# Board of Architectural Review - February 26, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 26, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4959 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4959?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-02-26 - **Last revised**: February 26, 2020 - **Length**: 3,903 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on February 26, 2020, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220, with the Chair presiding. The board reviewed five agenda items involving proposed modifications to properties within various historic districts throughout the city. During the meeting, the board took five votes on applications ranging from solar panel installations to structural modifications and parking lot improvements. Three applications were approved, including solar panel installation at 194 North Limestone in the Constitution Historic District, chimney removal at 394 Linden Walk in the Aylesford Historic District, and balcony infill work at 356 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District. Two applications were deferred for further review: a rear stair construction project at 118 Desha Road in the Ashland Park Historic District and gravel parking lot refresh at 132 East Third Street in the Constitution Historic District. No public comments were recorded during this meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present for the meeting on February 26, 2020: • Jamie Clark • Justin Denton • Tammy Copeland No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered five applications during the February 26, 2020 meeting, approving three and postponing two. **Case 11660194-2** - The board approved by voice vote an application for 194 North Limestone to install solar panels. The approval included conditions requiring resubmission if the roof height exceeds six inches, and that any changes must be reviewed by other LFUCG divisions and resubmitted to staff or the board prior to starting work. **Case 134150-3561-C** - A motion by Mr. Chairman was approved by voice vote for 356 South Mill Street to infill the front balcony and courtyard and change openings. The approval was granted with two standard conditions. **Case 11720394** - The board approved by voice vote an application for 394 Linden Walk to remove a chimney. Mr. Chairman made the motion for approval. The board noted that the property came into the neighborhood without the chimney and determined it was not a substantial architectural feature. **118 Desha Road Application** - The board voted by voice vote to postpone an application for 118 Desha Road to construct a rear stair. No case number was provided for this application. **132 East Third Street Application** - An application for 132 East Third Street to refresh a gravel parking lot was postponed by voice vote. No case number was provided for this application. All approved motions passed by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts. The specific members who made motions and provided seconds were not consistently recorded in the meeting data, with only Mr. Chairman identified as making motions on two occasions. Transcript timestamps were not available for any of the votes in the provided meeting records. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in the board overriding staff recommendations. **Removal of chimney at 394 Linden Walk** The primary point of contention involved a proposal to remove a chimney at 394 Linden Walk. Staff had recommended disapproval of the chimney removal request, creating a procedural dispute between staff recommendations and the applicant's proposal. During board discussion, members examined the historical context surrounding the chimney and evaluated its current physical condition. The deliberation focused on balancing preservation concerns with practical considerations regarding the structure's state. Despite the staff's recommendation for disapproval, the board ultimately voted to approve the chimney removal after weighing the historical significance against the chimney's condition and other relevant factors discussed during the meeting. This decision represented a departure from staff guidance, highlighting the board's independent evaluation of the merits of the case based on the evidence and arguments presented during the public hearing process. ## 194 North Limestone (Constitution Historic District) Install solar panels The commission reviewed a proposal to install solar panels on the roof of the Lower School building at 194 North Limestone, located within the Constitution Historic District. Jamie Clark presented the application for the solar panel installation project. The discussion focused on the proposed placement of solar panels on the building's roof and how this modern addition would impact the historic character of the structure and surrounding district. Following review and discussion of the proposal, the commission determined that the solar panel installation could proceed with certain conditions attached to the approval. The specific conditions were designed to ensure that the installation would be compatible with the historic nature of the building and district while allowing for the renewable energy improvement. The commission voted to approve the application for installing solar panels at 194 North Limestone, with the understanding that the applicant would need to comply with the specified conditions as part of the approval process. This decision reflects the commission's approach to balancing historic preservation requirements with modern sustainability initiatives, allowing property owners in historic districts to pursue environmentally beneficial improvements while maintaining the architectural and historical integrity of the area. ## 394 Linden Walk (Aylesford Historic District) Remove chimney The board considered a request to remove a chimney at 394 Linden Walk in the Aylesford Historic District. The chimney in question had been previously blown out, creating the need for its removal. Tammy Copeland served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application involved a property located within the historic district boundaries, requiring board review for any exterior modifications. Staff had reviewed the proposal and recommended disapproval of the chimney removal request. However, following board discussion, the members reached a different conclusion than the staff recommendation. Despite the staff's recommendation for disapproval, the board voted to approve the removal of the chimney. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with removing the damaged chimney structure from the historic district property. The decision represents one of the cases where the board exercised its discretion to override staff recommendations, ultimately determining that the chimney removal was appropriate for this particular property and circumstances within the Aylesford Historic District. ## 356 South Mill Street (South Hill Historic District): Infill open balcony and co The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed an application for modifications to 356 South Mill Street, located within the South Hill Historic District. The proposed work involved infilling an existing open balcony and courtyard area, as well as making changes to building openings. Justin Denton served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application addressed alterations to the historic property that required commission review due to its location within the designated historic district. The proposed modifications included: • Infilling the front balcony structure • Infilling courtyard space • Changes to existing building openings The commission evaluated the proposal against historic preservation standards and guidelines applicable to properties within the South Hill Historic District. The discussion focused on how the proposed changes would impact the historic character and integrity of the building and its compatibility with the surrounding historic district. Following their review and discussion, the Historic Preservation Commission approved the application. The approval came with standard conditions typically applied to historic district projects, which likely included requirements for materials, construction methods, and compliance with preservation guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the infill work on the balcony and courtyard areas, as well as the proposed changes to building openings, subject to meeting the specified conditions and obtaining any additional required permits. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 118 Desha Road (Ashland Park Historic District) Construct rear stair The application for constructing a rear stair at 118 Desha Road in the Ashland Park Historic District was briefly addressed during the meeting. This property is located within the historic district boundaries, requiring review for any exterior modifications. The agenda item was postponed without substantive discussion. The application was deferred until the March 11, 2020 meeting to allow for additional review time or to accommodate scheduling conflicts. No specific details about the proposed rear stair construction were presented during this meeting, and no speakers addressed the item. The deferral suggests that either the applicant requested additional time to prepare materials, the review board needed more information to properly evaluate the proposal, or there were procedural reasons requiring the postponement. **Outcome:** The application was postponed until March 11, 2020. ## 132 East Third Street (Constitution Historic District): Refresh gravel parking lot The application to refresh the gravel parking lot at 132 East Third Street in the Constitution Historic District was scheduled for review but was not discussed during the February 26, 2020 meeting. The agenda item was postponed until the March 11, 2020 meeting without any presentation or debate taking place. No speakers addressed this item, and no concerns or comments were raised regarding the proposed gravel parking lot refresh project. The outcome was a deferral to allow for consideration at the next scheduled meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Case 11660194-2** — passed (0-0): Approval of application for 194 North Limestone to install solar panels - **Case 134150-3561-C** — passed (0-0): Approval of application for 356 South Mill Street to infill front balcony and courtyard, change openings - **Case 11720394** — passed (0-0): Approval of application for 394 Linden Walk to remove chimney - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone application for 118 Desha Road to construct rear stair - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone application for 132 East Third Street to refresh gravel parking lot --- ## Full transcript The ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ February 26, 2020 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The HPO office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. the board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from other entities. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of nine approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 229 South Hanover Avenue, replace fence. In the Ellsford District, at 394 Linden Walk, renovate structure. At 222 Clay Avenue, 236 Clay Avenue, and 256 Clay Avenue, install gas meter. In the Pensacola Historic District at 167 Goodrich Avenue, replace fence. At 153 Rosemont Garden, install guardrails. In the Northside Historic District at 485 West Short Street, replace fence. At 735 West Main Street, Western Suburbs Historic District, replace replacement windows. Those are the approved applications. We will now turn to our consideration of the applications that have been submitted to us today. return first to 194 North Limestone install solar panels on the roof of the lower school school I think I've seen you before thank you name for the record please Jamie Clark with synergy home all right and you're with synergy okay the staff has recommended approval of the application subjects to what I call one substance of condition and the other is That's what we call the standard. The first one is resubmit the staff for review and approval if the height of the panels above the roof is to exceed six inches. The other two are once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. And if any changes are made that altered information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with those? I am. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? questions or comments from my very large audience all right then I think the chair is ready for a motion chair I'm on case number one one six six zero one nine four dash two at one four one ninety four North Limestone I recommend approval of this application for the noted recommendations. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. I hope to see you again really soon. I hope to see you again too. I'm going to be at every meeting for the next six months. hey you know it's the best thing next to watching grass thank you so much okay I'm going to exercise my prerogative as a chair I'm going to move to attachment number three before we go into what I know it's going to be a hearing and that this is 356 South Mill Street the scope of work is infill the front balcony and side courtyard change and install new openings come on up if you'll state your name for the record please I'm Justin Denton at 356 South Mill Street mr. Denton nice meeting I think the staff has recommended approval of your application and they have attached to it the standard two conditions are in agreement with those I am yes any questions or concerns from the board members I I don't it's it's a little unusual given the nature of the existing materials but those were designed and approved back in 1982 so things may have changed since then but we are we have what we have anything else I don't have any other concerns any questions or concern from the audience if not then I think the chair is ready for a motion mr. chairman regarding case number one three one five zero three five six one dash C at three fifty six South Mill Street I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, Chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ditton. I appreciate it. All right, turning now to attachment number 2, 394 Linden Walk in the Ellsworth Historic District. Scope of work, remove chimney. Are you Ms. Copeland? I am Tammy Copeland. All right, Tammy, nice to meet you. I'm assuming you want to be heard on this. Pardon me? The staff has recommended disapproval of your application. I'm assuming that you would like to be heard. Yes, please. All right, what we normally do is have a case presentation by the, Barry, are you the one handling this? All right, come on up and do your case presentation. And the procedure is he'll make a presentation, then Ms. Copeland, you can explain why you think that you're entitled to have the application approved and you may get some questions from the board members all right 394 linden walk the scope of the work is to remove a previously blown down chimney the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to remove the remains of a chimney that was blown down during a windstorm at some point in the past while the property was owned by a previous owner the structure has three chimneys all of which are in some altered state and by altered I mean they need some work they haven't other than this one they haven't really been changed a lot two chimneys remain in there at their original height but need some repair as referred to above the chimney in question was blown over the chimney's brick was removed and a copper chimney cap was installed over the chimney remains that extend just above the roof the applicant holds a staff issued coa to re-roof the structure repair box gutters repoint the two other chimneys or and other masonry and to repair elements of the front porch guidelines are included so this is 394 front elevation you can see the one prominent chimney here that as you work your way around to the north that's the chimney that shows obviously from the front elevation wrong direction and this is the chimney in question. You can see that it's maybe a couple inches up to that chimney or, I'm sorry, to the cap. This is looking back to the west at the chimney and the cap that's been placed over it. And it's looking from above. This is on the south side, and this is the third chimney. There's another view of it. uh, staff finds the proposal to remove the chimney does not meet the guidelines. The design principle reads and are in part reads chimneys are often significant features of a property and may help define, um, its architectural character the chimneys on many lexian fayette county buildings were designed to be architectural features in their own right and display corbeling inset panels decorative elements reflective of their overall building style chimneys should be maintained even if they do not serve their historic function removing an original chimney lessens the properties architectural integrity as well as traditional building pattern indicative of the property's history guideline 15a additionally states that chimneys should not be removed or altered if original or architecturally significant staff recommends denial of the proposal and the deadline for board action is March 31st a couple of questions do you know how long ago the chimney was destroyed by wind don't know exactly but it was a while back just curious how did this come to your attention for did miss Copeland just filed application to try to bring her house up in compliance oh yes they're they're recent purchasers of the property and they're planning on having it re-roofed and obviously if you're gonna re-roof it if it could be taken there's fewer chances for leakage and less flashing I'm assuming we passed the opportunity of having insurance pay for the damage sure have we or do you know I would not have the answer to that all right miss Copeland so I'm respectfully requesting that we take it down and I've had a couple I've had three roofers look at it