he wanted to respond to a comment made by Mr. Ashdown at a previous meeting as to why he did not contact the City Enforcement regarding the dilapidation of the Juel Apartments. Mr. Mutter said the following: "I have brought those issues to Planning and Zoning and I don't get much action done. There is debris left over from the Trax construction." Mr. Mutter also apologized for submitting old information to the Commission regarding the development on the block where the Juel is located, but it showed how long this project has been going on. He said, "It is a big mess. I don't know who else to turn to. What can I do to save areas like the Juel or even some of the structures that were on the block that were torn down. This is the spine of the historic district, 600 East when you ask him [Ken Holman] tough questions about the building and the people who live there, he refers you to the person who is getting the money from us. He is not accountable for those questions but yet he came and proved economic hardship for the Juel to remain. I am willing to work with the Historic Landmark Commission to save more of this neighborhood and if you feel you don't have much pull because you are not paid by the City"
Mr. Ashdown stated that he wanted to become a member of the Historic Landmark Commission as the result of proposed development on the block. He talked about his interest in preserving the Juel Apartment Building, the homes on Vernier Court, the Mumford House and other historic buildings that were on the same block as the Juel. He said, "I wanted to save those structures. I think I can speak for everyone else on the Historic Landmark Commission that they wanted to save those structures as well. No one is happy with what Mr. Holman has done but our hands are tied with the City Ordinance and the Zoning although our mission is to save historic structures, we are in line with you. We still have to respect the zoning ordinances in regards to economic hardship." He added that the members of the Commission believed they had a case when the Commission denied economic hardship for the Juel, but it was appealed and the decision was overturned. Mr. Ashdown said that there are many opinions why that happened but members of this Commission share Mr. Mutter's frustration. He commented that the Planning Staff is working on making changes in the economic hardship ordinance. Mr. Ashdown said, "we have situations where the property owner has to make an income off of those if they can't make that income, they have to do it another way other than keeping the structure."
Mr. Mutter inquired if he came to any department in the City and said that he wanted to demolish sixteen structures and leave the property open for speculative development, what would the reaction be. Ms. Giraud said the thing in that case that seemed to "doom" the buildings on this block was the underlying zoning. She indicated that if Mr. Mutter went to another area of the City where there is a limit on being able to assemble properties or the size of the lot one could have, as there are in many residential zones, it would not have made any sense to have demolished those structures because there would be a limit on what could be developed. Ms. Giraud continued by saying that there is very little limit on this block because of the high density. She added that there are many conflicting policies in the City.
Ms. Giraud mentioned the Legislative Intent from Council Member Eric Jergensen and the City Council, which proposed five questions about how the Historic Landmark Commission and the Preservation Planning Staff manage historic preservation in the city. She pointed out that some of these conflicting policies should be addressed once and for all, which is becoming a large part of the Planning Staff's response to the City Council. Ms. Giraud stated, 'We do not want to be put in this position. Whether or not we end up giving away some areas of historic preservation or strengthening historic preservation, we don't feel that it serves anyone's purpose to make those expectations to the community, to developers, to residents, or to community councils. I think it wasn't so much a matter of failure for being in an historic district, as much as the underlying zoning, which made the development potential so high that for the size and income potential for existing historic properties could never measure up to what you could get out of that property."
Ms. Giraud indicated that the Planning Division has a petition underway to examine the boundaries of the Central City Historic District and the conflicting underlying zoning. She noted that the conflict seems to incur ill will for preservation as a whole within the community and the city.
Ms. Giraud said that she spoke to Mr. Nole Walkingshaw of City Enforcement and he was going to contact the department inspector. She asked if he had been in touch with Mr. Mutter. Mr. Mutter said that the last conversation he had with Mr. Walkingshaw was at the beginning of summer. Ms. Giraud said that she would talk to Mr. Walkingshaw again. He pointed out that if the building was going to be demolished in the next few months, perhaps it would be "moot" to have the inspector visit the property. Ms. Giraud stated that the fact that the building may be demolished does not matter as long as there are people living in the building. She added that the City is concerned about the safety of those individuals. Ms. Giraud said that Enforcement more than likely would have a defined list of violations and transgressions for the property. She expressed her regrets that nothing has happened to help the situation with the Juel Apartments.
