BAR adopts bylaw clarifications, updates design guidelines and reviews zoning ordinance changes proposal

The Board of Architectural Review adopted two administrative changes and updated policy guidance during its meeting (date not specified). The board amended its bylaws to define when absences are excused (examples include 24-hour notice, personal or immediate family illness, death, unscheduled business travel, and emergency work) and codified the long-practiced public-comment rules that give individual speakers 3 minutes and designated organizational representatives 5 minutes.

The board also approved updates to the Design Guidelines Committee’s doors and garage doors chapter (aligning rules for the Parker Gray and Old & Historic districts) and accepted the dormers chapter with no substantive policy changes. Mr. Harris, speaking for the Design Guidelines Committee, said the committee proposes aligning review for doors in both historic districts "recognizing the doors are important, important character-defining features of a building."

In a longer information session, staff reviewed proposed zoning text amendments to Article 10, the section of the zoning ordinance that governs historic districts and buildings. Mr. Harris said Article 10 has not had a comprehensive update since 1992 and proposed a range of mostly clarifying changes: removing outdated paid mailed-notice language, eliminating cost-based language that allowed in-kind replacement based on expense (staff argued the board should not weigh cost in appropriateness decisions), adjusting gendered language ("chair" instead of "chairman"), removing references to real-estate values as a board purpose, and increasing the validity of certificates of appropriateness and demolition permits from 12 months to 36 months for non-DSUP projects to account for common construction delays.

Staff presented a more significant proposal to formalize and require concept review for development projects that need a development special use permit (DSUP) or site plan (DSP). Under the draft approach staff described, concept review would become a required, early step with up to two required concept-review meetings; the board’s comments would be recorded and included in Planning Commission and City Council consideration. The proposal aims to move discussions of massing earlier, so developers and decision-makers can address height, mass and scale before entitlements are finalized. Mr. Conkey said staff wants to "codify" the concept-review stage and include the board's input as a formal part of the overall review pipeline.

Board members expressed a range of concerns and suggestions. Several members supported moving discussion earlier but strongly urged that the board retain an appealable, binding vote at the end of concept review on height, mass and scale (an early endorsement or denial) so developers would be held to the same standards as smaller projects and the board would not be limited to advisory-only input. Members also raised logistical questions about scheduling, the volume and timing of concept-review materials, and the burden on volunteer board members; staff noted the possibility of special meetings for large concept-review items but also pointed to statutory docket and notice timelines that constrain scheduling.

There was no final ordinance language approved at this meeting; staff framed the session as a first public outreach step and asked for the board’s feedback before staff drafts ordinance changes to bring to City Council at a later date. The board adopted the bylaws and design-guidelines changes by voice vote; the zoning text amendments remain under discussion and will be refined with board input and additional public engagement before any formal vote or submittal to City Council.

Next steps: staff will incorporate board feedback into draft ordinance language, consider approaches for concept-review timing and vote mechanics, and continue public outreach prior to any formal zoning-text amendment submission to City Council.