Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmark commissioners debate formalizing conceptual reviews and pre-application steps to streamline projects
Summary
Staff proposed piloting a two-tier review (conceptual review followed by detailed design review) and expanded pre-application steps to reduce late-stage redesigns; commissioners agreed on potential benefits but raised concerns about focus, legal framing, and burdens on small homeowners.
SALT LAKE CITY
Salt Lake City planning staff recommended piloting a revised work-session process for the Historic Landmark Commission that would add an early conceptual (preliminary) review focused on form and massing, followed by a later detailed-design review that covers materials, window/door details and landscaping.
Planner Aaron Barlow told the commission the conceptual-review option would allow applicants to present simpler materials showing height, massing, roof form and openings so the commission could provide early directional feedback before applicants invest in full construction documents. Under the proposal staff would limit which standards are reviewed at the conceptual stage and set focused submittal requirements so the conversation stays on-topic.
Barlow also proposed negotiating a timeline with applicants so conceptual reviews do not linger indefinitely (examples discussed included a 90-day or multi-month target) and said staff could close stalled conceptual reviews. He described pre-application meetings as a complementary idea and said staff would pilot changes with legal input before seeking code changes.
Commissioners voiced several concerns: work sessions can be cumbersome or come too late in the design process; they can become unfocused and drift into individual commissioners'preferences rather than standards-based analysis; and early involvement risks commissioners'opinions bleeding into administrative matters. Commissioners urged staff to keep work-session questions narrowly framed, to use straw polls or other tools to provide clear commission-level guidance, and to avoid overburdening small homeowners (for whom sample boards or large submittals could be a barrier).
There was also broad agreement that requiring physical material samples or specification sheets can be useful for unfamiliar modern materials and for larger projects, while staff and commissioners said the requirement should be scaled to project size so first-time homeowners are not discouraged from preservation work.
Staff said the goal is to increase predictability and reduce late-stage redesigns, and that a pilot program with negotiated submittal requirements, a clear staff-framed question set, and post-work-session memos (including straw-poll feedback) could give applicants clearer direction on whether to proceed to full design. The commission did not adopt formal rules at the meeting but generally supported exploring a piloted approach with legal review and reported that staff will return with a proposed structure and suggested code language if the pilot succeeds.
