Board of Architectural Review Meeting   1/21/2026

Someone online, do you have a, Mr. Snyder, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

I think he's basically talking about what, not the ADC, but Fifeville is Fifeville,

Sorry, a little meandering there, but it's.

I think what he's referring to is a historic conservation district that we had talked about the difference between sort of the levels of review between those two and then take it the second question was really sort of is there a way to list an IPP which is a good segue into our first

I know there's several there, but I can't speak for the Fifeville process, but my understanding is that when that survey was done and the National Register District was discussed, I don't know why local designation wasn't pursued, but I imagine it came up.

I would assume so.

I mean, unambiguously supported that designation and that hasn't occurred, so I can't move that forward.

It was like mid-century?

Again, it would take the owner, just like we have tonight with 801 West Street.

Anybody else online?

I believe Mr. Snyder might have a follow-up question, but he didn't use his three minutes.

Mr. Snyder, are you still there?

So I wanted to thank you for that.

I need to give a class on this.

We'd just like to know how to begin that process for the conservation district, the historic designation light for the city.

Possibly.

How would you start?

Hey Jim, I'll follow up.

But it's not impossible, right?

It's not something I'm going to get to in the next two months.

Ms. Keller, would you like to come up and speak, please?

Thank you.

One item is the minutes from the December 16th, 2025 BAR meeting.

Second.

Any opposed?

I abstain because I wasn't here.

Mr. Werner, do you have a staff report?

Did we move?

Well, it's listed on our new items.

It's good.

Then we can discuss it.

Kate, do you want to?

That's fine.

It's fine.

Our conversation must have taken a loop.

Yes, yeah.

I think then we decided no.

It's on our new agenda.

Let's go.

So, well, I was just offering Kay if you wished to, but this is a, did you want to talk about, so Kate worked on this and that's why I'm sort of giving her, but I don't want to put you on the spot.

We don't have a full staff report because you thought it was on consent.

I just don't have, I'm not.

Queued up.

Yeah, I'm not queued up and Kate worked on the staff report, so I was going to put her on the spot and see if she wanted to,

It has already, the initiation of planning commission occurred in December and so the next step is that you all would review and then determine if you would recommend this for listing.

And the recommendation goes to... Just assume that was obvious.

The city is actually acting as the applicant in this situation and that is just so that we're kind of streamlining that process for the applicant and there's no fee involved because the zoning map amendment and zoning text amendments are actually permitted applications within our system.

And I wondered if Ms. Richardson could just kind of summarize or address the emails that were exchanged this week just about further work that was done on the property that are not represented in the photos and the description.

So in our efforts we would document the known changes and the sequence as best we could But as far as what is there I mean there already have been some modifications in the 20th century the addition of stucco And then also replacement windows, so we would put that into our full summary of the structure Is the widow's walk original?

To our knowledge, yes.

Is there roof access up there?

But it is one of the older homes and to the best that we can determine, it's in pretty good condition from when it was constructed.

What was the original sighting before the startup?

That is the siding of the house, but presumably it was a wood siding and it's probably still there.

What are the oldest photos that we have of, does the owner have any early photos?

I have actually 10th and Page survey photographs from like the 70s and 80s, so I haven't found, they haven't surfaced yet, but.

Yeah, I think anything we have wouldn't go back further than the 70s, at least here in NDS.

Are you interested in hearing from the peanut cowards?

Yes, so he's the applicant, so yeah, he can... Just if I can clarify something.

But you can call him the applicant.

Sure.

It's been there as long as I've been here and that makes it about 69 years and counting.

Any comments from the public?

Mr. Schneider, again, has a question or comment.

Mr. Schneider, do you hear us?

So just congratulations, beautiful place.

We even have a Baltimore connection, so we had a good chat about that, but I think the sincerity and concern for this family property is just incredible and I tip my hat to them.

Comments from the BEAR?

Yeah, and will even, you know, Mr. Hunt's mother working at Jefferson School.

and I was able to piece together from the census and from the directory some information but I certainly think there are some, the evolution of this story we can work on as it moves forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.

The text is there for that.

So wish us luck.

A quick question, so if this gets designated, I believe that it will, does it mean that it is preserved as it currently stands?

Alterations to the exterior would require BAR review, new construction, demolition.

Because 10th and Page is just serving.

So if I'm correct, pleasure to see you again.

That's right, that's right.

As long as James didn't dance.

No, not that day.

