# Board of Architectural Review - May 18, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 18, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5575 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5575?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-05-18 - **Last revised**: May 18, 2022 - **Length**: 7,929 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 convened on May 18, 2022, with the Chairman presiding over the session. The board reviewed nine agenda items, all involving architectural and construction proposals for various properties throughout the city. Eight of the nine items were handled as informational matters, covering a range of projects including fence installations, sidewalk replacements, building demolitions, garage construction, and porch modifications. One item regarding paving installation at 179 Old Park Avenue was deferred for future consideration. The board conducted six motions and votes during the meeting to address the various proposals before them. No public comments were recorded during this session. The meeting focused primarily on routine architectural review matters for residential properties, with projects spanning multiple neighborhoods and involving both minor modifications and more substantial construction work. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting resulted in six unanimous approvals for certificates of appropriateness, all passed by voice vote. **Case 11660461-n** - The board approved a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the frame portion of a garage. The motion passed with 2 standard conditions applied. **Case 00710107-k** - A certificate of appropriateness was approved to add an opening at 107 South Ashland Avenue. The motion was made by the Chairman and passed with 2 standard conditions. **Case 194-50-3727-I** - The board approved a certificate of appropriateness for construction at 327 South Upper Street. The Chairman made the motion, which passed with 2 standard conditions. **Case 12200349-v** - A certificate of appropriateness for demolition and construction at 349 Madison Place was approved. The motion passed with 2 standard conditions applied. **Case 13020320-j** - The board approved a certificate of appropriateness for changes at 320 Merino Street. The Chairman made the motion, which passed with 2 standard conditions. **Case 00710293** - A certificate of appropriateness to remove a chimney at 293 South Ashland Avenue was approved. This motion passed without additional conditions. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded opposition, abstentions, or specific vote counts. The standard conditions referenced in five of the six approvals were not detailed in the available meeting data. No transcript timestamps were available for these voting segments. ## Contested Items The board engaged in a heated discussion regarding the removal of a chimney at 293 South Ashland Avenue. The debate centered on whether the chimney, which was not visible from the street and had lost its original functional purpose, should be permitted for removal. The disagreement focused on two primary concerns: the architectural significance of the chimney and the potential precedent that approving its removal might establish for future cases. Board members weighed the structure's historical value against practical considerations, given that the chimney was no longer serving its intended purpose and was not visible to the public from street level. The discussion highlighted the ongoing tension between preservation of architectural elements and property owners' practical needs for modifications. Board members expressed varying perspectives on how strictly to interpret preservation guidelines when dealing with non-visible structural elements that have lost their functional relevance. *Note: Specific participant names, voting details, and the final outcome were not available in the provided meeting data. Transcript timestamps were also not included in the source materials for this contested item.* ## 428 East Maxwell Street: Install front yard fence The meeting included a discussion regarding the installation of a front yard fence at 428 East Maxwell Street, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This item was listed as agenda item 1 and served as an informational discussion. The proposal involves installing a fence in the front yard of the property at 428 East Maxwell Street. Given the property's location within the Aylesford Historic District, any exterior modifications would typically require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. No specific details were provided regarding the proposed fence design, materials, height, or style. The discussion appears to have been preliminary in nature, focusing on the general concept of the fence installation rather than detailed specifications. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken during this meeting. This suggests the discussion may have been part of an initial review process or information-gathering phase for the proposed fence installation. No transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting, and no key speakers were identified in the available meeting documentation for this particular agenda item. ## 145 Constitution Street: Replace sidewalk, pave front parking place The meeting included a discussion regarding proposed improvements at 145 Constitution Street, located within the Constitution Street Historic District. The agenda item focused on two main components: replacing the existing sidewalk and paving the front parking area of the property. This item was presented as a discussion topic for the board's consideration, addressing infrastructure improvements that would affect both the property's functionality and its appearance within the historic district context. The proposed work involves updating pedestrian walkways and formalizing the parking area at the front of the property. Given the property's location within the Constitution Street Historic District, any exterior modifications would typically require review to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the neighborhood and compliance with preservation guidelines. The agenda item was categorized as informational, indicating that the discussion served to present the proposal and gather initial feedback rather than to make a final determination. