Music Three months in a row, so I've missed you all. 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. Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as resource. The historic preservation office is located at 101 East Line Street, Room 220. It is our normal procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're 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 any other interested parties. 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 you to write your name on the sign in sheet so that the information can be correctly recorded into our agenda. 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, but they would need the necessity of all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of, yes, 47 applications that have received staff approval. We have a large list today because we did not have a meeting in May. So we're catching up that month as well. To begin, in the Ashland Park Historic District, at 209 Deshaies Road, install fencing. At 230 Deshaies Road, renovate structure from storm. At 977 Fencastle Road, replace fencing. At 1020 Fencastle Road, renovate structure from storm. At 125 South Hanover, replace roof. 301 South Hanover, renovate structure. 304 South Hanover, replace fence. 312 South Hanover, replace tree. And at 807 East High Street, renovate the structure. In the Ellsford Historic District at 202 Arlington Avenue, renovate structure. 328 Ellsford Place, renovate structure. At 330 Ellsford Place, renovate structure. And at 330 Ellsford Place, also repair the driveway from sewer line. At 331 Ellsford Place, renovate structure. 256 Clay Avenue, replace siding from tree damage. 341 Grosford, renovate the structure. 343 East High Street, replace door. 646 East High Street, replace fencing. 351 Linden Walk, renovate structure. 306 East Maxwell Street, replace roof. 309 East Maxwell Street, remove gas meter. At 431 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. At 445 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. At 451 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. At 353 Oldham, replace the storage shed. At 147 Old Park Avenue, renovate the front porch. At 174 Old Park Avenue, replace the roof. At 133 Ransom Avenue, reconstruct the roof after fire damage. At 360 Transylvania Park, remove the damaging tree. At 365 Transylvania Park, reissue the COA. At 372 Transylvania Park, remove a fire damaged carport. At 148 Woodland Avenue, remove the COA. And finally, at 338 Woodland Avenue, replace the gutters and downspouts. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 140 East Belcourt, remove a tree. At 146 East Belcourt, remove a tree. At 141 East Belcourt, renovate a structure. At 155 West Belcourt, reissue the COA. At 210 Bel Place, renovate the structure. At 258, Belle Place, remove the dying trees. Continuing, in the Belcourt historic district, at 609 Boonesboro Avenue, replace deck, at 255 Delmar Avenue, enclose the rear yard. At 173 Forest Avenue, renovate the foundation. At 519 Russell Road, enclose yard with fencing. And at 620 Sayre Avenue, replace the fencing. In the Constitution Historic District at 146 Constitution Street, renovate, I'm sorry, remove a deteriorated tree. At 194 North Limestone, renovate the coupler from storm damage. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 632 Ellesmere, replace the roof. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 438 Fayette Park, remove garage due to store damage and replace fence. At the Grants Park Historic District at 239 North Mill Street, replace the fencing. At Helm Place, local landmark, 2650 Bowman Road, renovate structure. At Northside Historic District at 543 North Broadway, renovate the structure. At 336 Hampton Court, install the fencing. At Hampton Court at 338 Hampton Court, renovate the structure. 360 Hampton Court, replace the side deteriorated door. At 229 Miller Street, replace the guttering and downspouts. At 457 of West Sixth Street, renovate the structure. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 99 Goodbridge Avenue, renovate structure. At 451 Lackawanna Road, install fencing. At 203 Lackawanna Road, renovate the structure. 207 lacamana road replace fencing at 217 lacamana road renovate the structure and finally at 224 lacamana road remove a pine tree you got another page i got another page oh so i do okay thank you uh there are in fact uh 53 approved staff uh applications And the numbering started over. There's more than 53. The numbering started over somewhere over here. That's what happened. Okay. We're going to let them figure out the number of applications. I'm just going to read them into the record. At 1803, but thank you, sir. At 1803, Nicholas Road, re-roof the structure. At 167, Pinboka Park, renovate the structure. 1869, Pensacola Park, renovate the structure. 124 Walbach's Drive, renovate the structure. In the seven parts of Starrett District, at 121 Arcadia Park, renovate site and structure. At 203 Arcadia Park, remove deteriorated pine oak. At 328 Arcadia Park, replace the tree. At 511 Arcadia Park, replace roof from storm damage. At 538 Arcadia Park, renovate the structure. At 123 Dantzler Drive, renovate the structure. At 613 Nicholasville Road, renovate the structure due to windstorm. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 128 South Ashland Avenue, renovate structure. At 128 again, South Ashland Avenue, rebuild the rear masonry addition. Also at 128 South Ashland, renovate a deteriorated pine tree. At 218 South Ashland, install and replace fencing. At 301 South Hanover Avenue, renovate the structure. At 126 West Maxwell Street, restore a damaged storefront. At 515 South Mill Street, replace the fence. In the Western Suburbs Historic District, at 735 West Main Street, renovate the structure. And at 563 West Short, renovate the structure. And finally, in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 347 Marino Street, renovate structure. All right, we will now turn to our first application for a COA, Certificate of Appropriateness, 128 Ashland Avenue. Scope of work is constructed addition, covered patio and garage, changed two windows. Applicant? Is the applicant here? State your name for the record please. Mike Elder. Okay, Mr. Elder, before we move forward, I think you probably want to be heard on the denial of the roof or the chimney being replaced. Correct. What I'm going to do, my normal procedure is to go through the cases that we can dispose of fairly quickly, and we'll come back to you. Okay. All right? So hopefully in about 15, 20 minutes, we'll come back to you. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you. All right. Looking next at, yes, 702 Central Avenue, Scope of Work, Instruct Pergola. Mr. Taylor, please state your name for the record. Good afternoon, Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Okay, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what we have always referred to as the standard conditions. Since this is the first time for this meeting, I will read them into the record. The first condition is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Secondly, 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. Are we in agreement? Yes, sir. All right. Are there any questions about the application for the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I'm ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 03630702-8 at 702 Central Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Second. Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in agreement with the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Turning now to 131 Clay Avenue. This is a little work. Let's construct a porch, garage rather, excuse me. Come on. Good afternoon, John Rich, 131 Clay Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky, 40502. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions plus one other which is more substantive. I want to review that with you. Yes, sir. That is submit the door and window details and specifications the staff will review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement? Yes, sir, I am. Are you in agreement with the other two standard conditions? Yes, sir, I am. All right. Any questions from the board members about this application? Any questions from the audience or comments? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 04150131-D at 131 Clay Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness. with the condition that the applicant will submit door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA and the other two Standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Thank you any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you Mr. Rich. Thank you for your time. I do have a question. Sure, go ahead. Okay, you wanted a door and window schedule for the garage? You just. It's door and window details and the specifications of those doors and windows. Where would I, would that be part of my building permit to the city then? The window details and, well the specification of the windows would be the, from the manufacturer. Of course, I understand that. I'm just curious, where do you, once I receive this information, where do I? To the staff, to our staff of the historic preservation. Which person handled this one? Okay. I did. You can submit those directly to me by email, like you had the drawings. Gotcha. Okay. I think you answered all my questions. Okay. Thank you all for your time today. I really appreciate it. You're welcome, sir. Thank you. All right, moving now to 601 Boonesboro Avenue. Scope of work is construct a garage. Is the applicant here? State your name for the record please. It's Jim Griggs. Okay, Mr. Griggs, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the condition that you submit the, I can't talk. Submit the specifications and details of the windows and garage door to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, are you in agreement with that? I agree with that. Okay, the other two are the standard conditions which I previously read into the record. Sure. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. Very good. Any questions or comments from the board members? What case are we on? This is Boonesboro. Attachment four. 601 Boonesboro Avenue, attachment number four. Instructor garage. Okay. Okay, sometimes they just disappear, that happens to me all the time. All right, any questions about this one? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 02140601-V at 601 Boonesboro Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And also that the applicant submit specifications and details of windows and garage door to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Thank you very much. I do have a second. Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair calls for the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The COA is approved as conditioned. I seem to be missing, bear with me, though I have it, okay. I don't seem to have the application for 668 Ellesmere Park. Okay, the scope of work is construct a covered porch and deck. The applicant here? Yes. I will state your name for the record please. Brandy Smith. Charles is probably the one who applied. He was covering for me while I was on maternity leave. The other as owners, Joseph and Jody Wall, and Charles Penn as the applicant. Yeah, Charles Penn was covering for me while I was on maternity leave. I'm with Distinctive Design. Gotcha, okay, sorry. You're okay. All right, the staff has recommended approvals subject to the standard two conditions, which I have previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Any questions about this application from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair. About time for you, Matt, to make one. Right? About time for you to make a motion. Okay, all right. Chair, as per case number 06510668-H at 668 Ellesmere Park, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries and COA as condition is approved. Thank you so much, ma'am. Okay, I suspect the applicant on 444 Fayette Park would like to be heard. Is that person here? I would like to go ahead and do the other applications before we do our contested cases. Thank you, sir. You're number two in the contest cases. All right. All right, coming up on 449 North Limestone, scope of work is install landscaping, including site work, a patio, bench seating, and front retaining walls. Hi, I'm David Broderberg. Okay, Mr. Rodenberg. Staff has recommended approval of your application. there is a retaining wall involved but your your your house is in a different district from fayette park so that's why the staff went ahead and approved it okay okay so the recommendation is the two standard conditions and i've previously read them into the record are you in agreement with those i am all right do you have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience hearing none then the chair is ready for a motion chair i recommend approval case number one six six zero four four nine dash j 449 North Limestone that the certificate of appropriate has to be granted with the two typical two standard conditions two standard recommendations all right thank you you're welcome do I have a second second all right any further discussion on the motion hearing on the chair will call the All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Aye. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you much. Thank you sir, take care. All right, turning now to 612 North Broadway. Scope of work is construct garage, retaining wall, and site work. Is the applicant here? Come on. The applicant was out of town on business and could not be here tonight. Again, please. The applicant is out of town on business. Okay, I saw someone in the audience. This is 612 North Broadway. Okay. Okay. What am I missing? Excuse me. Okay, you're saying the applicant is not here. Is this the one where we had a dispute about the fence? Yes, it is. All right. And I believe that dispute, whoever is, okay, here's a problem. The applicant's not here. The application has been recommended for approval subject to the standard two conditions. If you have questions or objections to that application, I prefer to defer that until the applicant can be here. If you have resolved your concerns, we have your letter in the packet. And I believe the matter has been resolved. Is that right? Stand up, please. And just state your name for the record, please. Hello. I'm Susanna Atiyah with my husband, Luis Sons. We're at 618 North Broadway. So, yeah, the concern about the fence being over our property line is resolved. Okay. But we still have some additional concerns that we wanted to make sure were addressed. But also those are more for his hearing. And we don't know what's happening in the posterior end of the property where it's leading to abutting our garage. And we need to know so we can make our own plans on how to secure the property. We still aren't being told when people are coming into our property. And we need to know that. And then we're trying to make sure that there's an area kind of in the back that's very poorly maintained. It's been let grow wild. It's actually in his property, and we need to come up with a way to figure out how to deal with that area in a communicative, collaborative way. Are you talking about the property next to you or your property? Mr. Kirk's property. Okay. Some of your issues we really can't address. Those are, sounds like code enforcement issues to me. What we're addressing today is the application and only the application. If you don't have any objections to the application per se, then I think we move forward. Okay, so you're talking when you say the application, specifically the fencing, correct? The fencing issue, help me out. And the renovation of the property. um yes mr kirk um explained to me and i've given you some emails that the original portion of the dispute was the property line there was a survey done that shows the fence is on the property at 6 12 but in addition to the fence there is also the garage portion of the application. And I believe that that might, once the garage is constructed, I believe that would take care of the issues of the upkeep. And that's what we wanted to know about. Okay, I think I'm going to go ahead and be conservative in this. I think we need to postpone this until Ms. Kirk can be here. Chair? Yes. Yes, hi. They have a bigger monitor now, so I can- I can, you can stand up. Go ahead and stand up. I wanted to point out that the deadline for the BOAR's action under a 60 day rule is July 14th. Can I hear you? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, great. I just wanted to point out that the deadline for the 60 days for ordinance is July 14th, and on my calendar, the next BOAR meeting is July the 19th. so the 60-day will run before the next meeting well we don't have any issues with the fence continuing to move forward that's not unfortunately your decision to make my problem is whether and they can't be separated we just we really just need him to communicate with us that's really the the crux of the issue i'm sure everything would work if that happened i might bring up another issue it's not the board's concern necessarily but the swimming pool has been completed for i guess close to a year there was previously a fence the building code requires fences around swimming pools at least four feet high with self-closing gates so he is in violation the building code currently. Again, that's a planning issue or a zoning issue, not ours. Correct, I just wanted to point that out to you. The reason why I'm struggling with this is there is a case out of Fayette County, I disagree with that case, by the way, that has held that if a hearing is not held within the time period prescribed, application stands approved automatically. Our normal procedure has always been to get a waiver from the applicant to allow us to hear it outside the normal 60-day window. She's not here. Attorney, can you help me here? Brittany? Well, since the applicant had notice of the hearing date, I think that even though he's not here, you can proceed whether you want to approve the application or if you want to deny it, that's up to you. But I think I have the authority to proceed now. I mean, of course, you have a 60-day rule. If you decide you want to deny it tonight, that would also factor into the analysis as well. Of course, the problem is if we deny the application, she can't resubmit without changing it. I believe that is correct, yes. Okay. I tell you what we're going to do. It seems to me the concerns that you're raising are primarily legal in that it pertains to your property line. The application itself has been approved subject to the standard two conditions. I think we should be able to move forward with that. And then you and Ms. Kirk can have a conversation as to how you can resolve the siting of the garage. If that dispute is still ongoing, let the staff know. And you probably need to let the people at the building permit be aware of the dispute that you're having. Let the people of the which? Housing? Department of Building Inspection. Yes. Because they have to sign off on this as well. Okay. Okay, so that's why there's that condition saying if there are any changes made, it needs to come back to the staff for review and approval. This is that option right here. So if there's still problems with the siding of the garage, you can take it up with the building folk, and it can come back to us in that guise. Okay. Okay, all right. I'm happy with that. All right, I hope that's not been pure Greek to everybody. All right, you're welcome, ma'am. So here's the deal. We have a motion to approve the application. We need a motion to approve the application. It's subject to, yeah, basically submit the door details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Am I on the right one? Yeah. Provide information for finishing the exposed retaining wall to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And here's the main one. 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 the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. If there's a problem with the siting of this garage, that will be flagged by another division. Given those, I think we can move forward. Do I have a motion for us to move forward? Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one other thing. I'm sure you're aware of it, but any citizen can file an appeal within 30 days. So they would have 30 days from the time to file that appeal. I think they've already left. Okay. I've been in contact with them and I can. Okay, you can let them know that they do have appeal rights that they can't resolve their problems. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. All right, so do I have a motion? All right, Chair, in regards to case 02500612-I at 612 North Broadway, I make a motion that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And that the applicant submit door details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And provide information for finishing the exposed retaining wall to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Any? The motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. All right, turning now to our next case at, this is applicant 9, 192 North Limestone install signage. However, the application says on its face, 192. It's actually 192 Broadway. Thank you, folks. All right. So even though it's stated in the agenda as being 192 North Limestone, it is in fact, and I'm assuming, advertised that way as being at 192 North Broadway, correct? All right, is the applicant here? Come on up, please. My name is Phillip Ems of Keyhole Tattoo at 192 North Broadway. All right, thank you. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions, which I have been reading into the record. Do you understand those conditions? Do you need an agreement with them? I do. All right, any questions about this application to install signed by the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing done, the Chair will call the question, will ask for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 02500190-E at 192 North Broadway, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right. The motion has been approved and the COA as conditioned is approved. Okay. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your sign. Okay, turning now to Pensacola Park Historic District at 123 Pomocan Park. Application is to install solar panels. Is the applicant here? Mr. Dickinson, the applicant is not present. She was not able to come today. But she is agreeable with her staff recommendations. All right, and they are the standard conditions. any questions from the board members? I wasn't here so I don't know. No, this is a brand new case. I do have a question. It says that there's going to be the application is for just two solar panels on the southeast side, but in the findings it mentions Sorry, I forgot to scratch that a bit. She's only asking for two. sorry okay i just wanted to make sure that was right okay what needs to be let's get this straight for the record what needs to be deleted it was just it's only going to be scratch the last sentence install solar panels on the front of the porch does not mean there is no application on the front and that's how i read the application i just wanted to make sure thank you for your good eyes i missed that completely all right so it's subject to the standard conditions it has been approved this is only dealing with solar panels that's on the side of the house correct all right so with those understanding mind do I have any questions or comments from the audience if not then I think we're ready for a motion All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further 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 is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Turning now to 121 Arcadia Park. Scope of work is construct a standalone screen room. Yes. And the applicants here, would you state your name? Neil Chethick. Okay. I actually had a question about this one when I was initially seeing what looked like a deck had been removed and found out that it had been destroyed by a storm. Correct. Oh, my goodness. Yes. We had a very large pin oak come down right on our deck, patio, and backyard pond. That storm on March 3rd was remarkable. March 3rd. I'm sorry to hear of the destruction of the tree and all this work that you now need to do. Thank you. With that out of the way, the staff has basically, they have recommended approval. They have also asked that you provide details and specifications for the metal roofing material to staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. And then the other two of the standard conditions we've been discussing are in agreement. Yes. okay do i have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience hearing none uh the chair is ready for a motion appropriateness for case number zero zero five one zero one two one d with uh the standard provisions and conditions in addition to condition number one providing detailed specifications for metal roofing material to the staff for review 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 say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA is approved as condition. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. All right, turning to, and I believe this is a contested case as well, 716 West Maxwell Street, Scope of Work is remove a flue chimney. Is the applicant here? I tell you what, sir, I think you want to be heard on this one, don't you? Excuse me. I believe that you would like to be heard. Yes, that's okay. All right, I'm going to take the cases in the order, so I'm reverting back to the beginning of the agenda. Okay. You'll be the third contested case. Excuse me? You'll be our third contested case. Okay, let's go back to 128 South Ashland Avenue. And we're going to need a staff presentation, I believe. Scope of work for this one is construct addition, a covered patio and garage, change to windows. And I believe, let me just review it quickly. staff has recommended approval of the application, but they have disapproved the application pertaining to the, your desire not to replace the chimney, your desire to reduce the window and the removal of a window, correct? That's correct. All right, we need to have a presentation on that and then we'll review those conditions after Ms. Armstrong gets done. All right, so this is 128 South Ashland. The new property owner is requesting various things as far as putting a new addition on and also removing some windows. And they've already gotten staff approval to do many things as far as restoration. And I'll walk you through the property as it is. So here it is, 128 South Ashland. So we walk around the structure. This window in front of us, that's an existing window that will be made into, the door that's going to be made into a window. Then it's going to close in the part below. So there will be a new window there. And then as we walk along the side, on the other side of the bay, there are three windows