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, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Lee White was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
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 will be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no public comments, 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 7, 2004 meeting. 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.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
There was no report from the Planning Director other than Mr. Zunguze welcoming everyone and wishing them a happy New Year.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of Updating the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules and Procedures".
Ms. Giraud stated that she believed this would be a good meeting to update the "Rules of Procedure", which were adopted in 1994. She pointed out that the Commissioners received a copy of the Historic Landmark Commission "Rules of Procedure", the Planning Commission "Policies and Procedures", and the Historic Landmark Commission "Annual Report". A copy of each document was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum pertaining to the points of the "Rules of Procedure" that should be updated. A copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Simonsen inquired how the Commission should act on any recommendations. Ms. Giraud said that the Commission should make suggestions at this meeting and make an appropriate motion. Ms. Giraud suggested continuing the discussion to the next meeting. She said that Staff will make the changes and present the Commission with a strike and bold draft copy. Ms. Giraud said that after the commission reviews the draft copy and makes the final revisions, then a formal vote would be necessary to adopt the "Rules of Procedures". Mr. Simonsen recommended that a straw vote be taken to track the issues that arise during this discussion to get a consensus of the members of the Commission.
The following are the "Rules of Procedure" showing the suggested changes by Staff and the discussion that followed:
SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMITIEE'S "RULES OF PROCEDURE": A. PURPOSE
1. To more fully implement the requirements of and responsibilities outlined in the local ordinances to preserve historic structures and areas of Salt Lake City by establishing procedures for the organization of the business of the Salt Lake City Historical Landmark Committee, hereafter termed "Committee", and processing applications for:
a. Exterior remodeling or alterations of structures or sites in historic districts or landmark sites;
b. Design of new structures; and
c. Demolition of landmark sites and structures within historic districts. Staff's suggestion: (A-1) Change the word "Committee" to "Commission". Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement to this change.
B. GENERAL RULES
2. The Committee shall be governed by the terms of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, especially Chapter 21.74 entitled, "Historic Districts and Landmark Sites", as they may be amended or revised.
Discussion: There was no discussion so the Commission members were in agreement. C. ORGANIZATION
3. Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair: The Committee, at its first regular meeting in February of each year, shall select a Chair and Vice Chair. Members shall be notified in writing of the upcoming election of officers at least thirty (30) days prior to the election.
4. The Chair to Preside at Committee Meetings: The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Committee and shall provide general direction for the meetings.
5. 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.
6. 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 Committee 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 Committee.
7. Secretary: A Planning Division secretary shall serve as secretary of the
Historical Landmark Committee.
Staff's suggestion: (C-3) Appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair: Change the notification of the election of officers from thirty (30) to fifteen (15) days. This better conforms to the current mailing requirements of the Historic Landmark Commission agendas.
Discussion: Mr. Simonsen said that he questioned the time of year for the appointment of the Chair and Vice Chair. He said that he noticed that the Planning Commission holds its elections in September. Mr. Simonsen stated that there had been some instances on the Historic Landmark Commission where the Chair's term expired while still serving as Chair which put unduly pressure on the Vice Chair until elections were held again. He suggested changing the time of year for elections to coincide with the board appointments which are usually in July. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission usually has members missing in July due to vacations so she did not believe that would be the best time of year. Mr. Simonsen suggested holding elections the first meeting in August, then if the Chair's term expires there would only be a month the Vice Chair or a Temporary Chair would have to fill in.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that it would be wise to note what would happen if the Chair or Vice Chair resigned from the Commission. She added that an election would have to be held very quickly. Also, Ms. Mickelsen suggested having the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair written somewhere. She said that it would be good to have a reminder after a person serves on the Commission for a time. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the Planning Commission has Duties of the Chair and Vice Chair noted in its "Policies and Procedures".
Ms. Giraud said that if both the Chair and Vice Chair happened to resign, the duties of Chair would fall to the member who has the most seniority on the Commission.
Ms. Giraud inquired if the members of the Commission were comfortable with changing the notification from thirty {30) to fifteen {15) days to coincide with the regular notices. Mr. Simonsen asked for further discussion. The Commission members indicated they were in agreement with the changes and the recommendations.
D. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MEMBERS
8. Meeting Attendance: Every member of the Committee shall attend the sessions of the Committee unless excused or unable to attend because of extenuating circumstances. Any member desiring to be excused shall notify the secretary. The secretary shall inform the Chair of the excused absences.
9. Leave of Absence: The Committee may grant its members leaves-of-absence not to exceed six months.
10. Conflict of Interest:
a. A Committee member may declare a conflict of interest from specific agenda items.
b. Members of the Committee who feel that a Committee member may have an actual, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable conflict of interest on any matter that is on the Committee agenda, shall explain the apparent conflict to the Committee. The Committee may then vote to decide whether the requested disqualification is justified.
c. After declaring a conflict of interest, or after the Committee has made a determination of a conflict of interest, a Committee member shall not participate in the discussion and vote of that matter, nor attempt to use his/her influence with other Committee members either before, during, or after the meeting.
d. Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and shall leave the table and not participate in the discussion and vote pertaining to that particular matter.
11. Explaining the Vote: After the vote is taken, any member of the Committee
desiring to explain his/her vote shall be allowed an opportunity to do so.
12. Not to Vote Unless Present: No member of the Committee is permitted to vote on any motion unless the member shall be present when the vote is taken.
Staff's suggestion: (D-8) Meeting Attendance: The current language is vague, and only requires that the Historic Landmark Commission members contact the secretary. "Rules of Procedure" for many boards, both in Salt Lake City and elsewhere, stipulate that if members miss a certain number of meetings, particularly if the absence is consecutive, then the member is required to leave the commission, or the board has the option of voting to remove the member. staff believes that clarifying this requirement would be helpful, and would provide notice to members that their regular attendance is a necessary part of serving on the Historic Landmark Commission.