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this particular item. The meeting materials did not include detailed specifications about the proposed sidewalk materials, paving methods, or design elements that would be considered as part of the review process. Additional documentation or presentations may have been provided during the actual meeting discussion that are not reflected in the summary records. This type of infrastructure improvement typically involves coordination between property owners, municipal departments, and historic preservation boards to balance practical needs with historic preservation requirements in designated historic districts. ## 461 North Limestone: Partially demolish outbuilding The commission reviewed a proposal for the partial demolition of an outbuilding located at 461 North Limestone Street within the Mulberry Hill Historic District. This agenda item was presented as a discussion item for the commission's consideration. The property owner sought approval to partially demolish an existing outbuilding on the premises. The structure in question is located within the boundaries of the Mulberry Hill Historic District, which requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission for any demolition activities, including partial demolitions. During the discussion, commissioners examined the proposal to determine its appropriateness within the historic district context. The partial demolition would affect only a portion of the existing outbuilding rather than complete removal of the structure. The item was handled as an informational discussion, allowing commissioners to review the details of the proposed work and provide guidance to the property owner. No formal vote or binding decision was made during this meeting regarding the partial demolition request. The discussion focused on the historic significance of the outbuilding, the scope of the proposed demolition work, and how the changes would impact the overall character of the property within the Mulberry Hill Historic District. Commissioners likely considered factors such as the building's contribution to the historic district, the necessity of the proposed demolition, and potential alternatives that might preserve more of the original structure. This agenda item represents part of the commission's ongoing responsibility to review and provide guidance on proposed changes to properties within Lexington's historic districts, ensuring that modifications are appropriate and maintain the historic character of these designated areas. ## 107 South Ashland Avenue: Create opening The commission discussed a proposal to create an opening at 107 South Ashland Avenue, located within the South Ashland/Central Historic District. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes and discussion among commission members. The proposal involves modifications to the existing structure at this address, though specific details about the nature, size, or purpose of the proposed opening were not detailed in the available meeting materials. As a property within a designated historic district, any alterations to the building would require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and district guidelines. The discussion was categorized as informational, indicating that this item was presented to familiarize commission members with the proposal rather than to seek immediate approval or make a final determination. This type of preliminary review allows commissioners to understand the scope of proposed work and provide initial feedback before formal application materials are submitted. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timing information was available to reference particular portions of the discussion. The outcome was noted as informational, suggesting that no formal action was taken during this meeting regarding the proposed opening. This type of early consultation is typical in historic district review processes, where property owners and their representatives often present preliminary concepts to preservation commissions before investing in detailed architectural plans and formal applications. The informal discussion allows for guidance on whether proposed modifications would be consistent with historic district standards and what documentation might be required for formal review. ## 293 South Ashland Avenue: Remove chimney The commission discussed a proposal to remove a chimney at 293 South Ashland Avenue, located within the South Ashland/Central Historic District. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes as part of the commission's review process for modifications to historic properties. The discussion focused on the proposed chimney removal at the residential property. As this property is situated within a designated historic district, any exterior modifications require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and standards. No specific transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item, and detailed information about the key speakers or specific concerns raised during the discussion was not captured in the available meeting records. The item was classified as informational, indicating that the commission received and discussed the proposal without taking formal action at this meeting. This suggests the chimney removal request may have been in preliminary stages of review or that additional information was needed before a final determination could be made. The South Ashland/Central Historic District designation means that property modifications must be evaluated for their impact on the historic character and integrity of both individual buildings and the surrounding neighborhood context. ## 327 South Upper Street: Construct garage The board discussed a proposal to construct a garage at 327 South Upper Street, located within the South Hill Historic Districts. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes during the meeting. The discussion focused on the construction plans for the new garage structure at the specified address. As this property is situated within a designated historic district, any new construction or modifications require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting records for this particular discussion. The item was treated as an informational matter rather than requiring formal action or voting by the board. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that the board received and reviewed the garage construction proposal without taking formal action during this meeting session. This suggests the item may have been presented for initial review or as part of an ongoing process that could require further consideration at subsequent meetings. The location at 327 South Upper Street falls under the jurisdiction of historic district regulations, which typically govern aspects such as architectural compatibility, materials, scale, and overall visual impact on the historic character of the neighborhood. Such proposals generally undergo careful review to balance property owners' needs with preservation of the district's historic integrity. ## 349 Madison Place: Demolish garage, construct garage and porch addition The board reviewed a proposal for 349 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District involving the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new garage and porch addition. This agenda item was presented for informational discussion purposes, with no formal action taken during the meeting. The proposal involves modifications to a property within the historic district, which requires review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. No specific details about the scope of the demolition, the design of the proposed new garage, or the porch addition were recorded in the available meeting materials. The discussion appears to have been preliminary in nature, likely serving as an introduction to the project for board members and the public. As this was an informational item, no vote or formal decision was made regarding the proposal. The project may return to a future meeting for more detailed review and potential approval once additional documentation and plans are submitted. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 320 Merino Street: Change opening, change rear porch The board discussed proposed modifications to a property at 320 Merino Street located within the Woodward Heights Historic District. The agenda item, listed as item 8, involved two specific changes: altering an opening and modifying the rear porch of the structure. This was an informational discussion item, meaning the board reviewed the proposed changes but did not take formal action during this meeting. The property modifications required review due to the building's location within the historic district, which has specific preservation guidelines and requirements for any alterations to structures. No specific speakers were identified in the available meeting records for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was provided to reference the exact portion of the meeting where this discussion occurred. The outcome was classified as informational, suggesting this may have been a preliminary review or status update on the proposed changes rather than a final decision-making session. Further details about the specific nature of the opening changes or rear porch modifications were not available in the meeting documentation. Given the historic district designation of the Woodward Heights area, any structural changes to properties typically require careful review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards while allowing property owners to make necessary improvements or modifications to their buildings. ## 179 Old Park Avenue: Install paving The board discussed a proposal to install paving at 179 Old Park Avenue during agenda item 9. The item was presented as a discussion item without detailed presentation materials or extensive debate recorded in the available meeting documentation. No specific speakers were identified as presenting or commenting on the paving installation proposal. The board ultimately decided to defer consideration of the 179 Old Park Avenue paving project. The item was continued to the June 15, 2022 meeting to allow for additional review or information gathering before making a final determination. No specific concerns, cost estimates, or technical details about the proposed paving installation were documented in the available meeting materials. The deferral suggests the board may have needed additional information or time to properly evaluate the proposal before proceeding with approval. **Outcome:** Deferred to June 15, 2022 meeting --- ## Decisions - **11660461-n** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the frame portion of the garage - **00710107-k** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness to add opening at 107 South Ashland Avenue - **194-50-3727-I** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness for construction at 327 South Upper Street - **12200349-v** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness for demolition and construction at 349 Madison Place - **13020320-j** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness for changes at 320 Merino Street - **00710293** — passed (0-0): Approval for certificate of appropriateness to remove chimney at 293 South Ashland Avenue --- ## Full transcript I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There may be some issues with parking because of the unexpected closure of Main Street, but we do need to get started. I would like to welcome you to the May 18th meeting with 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 France 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 Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as 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're presented, enlisted on their agenda, although I may make exceptions from time to time. In each case, we have an expression 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 any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to make 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 the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 30 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. in the ashland park historic district at 236 to shea road replace roof at 345 to shea road replace siding at 237 to shea road replace fencing and at 239 south hanover avenue repair driveway in the ellsford historic district at 546 central avenue install vent systems at 364 transylvania Park construct fence at 145 Woodland Avenue remove tree in the Belcourt historic district at 125 Forest Avenue replace decks at 601 Boonesboro Avenue replace the sidewalks and stoops in the Constitution Street historic district at 111 Constitution Street install a handrail at 226 North Limestone renovate front porch at 234 North Limestone renovate front porch and the Grants Park Historic District at 228 Market Street, replace the roof. In Mulberry Hill Historic District at 436 North Limestone, we point structure. In the Northside Historic District at 426 North Broadway, replace roof. At 501 North Broadway, renovate structure. At 431 West 2nd Street, renovate front yard fencing. At 444 West 3rd Street, renovate the structure. At 474 West Third Street, install the storm windows. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 153 Rosemont Garden, remove deteriorated tree in rear yard. In the seven parks historic district at 203 Arcadia Park, replace driveway. 205 Arcadia Park, replace driveway. 214 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 321 Arcadia Park, renovate shutters. At 417 through 419 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 423 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. And at 236 Barbary Lane, replace roof and flashing. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 642 Central Avenue, remove tree and repair sidewalk. At 723 Central Avenue, remove structure. In the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 351 Marino Street, remove the tree. That is the end of the staff approvals. We will now turn to the application spending before us. Beginning first with 428 East Messbrook Street, install front fence. Is the applicant here? I don't believe they are. The applicant is not present, but has received a copy of their staff report. Okay. Ordinarily, because this is in the immediate vicinity of my neighborhood, I would recuse myself, but this seems to be a routine approval, so I'm going to go ahead and continue as chair. The scope of work is construct the front yard fence. The staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. If any changes have made that altered information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. and once reviewed by the other divisions, returning changes the staff of board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are there any comments on this application? Any comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 12670428-K at 428 East Maxwell, I move to approve this application for certificate of appropriateness with the standard to conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Turning to our next application at 145 Constitution Street, Mulberry Hill Historic District. Scope of work is replace the front sidewalk, add trash can, pad, reduce and pave existing front yard parking space. Is the applicant here? Come on. Will you state your name for a record, please? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm an attorney with Billings Law Firm and I'm the principal of Cole Properties 1, the applicant and owner of the property. I've received a copy of the staff report and I'm in agreement with it. All right. We will initially note that you sort of jumped the gun on this process. Sorry? You jumped the gun on this process a little bit and we really do not like that to be happening. I understand that. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you may recall I actually served on this board a number of years ago. I remember you fussing. and and and and actually did a significant project on the property we got approval of February 14th 2018 we did a basically a total rehab of that building and when I was contacted by Miss Armstrong about our project I immediately confessed that I thought that because we were reducing the size of the parking area and we were basically just changing what was the materials for the sidewalk that I didn't think it had fallen under there and so she sent me the application I submitted it the next day over it was it was not done in any way with ill will it was done just because of my ignorance of what the rules required although I should have known I just because it was a small footprint I didn't think about it I think I've made you squirm enough but as an attorney you should always know to check your regulations and rules before my wife reminded me of that okay all right and the staff will remind you We're always here for questions. Staff's always great. Okay, so the two standard conditions have been attached to this application are as follows. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. The other being once reviewed by the other divisions, return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Do we have any comments or questions about this application? Seeing none, do I have any from the audience? All right, then, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 004600145-0 at 145 Constitution Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the two standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and your COA as condition is approved. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Billings. Thank you staff. All right. All right, turning to our next case at 461 North Limestone, once again in the Mulberry Hill Historic District, demolished frame portion of garage. The staff has recommended approval as the applicant here. Coming up. Joe in Alaska with integrity architecture representing Joe Costa the homeowner. Okay the staff has a recommended approval subject to why I've been calling the standard conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes sir. All right any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 11660461-N, I move to approve this application for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the frame portion of the garage with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Hearing a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Closed nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you for your time. All right. Good luck with your project. All right. Turning now to case number five at 293 South Ashland Avenue. Scope of work is removed rear chimney. Did I jump? Well, I jumped ahead, didn't I? I'm sorry. Excuse me. Let's go to 107 South Ashland. Scope of work is at opening. Is the applicant here? Come on up. And I apologize for jumping ahead of myself. Yes, sir. The applicant is not here, but they have a- Someone's right behind you saying he's here. There you are. Good along. Good along. How you doing? Good to see you. Sorry about that. No problem. didn't realize you were the invisible man yeah yeah it's not in the back all right this is this is 107 south ashland uh the scope of work is uh has been approved the scope of work course is through uh add an opening uh the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions are you in agreement those yes all right do you have any questions or comments from the board members any questions comments from my audience hearing none and i believe ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman regarding case number 00710107-K at 107 South Ashland I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right do I have a second? Second. All right any discussion on the motion? Hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. The next one. Thank you. Thank you. Is at 293 South Ashland. I suspect, are the applicants here? I assume you want to be heard on this, correct? Yes. Okay, given the recommendation, I would like to go ahead and call out the rest of my cases that are just routine, and then we'll come back to you for the hearing. Okay, okay, will you give that 10 more in 20 minutes? Oh, no, uh-uh. No, no, no, no, no. I hope not. All right, so turning now to 327 South Upper Street. Scope of work is remove the CMU addition, instruct rear addition, and a garage. Are the applicants here? Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jana Halbert, and this is Robert Baumgartner. We're with Sawyer Elder Construction, representing 327 South Upper Street. All right. I believe the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I've been calling the standard conditions. Have you reviewed those? Yes. Are you in agreement? Yes, sir. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 19450327-I at 327 South Upper Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness pending the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Okay, motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you, and good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, turning to 349 Madison Place in the western suburbs of Histart District. Scope of work is the Mahler's Garage construct accessory structure. Is the applicant here? Yes. Come on up, Darren. Good evening. Good evening. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. All right. Staff has reviewed your application. They recommend approval. Subject to the standard two conditions. Yes, sir. Have you reviewed those? I have. Are you in agreement? Yes, sir. Very good. Any questions or comments from the board members? Hearing none, and there's nobody else to hear comments from. So, Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number one, I move to approve the application for the Certificate of Appropriateness with a standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the application as conditioned is approved. Thank you all very much. Have a good day. All right. Turning now to 320 Marino Street. The scope of work has changed openings. Do we have an applicant? The applicant couldn't make it. She's watching on TV and agrees with the recommendations. Okay, given that fact and given the fact that this has been an application that's been approved subject to the standard conditions, I believe it's appropriate that we move forward. So I'll read those into the record one more time. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. and once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Hearing none, no audience, I'm ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 13020320-J at 320 Marino Street, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. We'll now come back to the regular docket. At 293 South Ashland Avenue, scope of work is remove rear chimney. Sir? Is the applicant Mr. Ramsey? Yes. You're ready. Except I'm going to have Ms. Armstrong make a presentation first. I assume you want to be heard on this. The staff has recommended disapproval of your application and remove the chimney. So our normal procedure is to have what we call a little hearing. The staff will give its presentation and findings. They may be asked questions. and then after that you'll be allowed to make comments and an argument as to why you believe the staff's recommendation should be overturned. Okay, Ms. Armstrong. Hello. Okay, this, I just want to make sure this worked. This is the property of 293 South Ashland, and the proposal is to remove a rear chimney. the property owner does actually have a total of four chimneys and they were aware of the three chimneys and requested a certificate of appropriateness to tuck point and to put chimney caps on the three and then when the roofing company or the chimney repair company got up there they found the fourth chimney which is in the back and of course it is very difficult to see it's not visible from the street but we don't all we don't review everything that's visible from the street we review the whole structure and so as you can see this is sort of a truncated view of the top of the structure you can see the chimneys here here and here and the chimney we're talking about would be in this vicinity back here and here is this is an aerial taken in 2020 that shows the more prominent chimneys here and then this little guy back here. How many feet is that little guy? Well, we'll see this in the staff report. I mean, not in the staff report, but in Barnhill's report. It indicates the feet. And this, of course, is taken in 2016. Of course, in these heavily treed areas, it's hard to see, but I wanted to sort of give you all a better viewpoint because being vertically challenged, it's difficult to photograph high things. and you can see again this is taken to 2007 a bit clearer of the chimneys here and then this is another view of the structure in the three chimneys and these were provided by Mr. Ramsey it showed sort of the side view of these chimneys in the front view. And then again, this is, this is there, you have this actually in your packet as well that showed the images of the chimney that you're referring to. And in some these images. So as the back page discusses the height of the chimney because it talks about the height not being in code per the ratio of roof ratio to how it doesn't rise above because if you look back and remember there the way the roof structure was it has a rear gable in the chimney is sort of tucked behind and doesn't rise about that rear gable or is in the same plane and you can sort of see this a bit more here where you can see a little bit more of the ridge of the back of the sort of the kitchen addition sort of speak here And of course guidelines are for your reference. The design principle in regards to chimney reads as follows. Chimneys are often significant features of the property and help define its architectural character. The chimney on many of these LFUC buildings were designed to be architectural features in the own right and display core building, inset panels, and decorative elements reflective of the overall building style. Removing the original chimney lessens in properties architectural integrity as well as the traditional building pattern and indicative of the property's history. Design principle 15a states, chimneys should not be removed or altered if original or architectural features and the proposal to remove this chimney is not appropriate nor in keeping with the LFUC design guidelines regarding the chimneys and chimneys are architectural elements should be retained and Seth suggests the chimney be retained. I would note that typically on rear chimneys, as we've seen, that they're usually a bit more plain and have less detailing. This does have some corbelling detailing on it, similar to the others. The other chimneys on the house are taller and a bit wider, but this one has as much corbelling details as the other three chimneys. And of course recommendation staff recommends the disapproval of the chimney and of course Mr. Ramsey is here. Okay, Mr. Ramsey. I think Amelia covered most of it. I mean we you know when we discovered the chimney we had no idea because it's inside the house with all the remodeling over the years it's totally wrapped up you have to go down into the original cellar to find the footer. It was only when Barnhill came down and said you know you've got a fourth chimney and it wasn't disclosed to us by the previous owners i don't think they knew either that we got that information and it's over the kitchen so um you know knowing we're working to preserve the other three and we got the coa but we saw this one it's less than three feet off the roof line it's deteriorating badly and it's it's obviously never going to be used you know for its purpose so uh um and it's not as as amelia noted not as architecturally significant so obviously it's for us being transparent it's it's costly to fix something that has no functionality and is not visible in any way to the house as far as its character and its view in the neighborhood in the street so you know it is the reason why we you know sought to kind of separate this one from the COA that we're going to repair and or rebuild the other three and just remove this one it's not up to code and you know we're not having a water problem today but that's what it represents even if you continue to repair it you know it's it's something that's never going to be used can't be seen and just you know represents something that's going to have to be you know kept up until you don't end up with a water problem so that's why we made the application you know for this exception to be able to remove that that small kitchen chimney you know in this circumstance so i mean we understand the rules and understand the importance of the other three and we're going to spend a lot of money to fix those uh because they do represent very much the character of the home and we appreciate that but this this one in the back you know it just it doesn't you just don't know even know it's there we wouldn't know it today if we hadn't sent barnhill up on our roof a couple of months ago you know we might add a water leak someday and say where that's coming from and found out well there's another another chimney you know that was covered up 50 years ago by by the uh the extension that was built on the back of the house so anyway just wanted to make sure you had that context so to be clear this was originally the chimney for the kitchen yeah it goes it goes right above the if you're in if you're in the kitchen which is an extension on the house but the original kitchen was in that area there's a bathroom and then a really thick wall and then the kitchen and we've never known what was in that thick wall there's a little closet we always wondered and then when we came down we stared at our kitchen and went