back here. The window closest to us will be retained and the applicant is requesting to remove that window and to narrow the far window. And that window has already been reduced. That was a reduction that happened sort of in the 30s and it was taken up. But it used to actually be longer the same as what you find on the opposite side. I need some clarification. Looking from the left to right, the first window is the one they want to remove, is that correct? Hold on one second, I can't turn and talk to you at the same time. Sorry, what was your question? My question is, looking left to right, the first window that looks like it's got a grill on it, Is that the one they want to check out? That's window they will be retaining, the opening anyway. All right. Thank you. This window, they're requesting to remove altogether. Okay. This window, and we'll look a little closer to it, they would like to make it narrow similar to this narrow window here. All right. Okay. So they're changing the size. And per our guidelines, and we'll get into this further, and we're going to go into the findings of it. he could lengthen the window and restore it to its former state, or he could leave it as it is, but staff would not support narrowing it, so to speak. So here's the windows again. This is sort of to give you an idea of the narrow window. And then sort of looking back, you could see the length of this window, that the rear window was sort of this length, and it was reduced. so as you can see the toothing end of the brick is a little different that indicated that this window was longer the same length as this one and it's been reduced to this size and what he would like to do is make it look like this window and reduce this window altogether. Now this window is actually added in the 1920s. It's not original to the structure however it's been there now for a hundred years. So the opinion itself. And to sort of walk around. And so we talked about previously in December that rear addition quite a bit and to try to retain it. And unfortunately during construction to help stabilize it but then yet to take off the bad wood parts it started to collapse so and then so staff has issued a certificate appropriateness to rebuild that rear edition piece but what he's asking to remove is this chimney we see in the foreground here so he would not he would like to build back the brick addition in its same dimensions and masonry with everything in place as far as the windows and the detailing of the brick, but he would like to remove this chimney. And so just sort of to show that this wall completely collapsed out and then as it makes safe he went ahead and this is that chimney we were talking about earlier that he would like to remove and this is pictures taken in last fall it sort of showed this in place and so the previous owners removed this frame edition but it sort of weakened the wall structure and which caused this wall to collapse and so now they've removed this down to its foundation and they're proposing to really build it up but he's just asking not to put that window that chimney back in and then just sort of give you an idea of the rear yard because this would be the proposed area for the garage and then this is the driveway side and then the front facade. Okay, I have a question about the garage. Was there, is there a garage or was there a garage on the site? Many, many years ago. You're making, you made a reference to a deteriorated condition of the garage, as if that garage- I think there was the addition, not the garage, but. No, if you read your last sentence on page 16. Existing garage is showing signs of deterioration with rotten wood and sloping and the removal will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Oh, sorry, I think that was meant to be for the rear addition. Is that meant to be? Yeah, so, yes. Okay, we'll strike that sentence from the application or from your review. Yes. Suzanne, are you following where I am? Anybody have any questions? I do have a question. I'm going back to those windows that were being removed or altered or changed sides of. Just I was a little disoriented. Mm-hm. Which side is the front of the house? The front over here. That's the front of the house, okay. This is behind the bay along that masonry wall that's along there. So if we look at the front of the structure. So the windows are actually tucked back here. Okay, thank you. Here's that masonry wall. Yes, sir. So if you'll go back to the previous picture of the three windows. Yes. That one. So are the two longer windows exactly the same? Yes, oops, sorry. So this window and this window are the same in the sense that this window is the original window, and this one was later added about 1920s. But do they match in terms of their size? They do, well. Okay, one person at a time. I'm sorry, I'm going to let you talk in a moment. He's saying that this is a little shorter than this one. But the big indicator, too, is the fact that there's a jack arch over this masonry window, and there's one over here, but there's no masonry jack arch over here. Yes. So is there any chance, if that window were removed, that it could be reused in place of the shortest window? Because it's both narrower and longer. That would be your call to make. I think staff would say that that would not be appropriate because it's changing the whole more than it was before. Right, but if that were done, is