they all have said it's going to be really hard to flash because it's there's not much left as you can tell from the pictures to work with so well I think we may be in a worse you may be in a worse pickle than you realize so I i have a question for barry it's just a quick question um and obviously these appear to be original to the house yes ma'am they're not what i would you know they're not um corbaud highly detailed chimneys do you know if they're actually fireplace chimneys or are they more flue chimneys i think those are fireplace my house is very similar to that and i have three chimneys that right are fireplaces gas fireplaces gophlin do you know the answer i may be able i think i do um the two in the back are fireplace places i assume the one in the front was like a colt stove or something because there's just the hole up you know where the pipe would have been right that's my assumption and I take it you're seeking permission to take out what's left of the chimney the little bitty one yes I'm wondering for in a situation where she has to replace the entire chimney that would be my that would be my that would be my reading of it that's my reading this is where I think you're in a little bit more of a pickle than you realize ma'am I'm just trying to make the property better. I know. Okay. So that's part of why we're asking all these questions is to understanding that you and kind of inherited so to speak a condition and and I would be I mean I think the roofer is completely right that in that partial stub that's left of that one chimney it would be tricky to put a cricket up against it on the other hand it's really more of an issue of that whole chimney really should be there it it really violates the policies not to have replaced it and that's I think that's the pickle I think this is where we're struggling this should have been brought to our attention well I just bought the house on January 13th Ma'am, we're not giving this to you. At some point, this should have come to the... Yeah. This should have been discovered either by staff or should have been reported. Yes, ma'am. Well, and I would just say that this, I think, is an existing condition. Prior to the adoption? Right. I think, you know, as this is Ellsford, there are many different existing conditions that are, you know... Predate. Predate the historic district. Now, this district has been around since 98. That's right. That chimney's been gone that long? I would say that it's been a while. The only thing I would say is that in 2007, there was that sort of a storm, tornado that went through. But on this part of the, it went through and sort of went towards campus, and it missed this section. But the part closer to Maxwell, it did hit. I remember the storm of 2007. It wasn't in that part of town. Well, actually it was because we actually had several different chimneys knocked down on Lindenwalk, but it went towards campus, sort of towards Fine Arts Building, and missed this section. But there has been a lot of existing additions, and so I would just say that given the state of the chimney and looking at the chimney, this has been the state for a long time. Do we have any Google photographs by any chance? Do we have any photographs at all? and you know if we have photos a lot of times the photos are just as you see here the front and the back and not necessarily that particular angle Barry what's the date of this picture just recently is this a recent picture yes last Thursday so am I if the stub if if this damage occurred prior to the adoption of the district in 98 then that's a whole different consideration and that may come that may account for why it wasn't reported to us now we come to the question of what to do with the sub I'm inclined to think it's unusual and it's a common exemption, but there's actually going to be more damage done to that roof leaving that chimney in place, trying to flash around it as opposed to taking it out and re-roofing. What do you think, Josh? I would agree with that. And I'm also thinking, I'm just trying to think through the changing hands of ownership and what it's like to buy something that didn't exist and then have to restore it. That's kind of a tricky spot for this case. Well, the way I always look at it, if you have a code enforcement issue when you buy the house, you're going to have to bring in compliance with code enforcement. difference here is if you're not required to what we're saying is your roof as it is has been grandfathered in because it was proved in that condition when the district came into being some 20 odd years ago so in that respect I didn't mean to scare you but now what we're wrestling with is is this the contributing I see two more people coming in are you all witnesses for this case or? I'm sorry, what a minute. Okay, all right. We're just trying to determine whether this is a contributing, I'm not sure it's contributing to the to the appearance of the house or it's a historic fabric. It's all, it's a placeholder for what was a chimney. I mean that's that's the bottom line of what it is is it's noting that a chimney existed there it's not giving a three-dimensional presence to a chimney it's just saying I was here. Okay so if we made findings I think finding number one would be this the condition of this chimney pre-existed the adoption of the district the second is it's not contributing feature to the historic fabric and consequently it probably can be removed that makes sense to you all so the reason for my question about the function of the chimney was the only thing I'm struggling with is that if it's related to an actual fireplace then that is part of the architectural nature of the house everything else you said I I agree with. Is that fireplace operable? They're all boring. One's totally, one had to break down totally. I mean I suppose someone could rip out the bricks. I don't know. I have a hunch the fire marshal would never approve it for use. Without relining it likely. Yeah since there's nothing to reline. Is there any record of what that looked like