All right, yeah, no, I think, Carl, your point's well taken that potentially a historic person associated, at least at the local level, would be a prominent educator.

No, that's who I was referring to.

Do we hear a motion?

Having considered the criteria for designation of individually protected properties per city code chapter 34 section 2.9.3, I move the B error recommend that city council approve the request to designate 801 West Street, parcel 31-42, as an individually protected property and just request that staff supplement the record of this with current photos and the history of who's lived there.

and perhaps documentation of recent modifications.

He did.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

We would support approval by City Council listing this property as an IPP.

Make sure I'm...

Next up we've got Section E, Other Business, preliminary discussion for 705 St. Charles Street.

So if you have questions for me, I know folks from the builder here.

And so potentially we could see this again if that back portion of that lot also were to be developed.

Um, and I think part of that being that the intent when the district was established was the houses on Lexington, those, and it's, and so, but they just, when they drew the district, they just traced the parcel boundaries.

So another question might be, what would it take to, um, amend the district boundary if the parcel, I guess the parcel would need to be split.

It would be the reverse of what we just discussed with Mr. Hunt.

Would you have to get like overwhelming community support for that change?

If the overlay were moved, just like the IPPs on 7th Street, you wouldn't be looking at anything over there.

I'm sorry, I don't have the pattern from Lexington.

From Lexington, specifically.

Google Map.

I think she's concerned about Saint Charles.

Is your main concern like what are the sight lines from Lexington Avenue?

Yeah, exactly.

I think it's a valid question.

Do we not

and then going down to St. Charles, which is not in the district, and saying, oh, well, because I didn't.

So the answer is that it's a case by case.

That was kind of where I was.

Right.

And you're actually going to see that, well, sorry, the front one you'll see in a month.

I think there was some back garage that we talked about.

And I'm open to disagreement on interpretation.

Do we know how long ago they separated?

And the folks here probably can tell you, this has all happened in the last six months, I think.

So the parcel has been split.

It is 705.

Yeah, so it was in as zero because the address had not yet been assigned.

And we have zeros all over town, so it's interesting.

Kate, can you take the street view at St. Charles too, please?

Is that the sort of essential...

Or you can say, no, I want this to be a rigid application of design guidelines.

But it's a historic conservation district, so it's got lesser guidelines to begin with.

but it doesn't show kind of...

It says building permit plan is what we got and I want to know why the driveway runs through the house.

Well that's the existing town.

It says proposed asphalt driveway.

There's no landscaping.

What I'm looking for is a context of setback, whereas this, if we go back to the street view, where.

It's 21.9 according to this.

Yeah, how does that relate to the houses next to it?

They're outside the district.

So this would be the first house on St. Charles probably that's built.

This is taken in the context of St. Charles.

Up to you.

What can we do to accept, hopefully, the garage roll being set 10 feet back?

But otherwise, it would have to come back to you for a formal vote.

How big is the lot?

If you look at the staff report, you get the idea of the second or third page of the staff report.

The map.

You get a context of the.

And our intention with the landscape design is to provide for additional privacy, not only for him as a resident on Lexington, but also for the future owner on this project as well.

Because vinyl was specified in what we received.

It's noted on the elevations there, but it will be fiber cement.

That's why staff was worried about that.

To be edited on the elevations.

Thank you very much.

I've got a question on the site plan that talks about a retaining wall at the front.

You can see it from Google Earth as well.

And so installing something that aesthetically matches with the design of the homes is our intent and hope that we can do it.

What's overgrown right there is a few feet tall.

But that's going to be replaced with a new one?

Replaced, yes.

That would be the same stone as the veneer stone that you're using for the foundation?

That way we keep the yard as flat as we can, ease the steps into the home on the front.

And then the garage floor is sort of at a half level?

Kind of be a split level between the basement and the first floor, subfloor.

Gravel fill.

I would not be excavated just digging out the basement to grade or to subgrade.

So any other, I guess, questions for the applicant?

in the district or even on St. Charles, I wonder.

So the hope is that we can all look at it objectively and find a pathway.

I think in this location, not too concerned.

But I also just therefore I kind of feel like I would look at this in the context of St. Charles Street that's not in the district and not really in relation to Lexington Avenue.

Yes, sir, correct.

That'd be fine with me.

But it's pre-application.

Can I help you guys out?

So your next steps, just work with Jeff on a formal COA and should be good to go.

I'll be in touch very soon.

All right, Jeff.

Thanks, Carl.