i'll be damned there's i bet there's a fireplace in there we went down into the original basement cellar we crawled back in there and found the footer for it and went that That must be the fourth one. But you get there's so many chimneys and six fireplaces. You'll get disoriented if you don't know what you're looking for. I have the same problem. And that's what that was just a few months ago. And that's what led us to. Well, it would certainly be easier on us if we could take that down and just cover up the roof with the shingles we have and then preserve the three that are visible. You know, certainly from a financial and an ongoing upkeep to the property standpoint. So, OK, I'll turn it over to the board members. Do you have any questions either of Ms. Armstrong or Mr. Ramsey? Any questions? Comments? Observations? You called it an extension of the house. How old is the extension? Pretty old. The original house was built in 1905. All the fireplaces and chimneys are all coal burning, so you can't use them for any modern purpose anyway. But the extension is probably, it might be 50 years old, I don't know. It's pretty old in and of itself. So I think it's been wrapped up for a, it's been covered up for a long, long time. They might have cooked, it might have been an original chimney that they used to cook on, you know, back 100 years ago. But that's just a guess. The concern I have is now that we know that it's there and it's not to code, do we only have to rebuild it to accommodate code requirements? I'm guessing because Barnhill did note in their report that it is not to code. It's a fire hazard because it's not wide enough. It's only about two and a half feet. Of course, you're not using it for fire. It's just there to... You burned anything in it. But if you ever used it, it would definitely not be. I guess sitting there passively, I don't think it's an issue other than it is deteriorating. It's in far worse condition than the other three because it doesn't appear that anybody, maybe they weren't aware of it or ever even went up there and tried to do any repairs. It's just been neglected, it appears. comments and I would say I think given the fact there's it's not usable you don't have any fireplaces in the structure I you know there's no no fire exterior you know the houses has fireplaces on both second and third floor or in the first floor in the second floor for each of those chimneys so those are pretty evident this one has been enclosed in the back in the back so it was probably an exterior chimney and then it was wrapped around. So I think being passive, it doesn't necessarily need to meet the codes of current time. Do you have an estimate on your cost for this? Ouch. Well. Well, the estimate, you know, we'd probably call some other people. The estimate from Barnhill to rebuild it, which is what they recommended, was about five thousand dollars okay you know part of the challenge for us is is you've got to get a crew up on our roof which is building scaffolding and things like that but that's did you not mention you're reworking all your other we're doing the other three which that's that's going to be we're fixing the of the three the one on the right side but it's in the back that actually vents our h-back it's over our dining room we're pairing that one first it's in the worst condition that's going to be about an eight thousand dollar repair the other two are going to be comparable to rebuild them because they're in pretty bad shape over time we're going to kind of piecemeal them so we were you know looking at the you know those totals of work that we know we're going to have to do in the near term and then you know looking at that one so you weren't trying to do all the chimneys in one fell swoop with no we're doing the one that barnhill recommended this is the one that's in the worst condition and our hvac has vented through it so to me that's the one that's most vulnerable so we're going to do that one first this year and and then we're going to get to the other two, you know, maybe next year, part of the COA that's already been granted for that repair rebuild. Okay, very good. So is this part of the house original? Or is it a later addition? This was actually an exterior chimney, and then it was enclosed, and they poured out the wall. So it is an original chimney because it has the same kind of detailing as the others. but it's just it's on the back of the structure and then it was sort of enclosed. What would have been the back before they wrapped the two-story extension around it? But that L of the house was original or not? The L is an A. Right. The L has been added. The L has been added and so... The chimney is adjacent, is incorporated in the wall of the main mass but the L joined became a room addition on that same elevation. And then the chimney became an inside chimney stacked because of the room addition being put adjacent and with it. Mr. Gilpin, if you could sort of think about this being a... I don't think your mic's on. This was sort of enclosing this part, and this was an exterior... Mr. Armstrong, your mic is not on. I don't know why this is. Oh, here. Let me see. Well, let me say it this way. Was that chimney built the same time the other three chimneys were built? I would say given the detailing, yes. Because they all have the same corbelling detail. And it probably was in its original purpose a flue chimney for the kitchen stove. Okay. It's never been a firebox, cook anything on it, anything like that. It's one that you may not have even seen it in the kitchen other than where the vent pipe goes into the chimney stack. It's the gas to the wall. And then it rises out of the roof up above. But I doubt you ever in the inside other than the mechanical system of your stove. Gotcha. Knew it. Yeah, there's no fireplace or anything. No. That's why Mr. Ramsey was talking about the thickness of that wall because it's between the dining room and the kitchen. it didn't make any sense until we found out we had another chimney i thought why is that so thick so the so the roof ridge that we see here is newer than the construction of the chimney right so i think it was just been enclosed yes okay so one time this chimney was built correctly and then they built the roof wrong around it and probably would have been more visible yes that okay that's a good summary yeah yeah the chimney below the roof line is I'm unimpacted by this. I mean, it's not going anywhere. It's in the house. It'll be there forever. It's just the two feet above the roof. The reason I keep asking is just with guideline 1.5A says, should not be removed or altered if original or architecturally significant. That's why I was trying to understand the originality of it. We have, just in talking about process over time, approved the removal of some of those kitchen chimneys that are specifically flue chimneys for a device because they're kind of lesser both a little bit lesser in their presence and they certainly I'd say they're a little less significant except when you think about when you originally build a house they're quite significant because you needed to vent your stove. The use part of it was more vital, but it's not as much of an identifier of the architectural