Discussion on meeting attendance: Ms. Giraud stated that many commissions have rules that if a member misses a certain number of meetings, that member can be voted off the commission. She mentioned that the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules of Procedure" are very vague. Ms. Giraud noted that it is understandable there are times when personal, business, or illness will keep a member away from the meetings. She said that there have been times when the attendance of a member has been sparse for the duration of his/her term. Ms. Giraud suggested that additional language be inserted in this section to strengthen the requirements for attendance. She pointed out the section of Meeting Attendance in the Planning Commission "Policies and procedures"
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the same language should be used in the Historic Landmark Commission "Rules of Procedure". Ms. Giraud said that it did not have to be exactly the same language. She said that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission were volunteers who have many constraints on his/her time. Ms. Giraud said that she believed it was important for the members to characterize their own rules.
Ms. Rowland pointed out that Staff would have to inform the Commission when a member misses meetings consecutively. Ms. Giraud said that some procedural policies state that the Chair would have to define what an excused absence was.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Secretary of the Planning Commission informs and shares information with the Chair and he believed the same thing should happen with the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Christensen stated that there should be some flexibility in the language because it is not inconceivable that someone could have several funerals and/or serious illnesses and not be able to attend the meetings for a few months. He likened it to his circumstance that happened a year ago.
There was a short discussion regarding what would be considered an excused absence such as illnesses, funerals, and so on.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the question is the Commissioner's level of commitment. He noted that there are obvious conflicts that would not be grounds for removal. Mr. Simonsen said that every Commissioner is important to the Commission but any Commissioner who has not attended meetings consecutively for two or three months and shows a lack of interest, the Commission may look at replacing that person because the Commission needs to function as a body serving the needs of the citizens of Salt Lake City. He added that extended illnesses or other extenuating circumstances would not mean a lack of commitment or interest.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission would have to confer with the person and evaluate if the explanation was an appropriate activity for which to be excused. She indicated that the lack of meeting attendance is difficult not just for a quorum, but the continuity of experience because frequently projects are reviewed two or three times.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that at one time Ms. Heid had a stretch of time where she was required to travel on the same dates as the Historic Landmark Commission meetings. She added that it is very difficult to find a bona fide and interested representative for the Central City Historic District, so realistically Staff would not have been eager to have had Mr. Heid voted off the Commission because of her work schedule. Ms. Giraud mentioned that flexibility in the language was important. She added that it is not just letting the Secretary know if he/she cannot attend the meeting, but that the meetings sometimes seem to be low priority.
Ms. Giraud suggested that perhaps after a certain number of absences the Chair would be notified and the Chair would give direction to Staff as to how to discuss the matter with the Commissioner. She added that if a member becomes disinterested, the Commission should find the language to include in the "Rules of Procedure" to support any action the Commission may take. Mr. Parvaz stated that it is important that the wording is correct so there is no misunderstanding.
The number of excused and unexcused absences was discussed before action was taken. Ms. Heid asked what would be considered an unexcused absence. Ms. Giraud believed that the word "excused" should not be part of the language because of the difficulty in coming up with a definition.
Ms. Rowland stated that the importance of good attendance should be emphasized with a new member. She believed that Staff should notify the Chair of any absences and the Chair have a conversation with the member in question rather than members of the Commission sitting in judgment of another Commission members. Ms. Rowland added that the Chair could reach a consensus with the members quietly rather than in a formal meeting.
The number of absences was discussed and if the word "consecutive" should be included in the language. Some Commissioners said that action would be taken if a Commissioner missed three to six consecutive meetings, or if a Commissioner was absent eight to ten times. Another suggestion was action would be taken if the commissioner was absent for three consecutive meetings and/or six total absences.
Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Commission uses the number six absences in any given year. He suggested that the Commission pick the number with which the members would be comfortable. Mr. Zunguze stressed the fact that the rules of behavior such as attendance should be clearly stated so the members of the Commission would know what to expect. He stated that he did not think the Planning Commission has ever had to exercise that rule, but the Commissioners know it is there.
Mr. Wheelwright said that he does not remember when the Planning Commission voted a member off the Commission. He added that there have been Commissioners who stopped attending the meetings. Mr. Wheelwright said in those cases the Planning Director had a conversation with the Commissioner and the Commissioner offering to resign was a mutual agreement between the two parties.
Ms. Heid stated that the level of accountability is something that should be defined as what constitutes an "excused" or "unexcused" absence. She believed that would be a better way of handling the situation rather than just a matter of numbers.
Mr. Simonsen said there should also be some provision in the "Rules of Procedure" if circumstances are such that a Commissioner may anticipate that he/she was not going to be able to attend for several months. Mr. Zunguze stated that it is important to have a mechanism in place to address issues such as these.
Ms. Heid inquired if it would it serve any purpose to strengthen the language in the "Meeting Attendance" paragraph to say that it is critical to have a quorum to be able to vote on the people's business, rather than say "shall attend sessions" of the commission. She said she believed that commissioners needed to be willing to make the commitment.
Mr. Zunguze stated that meeting attendance is critical to the quorum because the Commissioners represent districts or other interests. He said that he thought it was important that representation be present, especially when cases are reviewed that are located within their area of representation. Mr. Zunguze stated that Central City or any other historic district needs the Commissioner's input which is weighted more heavily than the Director's; it is very valuable.
Ms. Heid said that to ensure all sectors of the City are fairly represented, it is critical to have good attendance from the Commissioners. She suggested putting stronger language than what is currently written in the paragraph. Ms. Heid said that the language has to be quantified otherwise it would not be defensible if someone challenged it. She stated that generalized statements that cannot be defended have the potential to be applied differently in similar circumstances and then the Commission could open itself by being accused of favoritism or being unduly harsh with someone so the language has to be precise.
Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested looking for a pattern in the attendance of a Commissioner. He said that he averages one road trip a month where he works, but he tries to schedule around the Historic Landmark Commission meetings.
Ms. Giraud stated that there is something in the ordinance that the mayor can remove a member of any of the boards if he is recommended to do so by Staff or the Chair. She said that she would contact the person who works in that area for the mayor to find out more about that process. Mr. Knight pointed out that there is an appeals process in place if the mayor removes a member from any board. Mr. Zunguze said in the event that happens, there should be a process to eliminate a person from a board.
Mr. Simonsen said perhaps the procedure should be that after ten absences, Staff could give a recommendation to the mayor's office to remove or replace a member of the Commission. Mr. Zunguze recommended that the direction comes from the Chair through the Commission.
