SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES
Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street 4:00 p.m.
Commissioners present were Chairperson David Fitzsimmons, Commissioners Paula Carl, Esther Hunter, Warren Lloyd, and Commissioner Anne Oliver.
Staff present were: Luis Zunguze, Community Economic Development Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Program Supervisor; Katie Weiler, Senior Secretary and Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Deputy Director of the Community Development Department.
The Historic Landmark Commission met to finalize a discussion which began on August 20, 2007, in regards to issues that the Commission desired to be addressed in the Citywide Preservation Plan. A recording of this meeting will be maintained in the Salt Lake City Planning office no less than one year.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze addressed the Commission. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission was to take ownership of the Citywide Preservation Plan from development to the final product. He further stated that if the Commission needed to have meetings with the consultants in addition to those which were already built into the City’s contract with Clarion Associates, LLC, the Commission needed to make that need known. He further stated that the scheduled timeline for the completion of the plan could be altered if necessary to achieve a good end product.
Ms. De La Mare Schaefer and Ms. Coffey stated that in the meeting of August 20, 2007, the Commission had planned to identify issues/concerns to be addressed with Clarion Associates regarding the development of the Preservation Plan as well as identify the role/vision of Preservation in Salt Lake City. The Commission began with a discussion of topics of issues and concerns.
Ms. De La Mare-Schaefer led the discussion by creating multiple charts with brief statements to reflect the issues/concerns raised by the Commission. The charts are filed with these notes.
Topics Covered
The Commission agreed that it was not possible to list all of the issues without first hearing feedback from the public. At the request of the Commission, the consultants are to provide a download of the feedback gleaned from interviews with interested groups during the week of August 20-24, 2007.
The Commission agreed that it would be beneficial for a subcommittee and staff to meet with Clarion Associates in a conference call. The subcommittee would then report back to the Commission. The subcommittee would be composed of Commissioners Hunter, Lloyd, and Oliver.
The Commission stated a desire to meet with the consultants in November. Prior to that discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission would review the feedback and each Commissioner would review the outline of the prior discussion which took place on August 20, 2007 and add missing components.
Using the charts created by Ms. De La Mare-Schaefer, the subcommittee was delegated the responsibility of creating an agenda to address the issues/concerns of the Commission during the electronic meeting. Generally, the agenda would touch on the following items:
Draft Agenda
• After the Historic Landmark Commission defines their role regarding the Preservation Plan, the subcommittee is to ensure that this role is explained clearly to Clarion Associates.
• After the Historic Landmark Commission defined the role of the Advisory Committee, this role would then be explained to Clarion Associates.
• Issues that the Commission felt needed to be addressed by Clarion Associates:
The Commission needs to have a sense of ownership over the development of the Preservation Plan. HLC has the opinion that it has not been in the “lead” role for the Plan.
The Commission needs to review stages, timing, and milestones for the Preservation Plan.
The Commission needs to understand how communication between the consultant and the Commission will work.
“Best Practices”
The Advisory Committee needs to collaborate with the Historic Landmark Commission.
Need for frequent review of the consultant’s work – regular reporting from the consultant.
Need for frequent meetings between the consultant and the Historic Landmark Commission or representatives (subcommittee).
The Commission is the public face of preservation. The Commission and Staff must participate in a Community outreach process to obtain large base input.
The Commission needs comment regarding the Public Input Plan
The HLC will undertake a discussion with Clarion Associates regarding the following:
Development of a Preservation Plan which includes vision of preservation for the City:
“If we were to set up the best system for historic preservation in SLC, what would it be like?”
What do we do
What do we want to do
Priorities
The subcommittee wondered whether it would be feasible to develop an electronic meeting or email system that the subcommittee could use to carry on discussions related to the preservation plan.
Ms. De La Mare-Schaefer explained to the Commission that the Planning Division had been working with Citygate Associates to look at the processes which are taking place within the division. Some of the Commission members and members of other boards had been interviewed as part of this process. After hearing comments from Commissioners, public, staff, and other departments, the Planning Division decided to set aside a 90-day period in which to look closer at some of the process and to implement teams to handle business. Ms. Coffey would act as a resource to the Commission while Mr. Paterson would act as team leader for the Historic Landmark Commission team.
Commissioner Haymond commented that there was an issue with enforcement. Specifically, he stated that once approval was received by the Commission and a structure was subsequently remodeled or constructed, the conditions placed by the Commission were not enforced by the building inspector when making a final inspection. He wondered if the preservation plan could include something to address the problem.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons read a letter from Shirley McLaughlin into the record. A copy of the letter is filed with these minutes.
Conclusion
Ms. Coffey stated that the consultant had tentatively planned to be in Salt Lake City in November, but with holiday schedules, it was uncertain as to whether that meeting had been postponed to the first of next year.
Staff agreed to contact the consultant to determine whether the consultant could arrange a meeting with the Commission prior to the first of the year.
Staff will follow up to ensure that the policies and procedures of the Historic Landmark Commission allow for electronic meetings.