Items include reviewing draft changes and revisions of the AR bylaws and minor historic reviews scenario planning.

We can go through those quickly and then talk about the bylaws or we can get the bylaws out of the way if you guys have any thoughts on, maybe you have no questions or

I guess the question would be, do we need to vote on changes or vote on recommending them or anything?

When you all have had, and I don't want to ask Sherry to give us a legal opinion on this, but I think maybe you can help with some of the wording.

Please stop.

Please stop.

I'm not going to legalize anything.

I was asked to review the bylaws.

I don't intend to legally assist, okay?

That the chair's discretion you can have following that discussion you can allow the applicant to respond and I just don't know if Discussions the right word to use repeatedly so so many thoughts on that would be helpful, but it's understanding on

Robert's Rules of Order, when you're taking a vote, you've got a motion, you've got a second, there's a period of discussion, and then you take the vote.

That was the core of the question.

The changes to the bylaws, right, that you've...

Tried to put them in red.

Track changes got a little... For some reason, instead of showing things as... Where's the spark about questions and comments from the public?

So at the very beginning... 4.4, 4.3...

Keep Tempers Down, etc.

Yeah, I think when you were summarizing it earlier you seemed to insinuate that there was a back and forth.

I don't know, Carl, I don't know, how does the Planning Commission do it?

whereas they can, so during comments, they don't get to ask questions.

Sorry, who's they?

And as long as we're not thinking that it's a big time sink, I don't see the hurt.

Sometimes it is, at least in recent memory.

In fairness, I'll raise it and let you all decide, but I think the process as we have it works, and then you have the means to modify that process to circumstances going forward.

Let's move on.

Are they allowed three minutes per question or do we have to save all our questions and then they have to...

You all can, I think depending upon how the chair feels or you all feel individually, it is weird to ask nine questions or maybe 18 questions and then have the applicant.

What's he supposed to take notes on each question and then be limited to three minutes?

We get comments.

It just, it does need a little bit of updating, so let's take our time.

It just lets it, so if things get out of control, we've got a way of saying we've got to limit it to three minutes and move on.

and whatever it's called in debate, I don't know, you know, the final word that he gets to just wrap up, you know, which they should have time to do that, like summarize or whatever it is.

That's sort of what we've been doing.

I mean, there's some, you know, simplify it.

It's not a legal word, but whatever.

Yeah, I mean, it is more of a discussion.

I think that's the essence of what it is after those questions.

I know what you're asking me, so let me find the right words.

What if we just called it questions and answers?

We have our practice.

The Q&A for the BAR.

And we get hauled away.

And 4.7 says, nothing contained herein shall be construed as prohibiting the chair from conducting an orderly meeting.

You have a 4.7?

I don't have a 4.7.

Orderly meetings.

It's on the version that you gave us.

It was formerly 4.6.

Is that what this is?

Yeah, I don't have that.

Here, Jeff, this is from the 20th.

I have an extra copy.

All right.

Go, go, go, go.

But we could also preface it by saying we'd like the public and the applicant to address the BAR, not one another.

Next thing.

Thanks.

It's sort of right just before the vote.

That's how it reads.

Yeah.

allowing like that's an additional thing like when we're done talking and just whereas the should be it should not be after the comments I think yes final word it should be like down after 4.5 or after 4.4 I don't know exactly that that three minutes good question when you've asked questions you've gotten responses because we can then your comments are built on those right right that would take

I think you know what we want, but to me the pre-edited version is actually a little more clear.

The system as it is isn't broken, is it?

The chair and everybody seemed to keep things in order and didn't.

And so their explanation of an answer might take longer than three minutes, but it's valuable.

That's your discretion, right?

We need the three minutes when we need it, but we also need to allow for the right amount of discussion.

Let me have a solid answer from the past.

I think what you're trying to say is the irritating situation is where the applicant wants to respond to every single question or even comment from the public, which can be tiresome.

Maybe not all 10.

Yeah.

Does that make sense?

I think that's a good idea.

I will find out.

Is there a prohibition against that?

I mean, yeah, as Roger said, if they are a resident or not.

Or maybe they own property, if they're a neighbor or whatever.

Practicing architecture.

Other jurisdictions where they do ask the address.

Nobody goes, no one comes to our meetings to know about that.

If that's the case then if y'all could check on that.

Kind of note, yep.

St. Charles Street.

I didn't know that that was there.

I could be mistaken

But thanks Jenny because that was, I didn't realize that.