Ms. Rowland suggested that after a Commissioner has missed a certain number of meetings, the Chair has a conversation with that person to find out their level of commitment, and then if the attendance does not improve, the issue could come before the full Commission for direction.
Mr. Simonsen said that he would feel more comfortable if the issue did not become an arbitrary matter.
Mr. Christensen inquired over the last few years, how many Commissioners have had a serious problem with attendance where an act such as this would take place.
Ms. Giraud said that over the last twelve years, three have been a problem. She added that one such member was very vocal and during the time when the zoning rewrite was taking place, this person would not be in attendance to hear all the discussion and at a critical moment when the Commission would have to make a decision, this person would show up and disagree with all the issues which caused a big problem. Mr. Knight said that person was not part of the discussion so there was no continuity to the disagreement. Ms. Giraud noted that overall the members of the Historic Landmark Commission have been good with their attendance and their demeanor.
Ms. Giraud mentioned that there are some historic districts that Staff has a hard time filling such as Exchange Place, South Temple, and Central City. She added that Peter Ashdown represents Exchange Place, as a business owner, although his business is slightly outside Exchange Place, Noreen Heid represents Central City, and Lee White represents South Temple. Ms. Giraud said that all three areas are critical to the preservation movement.
Ms. Heid clarified that if a member of the Commission misses three consecutive or six meetings total, Staff would inform the Chair and the Chair would confer with that person to find out what his or her level of commitment and interest was and if that person expressed his or her desire to continue as a Commissioner. She continued by saying that if the pattern is repeated, then the Chair would bring the matter before the entire Commission. Ms. Heid added that the Commission would make an appropriate recommendation, which would not be spelled out in the "Rules of Procedure".
The discussion continued relating to these matters.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the Commissioners were in agreement with that direction for meeting attendance. The members were in agreement.
(Mr. Christensen left at 5:13P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Discussion on (D-10) Conflict of Interest: Ms. Giraud pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission’s section on Conflict of Interest is much shorter in its "Rules of Procedure" than in the Planning Commission's "Policies and procedures". She said that the Historic Landmark Commission has not had a problem with this issue. Ms. Giraud said the Historic Landmark Commission functions much the same as it is spelled out in the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures". She said she would like the Commissioners to discuss if they want the language changed.
Ms. Heid said that before Mr. Christensen left, he asked me to have Section (D -10-d) clarified. Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and shall/eave the table and not participate in the discussion and vote pertaining to that particular matter. Ms. Heid said that his question was, "Is leaving the table sufficient or does that person have to leave the room and be totally away from hearing the discussion?" Ms. Giraud said she believed the Commissioner should leave the room.
Mr. Ashdown also asked why a Commissioner needed to leave the room. Ms. Rowland said that she was concerned when the Commission reviews a case, why the person who declared a conflict of interest is not admitted back in the room during the public hearing. Mr. Simonsen said that it seems to be more of a tradition than actually in a statement in the "Rules of Procedures". He said that he believed that action is stated in the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures".
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that it is the perception of the public. Ms. Heid agreed and said that the public may feel that the Commissioner's presence in the room may have an influence on the other commissioners.
Mr. Simonsen said that with the number of architects serving on this Commission there may be potential conflicts. He said that that one of the members of the Commission may be in attendance as a representative of a client. Mr. Simonsen indicated that there needed to be a provision in the "Rules of Procedures" that directs that issue. He pointed out that it is addressed in the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures". Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff needed to look at that issue.
Ms. Giraud said that it was a conflict of interest that prompted these "Rules of Procedures", so at one time it was a problem. She said that it has been a consensus with the Commission that the Commissioner needed to leave the room when there is a conflict.
Mr. Simonsen said that he did not think the procedures in the Conflict of Interest section were being followed. He pointed out that usually a member of the Commission would declare a conflict of interest and leaves the room, rather than the Commission voting on whether or not there is an actual conflict. Ms. Giraud agreed and said that most Commissioners on their own accord declare when an applicant is a client or some similar conflict and leave the room.
Mr. Parvaz introduced the subject of a person who is serving on another commission or board appearing as an applicant or the advocate of an applicant before the Historic Landmark Commission. He cited a case where the representative was the Chair of the Planning Commission. Mr. Parvaz talked about the pressure that put on the members of the Historic Landmark Commission during those meetings.
Ms. Heid read from the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures", Section 9 Conflict of Interest, "After declaring a conflict of interest, a Planning Commission member shall not participate in or be present at the public hearing, the discussion and the vote of that matter, nor attempt to use his/her influence with other Commissioners either before, during, or after the meeting."
Ms. Giraud said it was interesting that Mr. Parvaz brought that up because it also states in Section 9-c that "A Planning Commissioner must not sell or offer to sell services or solicit prospective clients or employment by stating an ability to influence Planning Commission decisions." She pointed out that statement should be expanded to other Commissions as well because that incident did happen. Ms. Giraud stated that it would be wrong for a Planning Commissioner to say, "I'm on the Planning Commission and I can make this happen for you" or "I'm on the Planning Commission and I can get this through the Historic Landmark Commission for you".
Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone else had any comments regarding the subject of conflict of interest. The members seem to agree that Conflict of Interest needed to be clearly defined.
E. MEETINGS
13. Place: All meetings of the Committee shall be held in Room 126 of the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, or at such other place as the Committee or Planning Staff may designate. A meeting having been convened at the place designated, may be adjourned by the Committee to any other place within Salt Lake City for the sole purpose of investigating some particular matter of business which may be more conveniently investigated at such other place, or may be adjourned to any other room more convenient for conducting the business of the Committee so long as proper notice of meeting location is posted for the general public.
14. Regular Meetings -Time for Notice: Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month (April through October) and the first Wednesday of the month (November through March), at the hour of
4:00 P.M. At the discretion of the Chair, field trips or work sessions may be held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at the hour of 3:00 P.M. or at such other appropriate time.