it physically possible to do that? To use the same window and to use that configuration in place of the shortest window? From a construction standpoint, yes. Would it fit within the guidelines though? No. Okay. Sometimes what is practical is not necessarily approvable. Okay. And mostly because staff is, per our guidelines specifically, and I'll read this here in a second, it tells you changing windows. Correct. existing openings is not something we'd like to retain as many original opening sizes in their locations as much as possible and not necessarily sort of recreate windows willy nilly without complete justification for them. I guess my point of view on this is, let's finish with the questioning and then let Mr. Elder speak and then we can come back. Can I finish the staff findings? Yes, I want you to. Yes, go ahead. Let me read this into the record. That might help you a little bit. So findings, a proposal to construct the covered porch addition does meet guidelines. Staff finds the proposed addition plans are smaller, more subservient to the house, which meets the guidelines for the design principle for room and wing additions, which states in planning additions, the best approach is to place additions where they have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan, And the rear building is the special location for the room and wean additions. In addition, the porch and decks are appropriate in guidelines 2A1A, 2A3B. It should be located in the rear of the building, so it should be compatible with principal structures, architectural style and not be of earlier architectural period. Sam finds the proposed addition does meet the guidelines regarding the use of site coverage, referring to 3C, saying open space should only be developed and scale and character with the neighborhood and designated historic landmark. For the chimney, the rebuilding and the brick masonry addition was intended for all the detailing to go back to the previous condition, including chimney, windows opening, scale, size, and dimensions. This addition and the chimney were erected in the 1930s. The rebuilding of the chimney as far as the addition is an important feature of the roof line. The design features for the chimney characters, chimneys are often significant features of the property and help define architectural characters. And the chimneys on LFUCG buildings were designed for their architectural features in the right and display corvilline insets and decorative elements in overall building style. Chimneys should be retained and maintained if they do not serve the historic function. Removing the original chimney lessens the property's architectural integrity, as the districtian building indicated of the property's history. Chimneys should be maintained and preserved in accordance with the brick and the mortar guidelines. The staff finds that chimneys should be rebuilt as part of the reconstruction of the brick addition. The proposal to change the dimensions of the rear backside window to make it narrow is not within keeping of the guidelines. The window was longer at one point before it was shortened. The staff finds the window should remain in its current state or it can be returned to its former longer length. To completely alter its shape is not within the guidelines. Design principle for window state window openings, windows, window details, and size and shape of these elements help establish rhythm, scale, proportion of building, and reflective architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained and repaired to match original design. They should not be partially enclosed for the installation of smaller windows. With regards to the window next to the previously discussed window, and to completely remove this window needs further consideration. This window was added in the 1930s and it's original to the structure, but it has been in this structure for nearly 100 years. Staff finds that the opening should remain and be drywalled on the inside and have the opening remain on the outside. Per Guidelines 1-24-A, which states windows should be preserved and maintained in its original location, size, design, and the original materials and number of panes. Original frames of the opening should be retained and maintained. These windows and chimneys have been the features of this house for a very long time and have gained significant over the years. In addition, architectural elements that help establish older structures from new. The proposal to construct a new garage is within the LFUC design guidelines 2B1, B, C, and K, which respectively state scale new construction be keeping with adjacent properties in height and width, and in general new construction should not vary in height, more than 10% of the average along the block and within the historic district. which should be also consistent with the surrounding buildings and buildings throughout the district. Consistence and setbacks and distance from the street and adjacent buildings to help convey a pattern and sense of rhythm along the block and within the district, which adds character of the streetscape and overall district. And architectural detail should be appropriate, scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with other adjacent buildings in the district. And then this type of garage is commonly found in the rear of Ashland Park and they consist of either frame or concrete block or