I was on BCA, not at the same time, but BAOR.

Mr.

I think Planning Commission did something that's not waiting a whole month but is like the next, something that complies with the notification thing.

Does that include lack of quorum issues?

But it was what to do in case a meeting can't happen.

If the meeting is cancelled for, you know, weather, act of God, whatever.

at the next possible date to meet the public.

Only if I could meet the public notice or requirements.

So there's a means to an end in there that if we really felt like something egregious had occurred, you can always ask counsel to review it.

That is a two to three months process, right?

And it wouldn't go to council with a BAR recommendation either, right?

I'm sorry.

It would just sort of be...

It would be that the aggrieved party would have to make, now you all certainly, the BAR can say, you know, we weren't able to meet because that asteroid hit, but here's how we feel about that.

That was a Tuesday.

Good start.

And then I didn't realize how bad I was working and didn't realize really what had happened.

So it can happen.

I mean, yeah, more than once in my time.

And so it's not a real option at that point.

But let me look at that.

Is the deferral listed in our bylaws or is it just part of the guidelines?

It's in our process manual.

Absolutely.

You should have reviewed it.

That's what you're saying?

So let's go to the neighborhood development web page.

Hold on, let me share so you can see how many clicks away it is.

I don't know where this went.

Where is it?

Look at that.

I thought the Planning Commission reviewed this.

We reviewed the zoning code and we reviewed the, we may have looked at this at some point in the, you know, all the documents we looked at, but I don't remember.

And we recently modified this and it had to get approval before it went live.

There may have been some trust that staff did it correctly.

Can you remind us what the public notification requirements are?

Five days.

And that's a policy.

kind of, if we defer it.

It's at the end when the public notices.

80 is 60, HC is 30.

That's HC, 60 is 80C.

Right, so I'm saying the Historic Conservation Districts will only have 30 days.

Oh, that's what you...

Thank you.

You get one meeting past...

But I can, so the reason the 30 days is in there is in the old ordinance, that's when you were required to act on a conservation district application.

The day after we meet, and if our next meeting isn't until 32 days later, they can get it submitted and approved without us even seeing it.

So this is a fairness to the applicant as much as anything.

That's just for ADC, though.

Because it's not in the code now.

I think we had 60 days when Martha Jefferson was created, I think it was still 60 days for that district.

if we could clarify the type and scale of project that might be helpful.

And you could get a demolition approved if someone got lucky and we didn't have a meeting.

But you could appeal that.

But then we're hoping the council is going to want to go for that appeal.

It's a fair question, and I

I've mentioned it to staff, I've mentioned it to planning commission staff, I've mentioned it here and it seems like there's a lot of, this is what the public wanted at one point, for a lot of different things in the zoning code, things get kind of pushed aside for that reason.

It might be unnecessary, but it did have some.

2.2.

2.2.

I mean, that's how we.

I'm stating the obvious.

That's what adding the Wednesday meeting.

I guess potentially June.

The reason in 2.6 and 2.7 the way it had been written is notice of meetings and I was supposed to give written notice to all of you and deliver it to your homes and so I clarified the notice of the meetings for you all

I used to get a packet of my home.

Carl still has his envelope.

I've just got a stack of applications somewhere.

And then I refer to public notice which is different from what you all have and so that's what those two things say.

Do we get notice for our meetings?

When she sends out the packet, I think that's our notice.

We can go back to deliveries.

I want Kate to show up on my front door with my matcha or something in the packet.

and then under 3.1 I just simply added that because the question came up with the majority of the membership of the BAR and but if there's only three members appointed and at that time well then two would be a quorum so just sort of making that's a clarification may not be necessary I got a question there is

For example, Jenny's appointed, but she's now no longer a member because she moved out of town.

There are currently eight members appointed members of the BAR.

The current members have it up.

It's just that in case there was en masse resignation.

I'll get to working on that.

and you know our ability to get a majority to vote.

So many people recused themselves for various reasons, like one or something.

Two.

Yeah, because of all these recusals.

So I'm just trying to... What is our moral requirement?

Five, until we fill our vacancy.

And then it's still five.

But if someone else were to leave, we'd go down to four.

And I wasn't going to debate it.

Did the Planning Commission do it, Carl?

I thought someone told me last time it was state law and said you couldn't do it.

The answer is you can't.

The council can't.

My mom said it and we're not going to argue with my mom.

We're not elected officials that may have something to do with it?

It's fine.

It's helpful.