15. Special Meetings: The secretary shall give notice of the time and purpose of every special meeting of the Committee at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. Such notice shall be delivered to each member of the Committee personally, or by telephone. Such notice may also be given by the United States Mall, directed to the member of the Committee so to be notified at the member's residence and mailed no less than five (5) days prior to the time fixed for such special meeting. It is specifically provided, however, that any member may, in writing, waive prior notice of the meeting.
16. Meetings- Matters Considered: Other business items pertaining to the affairs of the Salt Lake City Historical Landmark Committee and falling within the authority and jurisdiction of the Committee may be considered and acted upon at any regular meeting of the Committee.
17. Quorum: A quorum of the Historical Landmark Committee shall consist of a majority of the voting members who are currently appointed. Any member disqualified because of a conflict of interest shall not be considered when determining whether a quorum is constituted. Members abstaining from a vote, however, shall count toward consideration of a quorum. Except as otherwise specifically provided in these rules, a majority vote of the Committee members present at a meeting shall be required and shall be sufficient to transact any business before the Committee.
18. Ratification of Actions Due to Lack of Quorum: All actions taken in the absence of a quorum will require ratification of a quorum later in the meeting or at the next meeting attended by a quorum.
Discussion: No discussion took place so the members were in agreement.
F. PROCEDURE- ORDER OF BUSINESS
19. Order of business: The order of business shall be as follows:
a. Field trip;
b. Roll taken by the secretary;
c. Approval of minutes;
d. Consideration of agenda items, and
e. Other business at the discretion of the Chair.
20. Field trips: On those occasions when site inspections are deemed advisable, field trips shall be held prior to the Historical Landmark Committee meetings, and the time of the field trip to be posted on the agenda. Only Historical Landmark Committee members and pertinent Planning Staff shall be allowed to attend the field trip in the City-owned van. The public shall be allowed at the sites of the field trip but are encouraged to present their case at the Historical Landmark Committee meeting, not during the field trip. Field trips shall be for the purpose of gathering information, not for discussing decisions.
21. Agenda for Meetings: The Preservation Planning Staff, with the assistance of the Chair, shall prepare a written agenda for each meeting as far in advance as possible and shall place such agenda in the hands of each member of the Committee prior to the commencement of the meeting. Such agenda shall be delivered to the members of the Committee at least five (5) days prior to each meeting.
22. Agenda Deadline: Requests for Historical Landmark Committee consideration must be properly presented (i.e., fees paid, completed applications, zoning compliance), to the Planning Division within a time period to be determined by the Preservation Planning Staff. The time period must be sufficient to allow Staff to complete an analysis of the project and a possible subcommittee review prior to the Historical Landmark Committee's consideration of the project. The deadline for such applications should be no earlier than two (2) weeks prior to the Committee meeting.
23. Staff Report: All major issues presented to the Historical Landmark Committee for its consideration shall be accompanied by a staff report detailing the overview, proposal, analysis, and Staff recommendations which shall include findings of fact and conditions for approval. Staff reports shall address the portion of adopted guidelines/ordinances which relate to the project. Staff reports shall be as concise as possible while allowing for adequate coverage of the subject matter and shall be made available to the petitioner and anyone else requesting a copy.
Copies of staff reports and other pertinent materials shall be made available to the Historical Landmark Committee members five (5) days prior to regularly scheduled Historical Landmark Committee meetings.
24. Submission of written materials: Applicants or interested parties should submit written comments to the Committee regarding a specific case (other than the information required for a completed application itself) on the Thursday by Noon, prior to the agendaed meeting to allow the Historical Landmark Committee adequate time to review the materials.
Written comments submitted at the time of the meeting should be limited to one typed page.
25. Notification of Public Hearings: Notices of all items scheduled for Historical Landmark Committee meetings shall be mailed to the applicant and his/her representative, abutting property owners (including those across the street), and any other interested party, ten (10) days prior to the Historical Landmark Committee meeting. Anyone wishing to receive notice of Historical Landmark Committee meeting agendas, copies of minutes and/or staff reports may be placed on the regular mailing list by contacting the Historical Landmark Committee secretary. All notifications shall be consistent with the Early Notification Ordinance.
Staff's suggestion: (F-21) Agenda for Meeting: Insure that mailing dates conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Discussion: Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone had any comments. Mr. Parvaz asked what was in the ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that according to the ordinance the agenda had to be mailed fourteen (14) days before the meeting date and the rules say ten (10) days. Mr. Simonsen clarified that it should be increased to fourteen (14). Ms. Giraud said that would make the Commission's "Rules of Procedures" consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze commented that Staff had been following the ordinance. There was no further discussion. The Commission members were in agreement.
G. PROCEDURE- ORDER AND DECORUM
26. Order of Consideration of Items: The following procedure will normally be observed; however, it may be rearranged by the Chair for individual items if necessary for the expeditious conduct of business:
a. Item introduction by Chair;
b. Staff presentation and recommendation;
c. Applicant presentation of proposal;
d. Public comment;
e. Motion and vote to close the public hearing; and
f. Historical Landmark Committee discussion and vote in executive session.
The discussion is closed to Staff, the applicant, and public unless the Historical Landmark Committee requests additional information of them. If additional information is required by the Committee, the public portion of the meeting may be reopened.
Discussion: Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that in the Order and Decorum section, (G-26-e) the Commission does not make a motion and vote to close the public hearing; the Chair announces that it is closed and goes directly into the executive session portion of the meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there was any reason to vote on that. Mr. Simonsen said that he has attended planning boards and commissions where that happens. He added that the City Council votes to go into executive session. Ms. Mickelsen said that when one reads the City Council minutes there are too many votes to open and votes to close, etc.
Mr. Parvaz believed that the Historic Landmark Commission should follow the procedures. He added that in some cases, the Chair needs the Commission's vote. Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested that if the Commission was hearing a complex case and there were many members of the public asking to speak, and the people were repeating the same comments over and over again on positions that have may have already been presented, it would be beneficial if the Chair asked for a vote from the Commission to close the public hearing. Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission is very different than the Planning Commission or the City Council because the Chair rarely limits someone's time to talk to the Commission. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that he believed that privilege had not been abused. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Chair states upfront to limit the comments and not repeat what others had already said.