Mr. Mutter said that, as Chair of the Central City Community Council, he would be willing to do what is necessary to protect the buildings on the next block north. He talked about the issues that a previous Historic Landmark Commission had to deal with when the Fred Meyer project was being developed. He expressed his concern that the demolition of historic structures could "Jump" from block to block in the district. Ms. Giraud indicated that when the Fred Meyer project came before the Commission, the City had a much weaker demolition ordinance. She pointed out that if a developer wanted to demolish an historic building and if the Commission denied the demolition, the developer would only have to wait five months. Ms. Giraud said that resulted in the City adopting a stronger demolition ordinance, which included economic hardship. She noted that many structures were demolished on the Fred Meyer block.
Mr. Mutter stated that he believed the Planning Staff is very knowledgeable. He said "Maybe we need to push for more Planning Staff. I think I will bring that up to my City Council representative or the Mayor." Mr. Simonsen said that would be his recommendation because these are issues that the Commission is conscientious about. He explained that was the reason the Planning Division initiated the petition to deal with the zoning issue where the intent to preserve these areas is not consistent with the zoning which the City Council adopted; it sends mixed signals. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission hoped these conflicting issues could be worked out with the City Council. He said, "I think bringing those up with your City Council representative would be very appropriate especially since you represent the district as the Chair of the community council we probably will get into some discussion and debate on this topic as it might come forward with the City Council at some point." Mr. Mutter thanked the Commission for the information.
As there were no additional public remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded to the approval of the minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2004 meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze pointed out the first Newsletter of the Planning Office and the Annual Report outlining the work undertaken by the Historic Landmark Commission during the course of the year 2003. He said that these items are part of an on-going effort by this office to take a proactive role to showcase and promote the activities of the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Office. Mr. Zunguze indicated that the preparation of the report will be an annual endeavor and all reports will be forwarded to the City Council and also posted on the City's web site. A copy of each document was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Parvaz suggested including historic buildings that have been demolished in the Annual Report. A short discussion followed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Continuing the Discussion of Updating the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules and Procedure".
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum by saying that at the last Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the Commission discussed changes to the Rules of Procedure. A strike and bold draft of the changes was filed with the minutes. Also a copy of Staff's memorandum, the existing Rules and Procedure, and the Planning Commission's Policies and Procedure were also filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud mentioned that she made an executive decision and changed the name from Historical Landmark Committee to the appropriate name of Historic Landmark Commission. She said that she also changed the meeting times for the Commission to the first and third Wednesdays of every month to accommodate the applicants. Ms. Giraud said that as the result of the discussion, changes were made to several sections of the document.
Please note that when the new sections were inserted, the sequence of letters or numbers were not changed, but will be when the final draft is prepared.
Mr. Simonsen inquired how the Commissioners wanted to address the changes. It was decided to go through the changes as they occurred in the strike and bold draft of the Rules of Procedure.
The revisions, which prompted a discussion, are included in the following:
ORGANIZATION (C):
The Chair to Preside at Commission Meetings: The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and shall provide general direction for the meetings.
Duties of the Vice Chair: The Vice Chair, during the absence of the Chair, shall have and perform all of the duties and functions of the Chair.
Temporary Chair: In the event of the absence or the disability of both the Chair and the Vice Chair, the most senior member of the Commission present at the meeting shall serve as Chair until the Chair or Vice Chair returns. In such event, the temporary Chair shall have all the powers and perform the functions and duties assigned to the Chair of the Commission.
(New Section)
Should both the Chair and Vice-Chair resign from the Commission, elections will be held at the next available meeting for which fifteen (15) days notice has been provided.
Secretary: A Planning Division secretary shall serve as secretary of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Discussion: Mr. Parvaz said he noticed that "Planning Staff'' or "Planner'' is mentioned rather than "Preservation Planning Staff''. He suggested including a definition of the role and function of Planning Staff or Planner in this section.