And then the

Does this imply they have to come in that order?

Well you all, according to another section I can't recall which, can rearrange the agenda.

But it gives at least some... That's the one above.

Okay, gotcha.

No matter

So I'm saying we have an order to our meeting here's our order and then if something occurs and that here's where it falls.

For example, we know an applicant is coming and they, you know, write traffic or bad weather or something.

They were told by the old Robert Times schedule that it was 7.30.

But I wouldn't do it, like, lightly.

It's like punishment.

No, at least what I've done lately is we've done it right away as sort of the first new item.

I'm sorry, I should be reading this more closely.

Uh, in 4, the preamble of 4.

Yes.

How are you referring to section C?

We'll make that clear under 3.6.

Right?

Yeah, we'll make that clear.

You're calling it C based on R?

Yeah, A, B, C, D. Right.

I hate it.

I think it's an outlining.

Outlining.

Section 4, we already had a healthy discussion on that.

Could I shift back to 3.5?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, no, the 3.4.

3.4.

I live in the neighborhood of Fifeville.

He actually said she's biased and that she should remove herself.

Ms. Lewis had offered, I thought,

So just trying to distinguish between the legal term is if you stand to make or lose money, don't participate.

He knew because I had gained such

Not saying, you know, here are the 800 reasons you can do it, but there are reasons when someone recuses himself voluntarily that's different from a conflict of interest.

Well, I was just going to say the procedure should be that you announce it, you know, before the, when the chair raises the application, you announce it then and you step down off the dais, maybe you should go out of the room, I don't know, you know, but just how it's handled is what I would want to put in here.

Got it.

Maybe not necessarily the reasons why we do it because that might

So I think it's if you're asking like what what a lot

to the city attorney, actually, like she shouldn't be able to vote on this.

So I don't know if there's language there.

Does he have time to do that?

And I mean, it seems like this could completely sink a meeting.

And he's a criminal prosecutor.

Because if you're going to sit here in the middle of a meeting and ask for a ruling from a city attorney, there's no way that's going to happen.

We used to have city attorneys occasionally appear here when we had like a hot application that might be appealed or something and maybe they watch remotely now you know they could be but yeah that was my question is it kind of like a grind everything to a complete haul

Is that not under the sort of, like...

But I think when someone says, you know, in Ms. Lewis' circumstances, where she said, I'm removing myself from this, that was done prior, and it wasn't, you know, she'd say, I'm just going to sit up here and listen.

and therefore I'm going to recuse myself.

Right, but then you remove in the process and when it's done...

But then I can't sit up here and that you have to do it before, like I don't hear the whole discussion and I'm like, oh this is going the other way or this is not going my way, I'm going to now decide I'm going to recuse myself.

No, it needs to be at the beginning of the discussion.

So I just phrased that because recusal is not currently in here, voluntary, self-recusal.

or is it just that that's a standard practice on boards in general?

A board member's son was a developer and he was doing a big project.

That's a conflict of interest.

Right, and I think it's appropriate.

I'm like, oh, they're supposed to?

Well, that's the other thing.

You are not participating in that discussion.

You also... Well, I didn't know we should leave the room, so I sat in the back of the room.

It says, voluntary recusals, any member may recuse themselves voluntarily if they have a personal conflict with the application or something like that, I don't know.

I would just say if they can't carry out their duties as a board member, you don't have to say why.

I guess I was just trying to differentiate between a true conflict of interest.

It looks like he's losing support or whatever.

At which time staff will go and bring them back into the room.

I haven't been out there for a while.

No, just say at which time a staff member will go and bring them back into the meeting.

or leave them out there.

Which I think is good policy just for having...

I mean, you used the example of Theo Van Groll like having his own house as an application and he still sat on the BAR and voted on it.

And he voted on Ron Bailey's house.

Mike Goldstein had to have his wife present, and he had to go sit in the hallway when they were doing all of his projects.

It says, basically, if I'm reading this right, even if I have a financial interest, I may disuse myself, or I may not.

OK.

And that would, anyway, that wasn't taken.

And this was at the recommendation of some of you to clarify the training.

So those one-hour training videos you sent us were very helpful.

Yeah.

You want to continue to do that, I think we'll be able to fulfill this requirement more easily.

What happened?

Does anybody want a bathroom break?

Yes.

All right, we're going to take a...

Well, what else is there?

Let's take 10.

Let's take 10.

I'm confused.

He's got minor historic review scenario planning as a topic.