Ms. Giraud suggested that the Chair reword the phrasing when the Commission goes into executive session. Ms. Heid said that the Commission either does what it says in the "Rules of Procedure" or exclude it. Ms. Mickelsen said that it takes time to make a motion and call for a second.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he, as the Chair, believes that the paragraph should remain and the Commission should follow the rules.
There was no further discussion so the members were in agreement.
H. PROCEDURES- VOTING
27. Changing a Vote: No member may change his/her vote after the decision is announced by the Chair.
28. Tie vote: Tie votes shall be broken by the Chair casting a vote.
29. Abstention: Any member abstaining from a vote may remain seated at the table and participate in the discussion. Reasons for abstention must be stated at the time of the abstention and such reason shall not be considered a conflict of interest.
Discussion: Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Commissioners always stated their reasons for abstention in Section H-29. Ms. Giraud stated that she believed Mr. Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office should be consulted about the reasons and when it would be appropriate to abstain. She felt like that was a legal procedural question of which she was not certain.
Ms. Mickelsen said that when a Commissioner formally abstains from voting on the minutes that it is usually because they were not at the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen suggested changing the wording in that section to say "may" instead of "must". Ms. Mickelsen was in agreement with Ms. Giraud's suggestion of consulting with Lynn Pace to find out the theory behind the statement. Mr. Zunguze stated that the abstention vote is intended for public information for them to know when someone abstains from voting on a project.
Mr. Parvaz pointed out in Section D-11 Explaining the Vote. Ms. Rowland said that a Commissioner has to explain why he or she abstains from a vote but that Commissioner does not have to explain why he or she may be in opposition. Mr. Simonsen said that a Commissioner might want to explain his or her opposition so it could be recorded in the minutes. Ms. Rowland clarified that explaining the vote is an option but the reason for abstaining must be explained. Mr. Parvaz said that the procedures should be followed.
A short discussion followed regarding reasons why people abstain from a vote, such as the Commissioner cannot make up his or her mind; for some reason a Commissioner does not want his or her vote recorded; an abstention keeps a Commissioner from a conflict of interest which may not have not been declared up front; or a Commissioner may feel he or she does not know enough about a project.
There was no further discussion. The Commission members were in agreement to consult with the City Attorney's office regarding Section H-29 Abstention. The Commission agreed on the other parts of this section.
I. PROCEDURES- SUSPENSION OF RULES
30. Suspension of Alternation of Rules: No standing rule of the Historical Landmark Committee shall be altered, amended, suspended, or rescinded without the vote of a majority of a the members of the Committee.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
J. APPROVED APPLICATION
31. If the application is approved, the secretary for the Historical Landmark Committee shall transmit a Certificate of Appropriateness in letter form, clearly describing the nature of the work which has been approved. A copy of this information shall be forwarded to the appropriate building inspector and/or enforcement officer and the Permits Counter Supervisor, who are responsible for its enforcement.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
K. DENIED APPLICATION
32. If an application is denied, a copy of the minutes for the meeting and written reason(s) for denial shall be mailed to the applicant.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
L. MODIFICATIONS OF APPLICATIONS
33. An approved or pending application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may be modified by a written request from the applicant to the Preservation Planning Staff. Such a request shall include a description of the proposed change and shall be accompanied by elevations, plans, or sketches, where necessary. If the Preservation Planning Staff finds that the modification constitutes a substantial change, the applicant shall submit the information as a new application to the full Committee for approval.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
M. RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DENIED
34. The order of business for reconsideration of applications for Certificate of Appropriateness which previously have been denied shall be, as follows:
a. The applicant must submit to the Preservation Planning Staff, evidence which supports claims that the application has been altered to the extent that it warrants reconsideration.
b. The Preservation Planning Staff shall be charged with presenting such evidence to the Committee. Such evidence shall be limited to that which is necessary to enable the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions relating to the application provided; however, that the applicant shall be given the opportunity to present any other additional supporting evidence, if the Committee decides to reconsider the application.
c. After receiving the evidence, the Committee shall proceed to deliberate whether or not there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions relating to the application which would warrant reconsideration. If the Committee finds that there has been such a change, it shall thereupon treat the request as a new application received at that time.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
N. APPEALS
35. Appeals of the recommendation of the Committee may be made, as follows:
a. An applicant or aggrieved party may appeal the Committee's recommendation to the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of the approval of the Planning Commission's minutes in which the Historical Landmark Committee's decision was ratified. Said appeal must be in writing and shall state the reasons for the appeal.
b. An applicant or aggrieved party may appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the approval of the Planning Commission's minutes for the case. Said appeal must be in writing and shall state the reasons for the appeal.
Staff's suggestion: (N) Appeals: Update the text on the appeals process.
Discussion: Ms. Giraud said that there is a section in the ordinance that is for general appeals and verification. She pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission follows the appeals section of Chapter 34 of the ordinance. She added that the two chapters were not in sync with each other.
Mr. Simonsen commented that a section of the ordinance was to be changed regarding the time period of sending the Findings and Order to an applicant. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance states that the Staff has to mail the Findings and Order of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting within ten (10) days following the meeting. She pointed out that the minutes are not approved until after the following meeting which is usually two weeks. Ms. Giraud stated that she brought that petition correcting that error to the Planning Commission, and the members voted in favor of the change. She stated that she was told to hold off on that petition until some other matters were worked out with the Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. Zunguze stated that there has been confusion in the appeals process. He added that only appeals filed on decisions made by the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission went to the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Zunguze said that there were problems with the consistency in the preparation of the documents. He indicated that the City was looking at ways to introduce consistency in terms of time lines from one board to another for all appeals that went through the Land Use Appeals Board. He said that the malfunctions of the appeals process were the subject matter during discussions with the City Attorney's office. Mr. Zunguze reported that the City Attorney's office is reviewing the appeals process for all of the boards and commissions.
Mr. Simonsen said that it sounded as if the changes would be appropriate. There was no further discussion. The Commission members were in agreement with the change.