Ms. Giraud said that the organization of the Planning Division is being changed. She pointed out that the Planning Director believes that the planners are becoming "too specialized". Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission will be reviewing staff reports from other Planners on the staff and the Preservation Planners will be doing more things with the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. When Mr. Ashdown asked if the Planning Division would be completely reorganized, Ms. Giraud said that the Planners would be reorganized. She said that Mr. Zunguze plans to take this proposal to the Community Council Chairs, to the City Council, and to the Mayor to be implemented. Mr. Simonsen said that he was concerned whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission would get the same level of expertise. He also thought it would be a good idea to include Mr. Parvaz's suggestion.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MEMBERS- Conflict of Interest (D-10):
A Commission member may declare a conflict of interest from specific agenda items.
Members of the Commission who feel that a Commission member may have an actual, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable conflict of interest on any matter that is on the Commission agenda, shall explain the apparent conflict to the Commission. The Commission may then vote to decide whether the requested disqualification is justified.
After declaring a conflict of interest, or after the Commission has made a determination of a conflict of interest, a Commission member shall not participate in the discussion and vote of that matter, nor attempt to use his/her influence with other Commission members either before, during, or after the meeting.
Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and shall leave the table and not participate in or be present at the public hearing, the discussion, vote pertaining to that particular matter as a member of the Commission. A Commissioner may appear before the Commission through his/her employment as an advocate or agent for an applicant only after the Commissioner has disqualified him/or herself from the subject case as a member of the Commission.
Below are some guidelines for conduct:
There may be a conflict of interest if there are personal, familial, or financial ties between a Commission member and proponent/opponent of any item of business.
A Commission member may appear before the Commission through his/her employment as an advocate or agent for a proponent only after the Commissioner's disqualification on the subject matter.
A Commission member must not sell or offer to sell services or solicit prospective clients or employment by stating an ability to influence the decisions of any City board.
A Commission member must not use the power of office to seek or obtain a special advantage that is not in the public interest nor any special advantage that is not a matter of public knowledge.
Discussion: Mr. Parvaz recommended that the Conflict of Interest section be applied to members of the Architectural Subcommittee, as well as the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Giraud said that we could add some additional wording to include the Architectural Subcommittee members.
Mr. Christensen cited the following: "There may be a conflict of interest if there are personal, familial, or financial ties between a Commission member and proponent/opponent of any item of business." He said that "personal" could be defined many different ways. Mr. Christensen said that at times he has a "personal-gut feeling" of like or dislike for a project that is being reviewed by the Commission, rather than keeping his feelings neutral. He said that he is concerned that this might be considered a conflict of interest. Mr. Christensen stated that he did not believe the language was expressing this kind of conflict, but wondered if there could be future danger for the Commission because the language is too vague. Ms. Mickelsen said that she interpreted that clause to mean personal ties and not personal feelings. Mr. Christensen inquired about adding the word "relationships" so it could read, " if there are personal or familial relationships, or financial ties" which may clarify it better.
Ms. Giraud said that 'financial or family seems to be the easiest to define. She added that a Commissioner would have to determine if that would be powering his/her ability to objectively review a project. Ms. Giraud stated that if a Commissioner has more information than the rest of the members, that may be a conflict.
Mr. Christensen also introduced the issue of a member of the Commission representing him/herself on a project for his/her own property. He said that was not specifically addressed.
Mr. Simonsen clarified that if Mr. Christensen wanted to put a dormer on his home which is in an historic district, could he walk around to the other side of the table and represent himself for the project, rather than hiring a professional to do so.
Mr. Parvaz said that the word "relationship" could have something to do with politics, religion, or ethnicity that may have an influence on a Commissioner making a judgment. He did not believe there could be a definition for every conflict of interest issue.
Mr. Christensen said if Mr. Don Hartley from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) represented a case at a Commission meeting, everyone on the Commission probably would know him and how would that affect the conflict of interest issue. He added that it would have to be determined if his presence would influence the members.
Ms. Giraud said that if Mr. Christensen's parents lived next to a project to which they were opposed and they came to the Commission meeting to verbalize their opposition, Mr. Christensen would have to ask himself if he could make an objective decision or Mr. Christensen would have to declare a conflict of interest and remove himself from the Commission.