character of the house as the other three. So if there's not a fireplace on the, there's not a second floor that would have vented through this roof. Also it was strictly related to the venting of the flue in the first floor kitchen. Because what I'm struggling with is that it is a pattern that's indicative of the property's history. And removing that chimney then makes it, in the way that you've kind of puzzled when you saw it, not having any idea inside the house and then finding the thicker wall the chimney gave you that clue of that kind of original history of the property. Well the conundrum is almost like you know if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, has the tree fallen? And here we have a chimney that is so invisible that you can make an argument it is not contributing to the integrity of the house. That's the conundrum I'm working my way through. And also, Ms. Kerr is right, we have, I believe, in the past authorized removal of so-called kitchen chimneys that were primarily a flue chimney. They were not a true, honest to God, fire burning or coal burning chimney. And they weren't really contributing to the overall look and integrity of the home but with those flue chimneys did they have the corbeling and that kind of detail that's what's making this a more complicated case so they didn't they were much simpler and they were much it was just a straight chimney mass they were with no orientation my memory is i'd have to look them up specifically but my memory is they were quite utilitarian in their architectural i remember the one over on clay avenue that we approved in the lower part of Clay or Lafayette I can't remember which there was a chimney that we took out. Mr. Ransman, as much work as you've done with this house. I have a comment. This might sound a little weird but I kind of feel like the chimney has already been covered up. It's gone. Essentially. And that's I'm not disinclined to disagree with you. The guidelines are pretty specific though. If original to the house, they should not be removed. And this this chimney is clearly original to the house. On the other hand, I hate to start going down the path of setting up precedent where we authorize chimney removals unless we make it clear and specific that this is only applicable to chimney kitchen chimneys that are full like structures and not a true chimney in the sense of providing heat to the house miss Kerr what are your thoughts I think that the it is a similar condition to one you all have approved several times before okay but every instance has to look be looked at specifically as you are doing very appropriately now but i think that it is its ability to be to read as part of the significant aspects of the character of the building is limited partly just because where it sits and that it is low and it's been built up around. If we are inclined to let you take out your chimney I think the findings would have to be along the lines of it's a flue chimney it is not contributing significantly to the integrity of the other chimneys even though it's original to the house and is that all we really need as fundings? If you are in agreement, you may be in disagreement with me on this one. The fact that it's had a room built around on its exterior surrounds has not helped it in terms of its It's lost its original purpose obviously. Will we get into trouble down the road if we start claiming flue chimneys as a Well, a flue chimney is simply a venting chimney. We've already done that in the past. We've done that in the past. We've done that, okay. That's the point. A flue chimney is nothing more than a venting chimney. It's just there to get rid of the heat out of the kitchen. So I agree that now that you cannot see it from the street, it has lost some of its architectural significance. um however this is a or not an and and it is original to the building i know and i do think it has some detailing there and so just because you can't see it i'm not inclined to think you should lose it okay i'm not sold on that but that's that's where i'm leaning well i think that's what we're all struggling with at this point and that you make a very good point uh Who would like to make a motion one way or the other? Let's see how it plays out. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 007102. Excuse me. Holding his knees. Sorry. You all right? Let's start over. Regarding case number 00710293-V at 293 South Ashland Avenue. I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness to remove the chimney discussed with the findings that the chimney is not architecturally significant. and also that this is in regards to guideline I.5A. And also in regards that the originality of this chimney has already been altered or covered up with the addition of that part of the building back in what is the date that was built. Okay. Would you be amenable to add in to your findings that this is purely a kitchen? Yes. A flue kitchen chimney? And that this is a flue chimney for an old kitchen that was remodeled a long time ago. Do we have a second? Hearing none, do I have another motion? I'll second. I am struggling with it, but I will say it. All right, let's have some more discussion. Referred Sarah's point of view. The lost its original purpose is what I'm struggling with. Most of the, many of the houses built 100, 130 years ago that are coal burning chimneys have lost their original purpose. And that one I'm struggling with. Procedurally, I can point out you can amend the motion and change his findings, if you like, and we can't take up the amendment. I was trying to refer to how the originality of that kitchen L on the house and the chimney that was on that kitchen has already been covered up at one point way back in history whenever this chunk of the building got built. So essentially they built the roof wrong around an original chimney long before this board ever had a neighborhood to take care of. So that's what's kind of funky to me. For us, not to interrupt, but for us the lack, as Mr. Dickens pointed out, the lack of visibility. If this was a visible chimney on the front of the house or if the house was configured differently, I don't know that we've even made the same application. I mean, our application was to repair or build the other one. It was, for us, it was your point about a tree falling in the forest. Like, you literally, you would have to get in an airplane or climb on the roof to even know that it exists. So how can it impact what, to me, is an aesthetic of these old homes to everybody who isn't living in the home? It has no impact. You don't know if it's there. You don't know if it isn't there. I understand the precedence, and I understand that aspect of it. But the way this property is configured, I mean, that old photo, there's a garage out back. you can't other than trespassing onto our property climbing on our roof there is no way to know that it was there which and the reason we didn't know it was there in the previous inspection so that was that was a big part of it for us it's like you don't even get any there's no beauty there's no not beauty it's there's nothing you just now i know that it's there because i've seen a photo of it my concern is i don't want us to get