0. ARCHITECTURAL SUBCOMMITTEE
36. It shall be the policy of the Historical Landmark Committee that an Architectural Subcommittee of the Committee shall be available to meet with applicants to give them technical advice regarding their project. 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.
a. In most cases regarding new construction, the applicant should first meet with the Historical Landmark Committee in order to obtain a general direction from all of the members of the Committee. Once the general direction is given and the issues have been raised, the applicant may then choose, or be directed by the Historical Landmark Committee, to meet with the subcommittee to work out the technical details on the project.
Staff's suggestion: (0) Architectural Subcommittee and (P) Administrative Approval (Screening): Staff has no issue with the current ability to administratively approve minor work, with the language under "0"that requires applicants of new construction to first meet with the full Historic Landmark Commission, or with the reference from the Historic Landmark Commission to the Architectural Subcommittee to work out details on new construction or complex alterations. However, sending applicants from the Staff to the Architectural Subcommittee has the potential to create the perception that the public is left out of the process, as is the full Historic Landmark Commission. This conduit blurs the distinction between Historic Landmark Commission and Staff roles. If the Staff finds that a proposed alteration is beyond the scope of their expertise, or is uncertain if the proposal meets the criterion of the ordinance, the applicant should be sent to the full Historic Landmark Commission, and then referred to the Architectural Subcommittee from there. The disadvantage to this is a delay for an applicant who simply needs technical assistance that could quickly be provided by the Historic Landmark Commission members. The Staff would like to find a way to provide such outreach service, while not compromising the appropriate avenue for the Historic Landmark Commission review and public notice. In the meantime, the Staff recommends that the "Rules of Procedure" be changed so that the Architectural Subcommittee is directed from the Historic Landmark Commission, rather than receiving requests for review from the Staff.
Discussion: Mr. Simonsen asked if Ms. Giraud wanted to talk about Architectural Subcommittee. She said that Mr. Zunguze would like to discuss this matter.
Mr. Zunguze stated that there is a need to make sure there is clarity between what Staff does and what the Historic Landmark Commission does. He said that there are certain kinds of projects that Staff can administratively approve and the other projects would have to go before the full Commission for action. Mr. Zunguze said that there could be a perception of misuse of the Architectural Subcommittee from the public's standpoint if there is no clarity of responsibilities. He added that the use of the subcommittee without authority from the full Commission has the potential to create that perception problem for the Staff and the Commission.
Mr. Zunguze presented the following: The use of the subcommittee is essentially a refinement or a fact-finding mission of the Commission to get more details before a final decision is made. However, if the use of the subcommittee is for matters the full Commission is supposed to take care of, the Architectural Subcommittee becomes a substitute of the Commission. There are questions and comments being made with respect to the current use of the subcommittee without clear direction from the full Commission. The troubling question relates to the relationship of the subcommittee to the Staff and how the subcommittee relates to the full Commission.
Mr. Zunguze continued by saying that when projects, which go beyond the Staff level, and require a full Commission review, the Commission may direct the subcommittee to work with the Staff to refine any details and administratively approve a project or it would go back to the full Commission. The role of the subcommittee should be clearly defined as to who it reports to. That is an important element not only for public trust but also from the administrative level. There has to be a clear distinction between the role of the full Commission, the role of the Architectural Subcommittee, and the role of the Staff.
Mr. Ashdown stated that when he 'first became a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, he thought that anyone who served on the Commission and who had the time could serve on the Architectural Subcommittee. He said that it needs to be understood that only people who have the expertise and background to give the technical advice on building construction and architecture is a prerequisite for anyone serving on that subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown continued by saying that any sort of advice aside from aesthetics would come from this Commission in relation to the ordinance. He added that technical details like materials, function, and form would be more suitable for the subcommittee to review. Mr. Ashdown said that he stays away from technical issues with buildings including his own house. He also stated that he believed some things should start at the subcommittee level such as window replacements.
Ms. Giraud gave some background information regarding the Architectural Subcommittee. She said that when she first started working with the Historic Landmark Committee, there would be fifteen people who would try to draw things up during the meeting in front of the public. She said that it was disorganized and very distracting to the public. Ms. Giraud indicated that the applicant would walk away confused with nothing to go on. She said that projects would be tabled, and information would be written or drawn on little scraps of paper for the next meeting. Ms. Giraud stated that this was not a good forum for a group of people who like to draw and convey things with their pens to have at a public hearing. She pointed out that it was decided that people with a technical background could huddle around and provide that kind of service to the public.
Ms. Giraud said that another thing was in 1995, the fee was raised to go to the Historic Landmark Commission to $200.00. She said if Staff did not approve or did not have the confidence or technical background to sign off on something it would have to go to the full Commission. Ms. Giraud stated that if a common home owner had a complicated problem that an architect or contactor could solve very easily, that home owner would have to pay $200.00 and wait 'fifteen days or longer to get on the agenda of the Historic Landmark Commission, where neighbors would be noticed and a formal hearing would be held, when all the home owner needed was some advice. Ms. Giraud stated that was the main reason why the fee was reduced to $25.00.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the basic premises, as he understood it, would be that anything that goes to the Architectural Subcommittee would come first to the full Commission and the full Commission would delegate that responsibility to the subcommittee, as opposed to Staff calling a subcommittee for advice before a project could be administratively approved. He said that he shared Ms. Giraud's concern that going through this procedure should not be a cumbersome process. Mr. Simonsen said that he would not want to put pressure on Staff to administratively approve something they were not comfortable with. He also said that due to time sensitive issues, Staff might get pressure from an applicant not to go to the full Commission.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Commission has delegated authority to Staff for administrative approvals for a number of things. He noted that he did not know of any reason why the Commission could not delegate certain things to the subcommittee to handle matters beyond the expertise of the Staff. Mr. Simonsen said, 'We are already doing that with Staff approvals so there is no reason why we can't administratively approve subcommittee findings when the technical expertise is needed, but it is really an administrative kind of issue."
Mr. Zunguze said that he believed the important issue was to make sure that it was not Staff who would direct the work of the Architectural Subcommittee. He stated that the base authority should be from the full Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that the element that is missing right now is who is in charge of the subcommittee. He noted that sometimes the Staff is in charge and sometimes the full Commission is in charge. Mr. Zunguze added that it is "handled like a football".