or how high it was or how it was detailed. Sandboard maps, would they show that? Sandboard maps would not show that and as it was mentioned earlier, Google maps or something would not go back to that time and aerials you know might see some shadow. I mean, you could do a guess by the size of chimneys and houses similar to it in that neighborhood. So the policy is that chimneys should be retained and maintained. And the question is, if there's not a chimney there to be retained and maintained, And can one really say that that stub of it adds to the architectural nature of the house? And when I read the policy, it just doesn't seem to meet the guidelines for me. The argument is that this is not really the original chimney. That's right. That's right. The original chimney is already gone. If there was historical records of what it was, what it looked like, how tall it was, how it was detailed, then that would leave steps to restoring it. But since there isn't anything... You see, I'm not entirely sure we can force her to restore it if that was the condition of the chimney at the time it came into the district. That's what I meant by... Well, that as well. That's what I meant by ground following. I agree. That's why we have so many gravel driveways in that neighborhood. They all got grandfathered in. I'll be back about that later. I'm hoping you might pave it. Well, I got a concrete bid, and I was like, oh, okay. What about asphalt? Asphalt's okay, but you're not nearly as bad as, of course, what has happened to Ellsworth, which is all gravel now. I live three streets over. I'm on Transylvania. Okay. So I know the neighborhood. Any further discussion? Any comments from our visiting architecture students? Is that it? Okay, all right. If we make a motion to approve the removal of the chimney, we need findings. I'll try to give you two of them in my summations. just a moment so i know what one of them why is what was this i had suggested one is because it's in a pre-existing condition that's second of all it's not contributing to the historic fabric and that's not original. So given that I don't feel this puts us in a position of not being able to support the policy, which is always what we need to do, is to be very clear about following the guidelines on the policy. and when I read the guidelines on the policy, we're not talking about removing an original chimney. The chimney simply doesn't exist except as a stub, not as an architectural feature on the house. And that this is a, I think the most important point is we're not taking down the original chimney or authorizing that at all. that due to the fact that this was the way this house came into the neighborhood in 98. I think that's when the, when Elser became a historic district. 98 or 99? 99? Okay. That was a very busy year for the council. Okay. I thought you were in the middle of it. Well, I'll try it. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 11720394 at 394 Linden Walk, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness to remove the chimney in question. with the following findings, that the property came into the neighborhood without the chimney. And secondly, that it does not exist as a substantial architectural feature of the property as it came into the neighborhood. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion on the motion? Amelia, I want to check with you one more time. Is there any proof that might be available that would show the condition of that chimney post-1999? Our aerial photos only go back to 98. So, and the problem is with the aerials, it's not as definitive as you think because it's got the shadow lines. So, you know, the southern, the district actually became National Register earlier than that, but it wouldn't have back shots, only the front elevation. and when of course when the district was created they took front and back but sometimes it was selective if it was back so I think Barry had done some research about this and since the only aerials we would have go back to 98 I don't know if they were wanted to completely explore those or not what's our closing date on this March 31st we have another meeting date well we have one on March 11th that's true Barry did you have an opportunity to research that issue you well I've looked at what is readily available I haven't gone to the library or anywhere to try to research and as miss Armstrong said if the National Register being a not individually listed there's usually just a front elevation shot for the neighborhood. So and as I mentioned earlier when you look at aerials you know it's hard to know what you're looking at. Ms. Copeland what I'm struggling with is that technically speaking it's your burden to establish your entitlement to having that chimney removed and I was looking for more evidence rather than putting it on the staff but given how that copper hop has aged so much it's been there a long time I'm inclined to think it probably did disappear 20 some odd years ago so I have a motion do I have a second yes any further discussion on the motion chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye motion passes you don't have to put the chimney back thank you very much all right and you can take out the stuff so uh your application that as originally submitted has been approved notwithstanding the staff's recommendation thank you all right and melissa you're leaving right at 5 30. district tournament i know you all still have the postponements but yeah we have two more things to do scott county which i won't make it in time have fun all right uh we have two more as you here's my agenda we have a application on 118 for dashay road construct rear stair i need need a motion to postpone that to March 11 so moved a second second all right the motion passes at 132 East 3rd Street refresh the gravel parking lot my favorite application we have a motion to postpone until March 11 2020 second all right we're postponed to March 11 there being no further business chairs ready for a motion to adjourn I so move and adjourn thank you so much