Mr. Knight stated that when the City Council was considering the Main Street Plaza issue, Council Member Carlton Christensen disclosed that he worked for Zion's Securities, which is an official arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He added that Council Member Christensen recused himself in that case. Mr. Knight pointed out that members of the City Council disclose those kinds of relationships fairly often. He said that the disclosure of the relationship is the important factor in any kind of situation so the City Council can make a determination of the relationship would be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Simonsen expressed concern that the Commission might become too restrictive with the Rules of Procedure. He noted that the members of the Commission have many different viewpoints and being too exclusive about conflict of interest may be a bit "over kill". Mr. Simonsen continued by saying that if someone does not physically recuse him/herself, the only other requirement within the judicial system or in the legislative system would be to at least disclose a possible conflict of interest.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the key is if one can be objective in his/her decision, which is a personal decision. She added that if a Commissioner feels uncomfortable in a situation, it should be disclosed. Ms. Mickelsen stated that all the Commissioners have neighbors and acquaintances where there could be a potential conflict of interest, especially those who live in historic districts. She believed that any member declaring a possible conflict of interest automatically being disqualified and not participating in the discussion is a little harsh. Mr. Zunguze was in agreement.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if Staff knew of any case being overturned because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Giraud said that she could not think of any. She said that became a big issue with a Planning Commissioner a few months ago regarding the Main Street Plaza. Ms. Giraud indicated that a Commissioner did not disclose that he was a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She said that his view of the circumstances was that he was appointed after the ACLU filed the lawsuit. Ms. Giraud said that she could not remember all the facts, but the Commissioner said that he did not disclose this information because it was not going to influence his decision.
Mr. Zunguze indicated that the issue did not matter in the end but what was problematic was the fact that he did not disclose that relationship. He stated that the mere fact that the Commissioner did not disclose that information to the other Commissioners gave the appearance of a pretext to the public. Mr. Knight pointed out that the wording is “Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified." Ms. Giraud said that there is a difference in declaring a conflict of interest and in disclosing a fact. Mr. Zunguze stated that if someone declares a conflict of interest, that person usually is in conflict.
Ms. Heid noted that it would be up to the Commissioner to explain his/her relationship and then the rest of the Commission would decide if that would constitute a con1lict. Mr. Zunguze said that was correct. Mr. Simonsen inquired if that would take a vote of the Commission as a whole. Mr. Zunguze said that it would take a vote by a simple majority. He also said that a Commissioner has to feel comfortable so that it does not rise to the level where the Commissioner thinks his/her ability to review the case would be jeopardized.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has not had guidelines to define a potential conflict of interest. There was a short discussion regarding the language. Mr. Zunguze said that the section was not well written and Staff will take another look at it.
Ms. Giraud recommended that Mr. Lynn Pace, in the City Attorney's office, be consulted and he was invited to join in the discussion.
Ms. Giraud asked Mr. Pace to comment about the conflict of interest section of the Commission's Rules and Procedure. Mr. Simonsen said that there has been some general discussion defining what may represent a conflict of interest and asked if the language was too vague.
Mr. Pace said that he did not believe the language should be more specifically spelled out. He gave several examples, such as a Commissioner who went to high school with someone who is an applicant on a case. Mr. Pace said that may mean that the Commissioner had not seen that person since high school or it may mean that the Commissioner has seen that person every weekend socially since high school. He said that the individual has to evaluate the nature of the personal, familial, or financial ties. Mr. Pace said that the Commissioner could disclose the association but indicate that it would not influence his judgment.
When a petition regarding Westminster College came before the Planning Commission, Mr. Pace stated that one Planning Commissioner disclosed the fact that he went to Westminster College and is involved with the Alumni Association but believed he could cast a vote objectively. He pointed out that the purpose was to put it out on the table so there would be a full disclosure.
Mr. Pace said that he would not attempt to spell out what kind of personal relationship would be significant enough to warrant recusal. He said that a Commissioner would have to decide whether or not a personal, familial, or financial relationship might be a potential conflict of interest and then decide whether or not to disclose the fact so the other Commissioners could make that decision.
Mr. Simonsen suggested that the language should simply clarify what might constitute a conflict of interest that would hinder a Commissioner from rendering an objective decision.
