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