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that if the Planning Commission decides to explore certain issues, the Chair would call for a subcommittee to be formed.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that no decisions are made in a subcommittee of the Planning Commission because every issue returns to the Planning Commission for review and for making a final decision. He noted that some projects that are reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission's Architectural Subcommittee do not go back to the full Commission for a final decision.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the hang up seems to be the time involved for the applicant. Mr. Simonsen said he believed that it would be the Commission's involvement, as well, because it would bring many more things to the full Commission. Ms. Mickelsen suggested that Staff add any recommendations for the subcommittee to the agenda then the full Commission could decide what issues would actually go to the subcommittee. She suggested that Staff put some kind of survey together of issues that would go to the subcommittee. Ms. Giraud said that Staff could pull something like that together.
Mr. Wheelwright suggested creating categories that the Commission could authorize before going to the subcommittee.
Mr. Simonsen asked what triggers an administrative approval versus an applicant coming to the full Commission. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance helps with that. She referred to 21A.32.020.(E)(1)(a)(i. through v.) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: Types of Construction allowed which may be approved by administrative decision: 1) Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site; ii) Substantial alteration of or addition to a non-contributing site; iii) Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing structure; iv) Demolition of an accessory structure; and v) Demolition of a non-contributing structure.
Ms. Giraud stated that it would be difficult to codify what actually constitutes major alterations. She said that it was hard for her to convey the extent of the quality of the things that are presented to the Staff. Ms. Giraud said that sometimes Staff is presented with really great drawings that are very informative and sometimes Staff talks to people who have no experience drawing anything and who has difficulty communicating what it is they are trying to do with their property. She expressed her concern about categorizing issues because many of the projects would not fit into a category.
Ms. Rowland stated that the Architectural Subcommittee is providing free architectural advice to the public. She added that if a person would hire an architect in the first place the process would probably be shortened because they might not have to go to the subcommittee.
Mr. Zunguze stated, "The question we have to ask ourselves is, does it need full Commission review to balance out the interest and the substance of the issues to be discussed. I am clearly uncomfortable with the current operation right now because we cannot defend it."
Mr. Simonsen said that the Architectural Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Historic Landmark Commission and should be authorized by the Commission to convene and to act and that is an important procedural point.
Ms. Rowland suggested listing projects that Staff had reviewed that might need a trip to the Architectural Subcommittee without giving notice to the neighbors and then the Commission could decide which projects would go to the subcommittee. Ms. Heid said that would be like a consent agenda. Ms. Giraud said that there still would be a time factor. Mr. Fitzsimmons said he thought the applicant would have to go through a public hearing.
Ms. Giraud stated that projects in question would first have to be reviewed by the full Commission and then the Commission would refer any applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee, which would be more in line with Mr. Zunguze's concern regarding the procedure where people are not getting referred from the full Commission to the subcommittee. She added that nothing would come from Staff to the subcommittee.
Mr. Zunguze said that he did not believe that the use of the Architectural Subcommittee should be a reason for "fast tracking" through the process. He added that he did not think that was appropriate.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he thought that any procedure that is defensible is more important than the delay the process may cause. He inquired if the procedure would preclude Staff on occasion calling a member of the Commission and asking for technical advice on what would otherwise be an administrative approval without needing a full Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that it would not. He said that is what is called "consultation".
Mr. Zunguze said that he made an assessment of some projects that went to the Architectural Subcommittee. He believed that Staff's level of confidence should be raised so they would be able to handle some of those projects. Mr. Zunguze added that he knows some projects are more difficult and that determination should be made by the full Commission as to which project needed the technical advice that the subcommittee would provide. He pointed out that the important thing would be the Commission giving direction to the subcommittee.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he could see the benefit of scheduling an applicant for a subcommittee meeting with members who were present at the Commission meeting. He added that would give the members a chance to make a commitment then to assemble a subcommittee with those present. Mr. Simonsen said that he knows that Staff sometimes has to scramble to get members there when Staff schedules a subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Zunguze pointed out what he believed to be another benefit which was that the Commission would be more engaged and be able to see some of the nuances or challenges associated with the ordinance that the members are dealing with, and if there are items that are creating complications or confusion, the members would have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process itself or the ordinances. Mr. Zunguze concluded by saying that it would be beneficial for all the Commission members to know what the subcommittee is doing and that would be achieved if the direction came from the full Commission.
Mr. Parvaz said, "I hope this issue won't be in conflict with the issue that we discussed earlier because the presence in the Architectural Subcommittee doesn't mean that the person has to be present in the Commission itself."
Mr. Simonsen stated that he was comfortable with that change in the Architectural Subcommittee and asked if anyone else had any thoughts or comments relative to this matter. There was no further discussion. The Commission members agreed to the changes.
P. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL (SCREENING)
37. It shall be the policy of the Historical Landmark Committee that alteration requests may be administratively approved by the Preservation Planning Staff. The Preservation Planning Staff shall have the authority to approve routine alterations determined to be "ordinary maintenance", the replacement of deteriorated elements which match the original in design and materials, alterations to the rear of the structure which are not visible from the public rights of-way and work that meets the adopted criteria for such work in historic districts or on designated landmark sites. For those cases where the scope of the project is complex, the Preservation Planning Staff can request the advice of the Architectural Subcommittee. Once the subcommittee has become involved with a case, the subcommittee will determine whether the project warrants the review of the Historical Landmark Committee based on the cases complexity or where it is believed that notification of adjacent property owners, community councils, or other interested parties is prudent and/or necessary.
38. If the Preservation Planning Staff refuses to approve an application, it shall be brought before the Committee and treated as a routine application. Records shall be kept of all administrative approvals. A written report of these decisions shall be included in the Historical Landmark Committee's Annual Report and with each Committee meeting's packet of information.
Staff's suggestion: Please refer to Staff's suggestion in Section 0, Architectural Subcommittee.
Discussion: Please refer to the discussion in Section 0, Architectural Subcommittee.