Mr. Ashdown talked about an applicant who may have a positive or negative history of projects that had come before the Commission. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission might review a proposal for an applicant who has brought several projects before the Commission and if a Commissioner liked the applicant's previous project, the Commissioner might have a more positive opinion and not be as objective on another project. Mr. Simonsen said if a Commissioner states a possible conflict of interest due to a personal relationship, the focus should be if the Commissioner could act in an objective manner and not on the relationship. Mr. Pace said that the applicant does not have anywhere else to go for an approval.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that the "proponent" of a case would be the applicant and asked if the "opponent" would be someone from the public, since there is no opposing counsel. He believed that the word "opponent" could become a little dangerous. Mr. Pace said that the Commissioner's obligation is to the City and the protection the of City's interest as reflected in the ordinances that governs the City. Mr. Pace said that the word "opponent" should remain in the language. He added that the important thing is to make certain that decision are fair, that there is no appearance of impropriety or favoritism and that there is protection in the Commission's integrity process.
Mr. Pace cited other examples of conflict of interest.
Mr. Parvaz raised the question about a conflict of interest if the applicant or the person representing the applicant is a colleague who works in the same place of employment as a Commissioner. Mr. Pace said that the Commissioner would disclose that fact and either recuse him/herself if an objectionable decision could not be made or have the Commission make that decision after a full explanation from the Commissioner.
Mr. Pace said that Mr. Mike Jones is the Chair of the Board of Adjustment and often his law partner comes before the Board representing a client. He added that those are the kinds of things a Commissioner definitely ought to disclose. Mr. Pace said that Mr. Jones recuses himself when that happens and steps out of the room.
Mr. Pace stated that there is a section in the City Code that deals with conflict of interest and that section might contain the language for which the Commission is searching, and if it does, the Commission might want to cross-reference that section of the City Code in the rules document. Mr. Knight said that Staff could provide copies of the conflict of interest section to the Commission.
Mr. Simonsen clarified the general direction of a conflict of interest, which is: 1) State the purpose, which is to render an objective and fair decision; 2) A Commissioner should disclose a potential conflict he/she may have then either declare the conflict or the Commission declare a conflict based on a review of the facts; and 3) Include the guidelines for conduct. He added that members of the Commission should use their own discretion.
Mr. Pace said that having a question on a potential conflict of interest is not unusual. He said that he often gets phone calls from people on the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission to discuss the members' involvement with a case appearing before that body. Mr. Pace said that they talk it through and then come up with a mutual agreement for the right course of action. He told the members of the Commission not to hesitate to call him when there is a question.
PROCEDURE- ORDER OF BUSINESS - Submission of written materials(F-24):
Applicants or interested parties should submit written comments to the Commission regarding a specific case (other than the information required for a completed application itself) at least three weeks, or a time period established in any submittal schedules approved by the Planning Director, prior to the agendaed meeting to allow the Historic Landmark Committee Commission adequate time to review the materials, determine the appropriate course of action and prepare a staff report.
Discussion: Ms. Giraud said that at the January 21, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the Commission did not discuss Item F-24, Written comments submitted at the time of the meeting should be limited to one typed page. Ms. Giraud said that in her opinion this should be removed. She added that if citizens feel strongly enough to submit their opinion in writing and attend the meeting, it would only incur ill will if they were told that the Commission would not accept their document because it is more than one page. Other members agreed.
Mr. Parvaz believed that if a member of the public has an opinion about a particular issue they should be allowed to present it to the Commission and not in the time period established by the Planning Director.
Ms. Giraud said that submittals by an applicant and submittals by a citizen should be separated. She said that an applicant has to have their documents and drawings submitted to Staff at least three weeks in advance of a scheduled Commission meeting. However, there have been instances where an applicant submitted revised drawings after the time period expired. She said that Staff would have to make a judgment call what the next procedure might be. Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not have a problem with that. She noted that Staff might point out to the applicant that any changes must come documented. Mr. Zunguze said that if the revisions show major changes in the project, they would be reflected in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud indicated that there have been times when an applicant withdrew or postponed a project after it was agendaed due to a lack of funding, major revisions, or other related reasons. An amended agenda would have to be sent to the neighbors and other interested parties, she noted.
Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that often the Commission reviews projects where the applicant will submit revised drawings or additional information at the time of the meeting. She inquired if there should be some allowance for that.
ARCHITECTURAL SUBCOMMITTEE (0):
It shall be the policy of the Historic Landmark Commission that an Architectural Subcommittee of the Commission shall be available to meet with applicants to give them technical advice regarding their project upon the direction of the Commission. The subcommittee, in the subcommittee meeting collectively and individually, shall not indicate the approval or disapproval of the application. No advice or opinion given, or reported as having been given, by any member of the subcommittee at such an informal meeting shall be in any way official or binding. The Commission shall direct the staff to issue final approval of projects reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee, or require the applicant to return to the Commission for final review after the applicant has worked with the Architectural Subcommittee.
In most cases regarding new construction, the applicant should first meet with the Historic Landmark Commission in order to obtain a general direction from all of the members of the Commission. Once the general direction is given and the issues have been raised, the Historic Landmark Commission may direct the applicant to meet with the subcommittee to work out the technical details on the project. The Commission shall determine if the application for new construction shall be issued final approval by the staff or referred back to the Commission for further review and/or final approval after the applicant or representative has met with the Architectural Subcommittee.
Discussion: Mr. Parvaz said that he believed there should be a formal record of the Architectural Subcommittee meetings. Ms. Giraud said that Staff makes notes, which are kept in the appropriate file. She recognized that notes were not as complete and detailed as minutes would be. Ms. Giraud said that when an applicant comes in for the Certificate of Appropriateness, Staff relies on the notes in the file, so there is a trail of information.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Planning Staff writes a summary of issues discussed, the general direction of the subcommittee, and any recommendations that were rendered by the subcommittee. He added that the summary is presented to the Planning Commission, which is helpful in the Commission's final deliberations. Mr. Zunguze said that Staff could do the same thing regarding the Architectural Subcommittee. He continued by saying that the Planning Commission, as a whole, would give instructions as to the parameters of the inquiry or discussions when the Chair formulates a subcommittee. As far as taking formal minutes, typically, he said, that a subcommittee would not be making formal decisions.
Referring to the Architectural Subcommittee, Mr. Zunguze said that the Historic Landmark Commission would set the guidelines and outlines for any instructions to the subcommittee, and whether or not a project would have a final approval by Staff or come back to the full Commission for the final determination.
Ms. Mickelsen talked further about the need to have a record of the proceedings of the Architectural Subcommittee which would be helpful to the full Commission especially if someone wanted to appeal a decision. Mr. Knight said that in lieu of minutes, Staff could summarize any actions of the Architectural Subcommittee and send it out by e-mail to all the Commissioners after the meeting.
Mr. Parvaz said perhaps at the first of a Historic Landmark Commission meeting, Staff could report on the findings of the previous subcommittee meeting. He said he would be interested in the responses of the subcommittee members. Mr. Knight said that communication is the key. Mr. Zunguze said summarizing a subcommittee meeting would not be a problem if that is what the Commission wanted.
Ms. Lew also suggested making the findings of the Architectural Subcommittee as part of the list of Administrative Approvals that is provided to the Commission. Mr. Simonsen said that would be acceptable as long as those projects were not pending further action.
Mr. Simonsen stated that it would become a procedural matter. He noted that if something reviewed in the subcommittee is relatively minor, it could be administratively approved once it is clarified by a drawing. Mr. Simonsen said that some projects simply are not warranted to have to be reviewed again by the full Commission. He said that he did not want a procedural issue to mandate the outcome of a project. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commissioners would have to be explicit in their motions making it very clear what would be delegated to the Architectural Subcommittee and the procedure that would follow.
Mr. Simonsen reported that there are other subcommittees formed by the Commission such as the Documentation Subcommittee, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee, and others. He noted that these subcommittees convene from time to time at the direction of the Commission. He believed that other subcommittees should be addressed in this section of the Rules of Procedure, as well.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any other comments. Hearing none, he entertained a motion. There was a short discussion regarding when the discussion will be continued.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved to table the Historic Landmark Commission's Rules of Procedure for further study and continue the discussion at the March 17, 2004 meeting in order to incorporate the suggested revisions. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30P.M.