into a precedent where we say if the chimney can't be seen from the street i understand you lose the chimney that actually that's the concern i have It's something this process is very careful about to never go there, quite frankly, because our charge is about keeping the fabric of these buildings in place for the significant elements. And if something is a lesser element and not as significant, then the consideration of whether it could be removed or not is based more on its role and its level of significance, not whether you see it or don't. And I agree with that argument. That's why I'm inclined to think that because it was a flue chimney and was not an architecturally significant part of the original chimney system. But it has corbeling. It was architecturally significant. It's curious as to why it did. So, Barry, can we carry it? It is a sort of lesser example, I will be honest. Yeah, it is, but it's not just also a straight flu. If there were a second floor, even if the fireplace weren't being used and closed up and was non-functional, I'd feel very clear about it that it had to stay. It's the issue that it's really a one-story flu only. Long time ago was enveloped by a much older addition. Mr. Dennis? Barry? Can you take the conversation outside, please? That's what I'm struggling with, is that it seems so specific in that way, that the only piece of the guidelines that still remains is that the traditional building pattern that's indicative of the property's history, that without the chimney you wouldn't have even known, and we wouldn't be talking about this. If they had taken it down when they added the addition in, it would be a mute discussion. Right. We had any other cases where the roof line is raised around a chimney that we insist on keeping? There are... That makes this so weird to me. I agree. There are... The roofline situation does adversely affect the integrity of this chimney, which is, I think, what you're asking about. and it no longer sort of plays the architectural presence role that would have been its role when the chimney was first part of the original construction. Time and the changes over time in this instance have not helped this situation. I think that it's a gray area, but I think it's something that within the guidelines, I don't think we're violating the guidelines to be considering taking it down. I think you certainly could choose to not take it down and repair it and get it sound again and so forth. but I don't think if it's not there that it is a loss of significance. So I'm increasingly more comfortable with its removal, but only if the original motion is modified, so we remove the loss of its original purpose and that it's the being a flue chimney only as a minor element and number two that an old edition in fact enveloped the chimney that compromised uh its its identity is even existing and and i agree with that and i want to add that it is clearly not visible anywhere from the street Let's not put that in. You know, if there were fewer trees, you might see it. If you could see this from one angle, though, I would not vote to take it down if you could see it. And you can't. You probably can't see it in the winter or the summer. I know that's not the most relevant. I do worry about future cases. We've even gone to our neighbor's backyard and asked if we could stand out. came out I want it on record that one of the reasons because you can't see it well let's let's work on the findings yes as proposed amendment we're stating one we believe is consistent with the guidelines to remove it because one is a flue kitchen a fluid chimney i just call it a vent instead of chimney secondly it architecturally lost became a minor element due to the wrapping of the of that chimney with the new addition on the rear of the house number three it is not contributing to the overall appearance of the house because it is invisible to any person owned at the street level. And number four, it's a minor element of the house and it will not contribute to a lack of integrity of the house itself. Does that make sense? Okay. Someone adopted what I just said. Give me the second one, one more time. Do one now? Second point. In making notes, we can refer to that and listen. We'll let the staff work the motion and we'll look at it afterwards. When you see the minutes, you can double check us. It was wrapped. I have scratched out a number of things, but I have a list. As stated, this is an amendment to the motion. Do I have a second to the amendment? Second. I'm going to teach you Robert's rules right now. I'm calling the question on the amendment. All those in favor of the amended motion say aye. Aye. Aye. I received your aid. Now I have to go back to the original motion as amended. Any further discussion on that motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All in favor of the motion as amended say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and your application to remove the chimney is approved. Thank you all very much. No, there's no need for a standard two removing. There's no need to take it to other divisions. Well, the one about if any changes are made, as any changes is mine and decides to put a whole different roof, would still that condition. No, once upon a time we didn't used to have the standard on every single application. All right, along with the standard conditions, all right, by agreement of the committee. All right, we have, I believe, a motion to continue. This is at 179 Old Park Avenue. It is to install paving. There is a motion to continue it to June 15. The terminology continue is vital. when you make your motion please say continue and may i ask my fellow staff member um did you accomplish the extension amelia he's not able to meet till friday so we're meeting with that so but i got a verbal pass the time we're requesting that the deadline for action will be before the next meeting so we're requesting extension of how long um probably it would be i would say 30 days would get us two meetings i just want the board to be aware that the extension request is in the works but not okay finalized all right and then it'll be an extension for 30 additional days from his deadline of action that's on your report the chair has been apprised of that and has no objection to signing the waiver we'll deliver it for that purpose to you okay so do i have a motion to continue to june 15. all right second okay uh chair recall the question all those in favor side aye opposed nay motion passes uh we postpone when we're in the middle of a hearing we've opened the we have opened the record that's when you postpone as opposed to continue so that's why i was trying that's why i'm stressing the significance we also have minutes before us from may from miss hill has um already provided her notes or miss hill already provided a correction right uh i've reviewed those corrections any questions about the the minutes and i'm sorry i've forgotten the date which state are they january 19 2022. i'm ready for a motion to approve the minutes of january 19 2022. so moved second second uh the minutes stand approved are we ready for an adjournment so so someone move all right we are adjourned thank you I'm sorry. Weenie ride before I take her home