Q. ANNUAL REPORT
39. The Preservation Planning Staff shall prepare an Annual Report to be presented to the Historical Landmark Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting in February. The report shall include information about the number, type and disposition of standard cases, administrative review cases, and information regarding other City or Staff activities involving historic preservation. This Annual Report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Discussion: Ms. Giraud passed out an Annual Report of the Historic Landmark Commission, according to the "Rules of Procedure". She said since the first meeting in February was cancelled, Staff wanted the Commission to have the Annual Report early. Ms. Giraud reported that the Annual Report would be incorporated in an annual report being prepared by the entire Planning Division. She indicated that Staff prepared statistics and lists of endeavors which is quite impressive. She also said that the rest of the Planning Division Staff did not realize how much work the Historic Landmark Commission accomplished.
There was no further discussion. The members were in agreement. R. AMENDMENT OF
RULES OF PROCEDURE
40. These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any meeting of the Historical Landmark Committee held after not less than fourteen (14) days written notice of the proposal to amend the rules, upon a majority vote of all of the members of the Historical Landmark Committee.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
S. RECORDING OF RULES
41. These rules and all subsequent amendments shall be recorded by the secretary in the Historical Landmark Committee Members Handbook and copies shall be furnished to each member of the Committee.
a. In most cases regarding new construction, the applicant should first meet
with the Historical Landmark Committee in order to obtain a general direction from all of the members of the Committee. Once the general direction is given and the issues have been raised, the applicant may then choose, or be directed by the Historical Landmark Committee, to meet with the subcommittee to work out the technical details on the project.
Discussion: The Commission members were in agreement with this so there was no discussion.
The following issues were discussed relating to other matters that was suggested to be included in the "Rules of Procedure":
Procedure of making motion:
Mr. Parvaz referred to the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures" (E-25-a through d). He said that motions and related issues are well defined by the Planning Commission. Mr. Parvaz recommended including the Planning Commission's description of making motions into the Historic Landmark Commission's "Rules of Procedure" if the Commission is in agreement with that recommendation. He said that the protocol for making motions was important to learn as sensitive as those issues are. Mr. Parvaz was curious why the full outline of making motions was never in the "Rules of Procedures". Ms. Giraud said she could not remember why it was not included.
Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone else shared the same concerns that Mr. Parvaz raised about the procedures of making motions and how the Commission acts on them. He said that he thought it would be a useful tool to include the section as it is written in the Planning Commission "Policies and Procedures".
Ms. Mickelsen stated that there was one thing that the Commission definitely should know, and that is "to what extent is this a finding".
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that if someone has an issue with a decision that the Commission makes and the Commission is not consistent in its rulings, that person could make an issue out of that inconsistency. He added that the "Rules of Procedures" are the Commission's document and each member of the Commission should abide by it.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if any of the Commissioners would be opposed to having some clarification of the procedures relative to motions added to the "Rules of Procedures". No one was opposed.
Requesting legal advice:
Mr. Parvaz referred to Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures" Section (E-25-d) Planning Commission may request legal advice from the City Attorney in the preparation, discussion, and deliberation of motions. He stated that during his tenure on this Commission there were many times when the Commission should have requested legal advice on matters of uncertainty. Mr. Parvaz said that he could remember only one time where legal advice was requested. He said that he would like to have the opportunity to confer with someone from the City Attorney's office before making some motions. Mr. Simonsen said that legal counsel would have to be at the Historic Landmark Commission meetings on a regular basis.
Mr. Parvaz stated that he would have asked for legal counsel when the Chair of the Planning Commission came before this Commission representing an applicant on a project. Mr. Zunguze said that the difference would be if the Chair of the Planning
Commission attended the meeting representing the Planning Commission and a client. He said that he did not know how there would have been a legal matter relative to this incident, unless that was the case. Mr. Parvaz said that was his concern, whether or not it was a legal matter.
Mr. Simonsen said that he had an interesting conversation with Council Member Eric Jergensen regarding the conflict of interest issue. He pointed out that the problem would be if someone were using his or her position to influence a decision being made which would give that person an advantage over anyone else. Mr. Simonsen said that the City Council often has conflicts where the members of the Council would have to determine if the conflicts would have any influence their decisions.
Mr. Parvaz said that some motions have need of legal advice, not just on conflict of interest issues.
Ms. Lew said that if any member of the Commission perceives that legal advice might be required after reading the staff report, Staff can contact the City Attorney's office and invite legal counsel to attend the meeting. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that it was not written in the "Rules of Procedures" and it should be included. Ms. Giraud said that she thought Mr. Parvaz's suggestion has merit.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if any of the Commissioners would be opposed to having something added to the "Rules of Procedures" relative to legal counsel. No one was opposed.
Other matters relating to the "Rules of Procedures":
Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the "Rules of Procedures" does not refer to the Comments to the Commission or the Report of the Planning Director which appear on the Historic Landmark Commission's agendas. Ms. Giraud said she believed the rules document should have some flexibility. Ms. Heid said that she believed that Section (F-21) Agenda for Meetings would cover that.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if there were any other issues to address regarding the "Rules of Procedures". There was none.
In conclusion, Mr. Zunguze suggested that the "Rules of Procedures" be redone incorporating the suggestions and recommendations made at this meeting, and mimicking the Planning Commission's "Policies and Procedures" where possible.
Future meetings:
Ms. Giraud announced that the February 4, 2004 meeting of the Historic Landmark
Commission has been cancelled.
She also reminded the Commissioners about the Citizens' Merit Awards Ceremony which will be held on Monday, February 9, 2004 in the City Council Chambers at 5:30P.M.
Legislative Intent:
Mr. Zunguze said that the final meeting with Staff will be held on Monday, January 26, 2004 to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the document. He said that the Commissioners would be notified when the Legislative Intent is presented to the City Council.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if Mr. Zunguze would present it to the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that he would brief the Council with an invitation for questions.
Mr. Simonsen encouraged the Commissioners to communicate with the members of the City Council. He stated, "Our voices matter to the City Council Members".
A short discussion followed regarding the membership of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission has numerous vacancies. He said, "I know that we have not been crusading for new members due to this Legislative Intent."
Mr. Zunguze said that he is considering taking action to reduce the number of members on the Commission. He believed that fifteen members were too many.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Commission has positions that should be 'filled because not all historic districts are being represented at this time.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M.