wood. And this proposal is similar to many in the neighborhood. Recommendation, staff recommends disapproval of the removal of the chimney, reducing the windows, and removal of the window. Staff recommends approval of the proposed construction of the rear porch in addition garage with the standard two conditions. All right, Mr. Elder. Thank you. Thank you. Just to add a little bit of information, I'll start with the windows. That side of the house has been deemed structurally unsound by a structural engineer, so we are going to have to move from the very back corner all the way up to the bay by hand and then relay that similar to what we're going to have to do to the other side that collapsed. I'm okay with not enclosing that. That was something we threw out because the windows are three different sizes, three different elevations. It looks just terrible inside. If their recommendation is to keep that center window, that's fine. I would ask, though, that we could replace the glass. It has, I can't really describe it, but it looks like there's two different types of obscure glass. That apparently was an add-on when this was turned into a duplex that was a bathroom. And so part of it is an obscure glass. Looks like it's from maybe a machine shop or something like that. The other is just fog. I'm not really sure what that is. It's two totally different obscure. Is that part of your application to replace the glass? Well, actually, he. It was to remove the whole window. But his first application was to do that, and you actually have a standing COA to do that. Oh, okay, great. So we could probably move past that, and we'll just keep the window, and I like her recommendation on at least we could cover it up on the inside. And I know we are going to be restoring the original shutters, I believe. Ms. Kerr has the shutters still that we can put back on the house. My request for narrowing the back window, the rear, was the fact that that's not an original window. It doesn't look like the others. It has metal jam liners, and there was evidence of the size change that Amelia had discussed earlier. I was hoping that since we are rebuilding that entire side of the house, that that window could at least match in size so I don't have three different size windows and match it to the first one. And I would just add that that was part of his original application was to replace that replacement window, and he has a standing COA to do that. Yes, correct. to replace it back to that size or to the original height, just not the width. The original, the bottom framing for the sill is still there, and it's a newer lumber. It doesn't match the old lumber in the house. It was real obvious that that was modified at some point in time. I just wanted to go beyond that, and since we are rebuilding that old side, it's just a narrow, It's hard to tell that picture, but it's really probably only narrowing it, what would you say, six, eight inches probably? Something like that to match that other window. Any discussion regarding the chimney replacement? Yes. Okay. So the chimney, before I purchased the property and we did an inspection and Amelia was nice enough to meet me out there prior to buying it, that portion of the house had been severely neglected like a lot of this house. and that's the problem with the brick absorbing water. There was holes in the roof. That particular structure in the back, the roof was missing. The cradle, when I purchased it or prior to purchasing it, it was missing. The interior chimney portion, completely gone. The firebox, completely gone. I don't know how it was standing up there. And then we had that windstorm, and it took that down. I will add, too, that there's four chimneys on this house. The other three are great. They all are facing the road. This is the rear furthest and the smallest chimney that, for all intents and purposes, was 67% gone when I purchased it. Another kind of issue I have with rebuilding it, it's once it fell, the original chimney cap is basically disintegrated like a lot of this brick. I mean, we took that entire thing down by hand. There's no mortar left. That cap can't be reused. So if I rebuild it, it's not going to be like it was originally. I mean, I don't have the top piece to actually replace that portion of the chimney. How would you deal with the chimney cap? Exactly. I don't know. I would have to do something that wouldn't be part of the historic chimney on the house. Okay. But we are rebuilding. We've taken all those bricks down by hand. Didn't even have to clean them. The mortar had truly deteriorated to sand. And then we're in the process of rebuilding that. we took measurements, photographs, everything, but the chimney portion would be really difficult to put back exactly because I don't A, have the parts, and B, the interior portions were never present. Well, at least, I don't know how long this place has been abandoned. I think it's been a long, long time. Neighbors have told me close to 10 years, maybe. At some point in time, all that was removed from the interior. But the other three are in excellent shape and those are the big ones. This is a pretty small one. Yeah, it's the top stone cap and she had a picture there that broke into pieces. You'll find in your packet there's some black and white images of what that chimney looked like. Mr. Armstrong, do you want to address the issue about the chimney cap? Well, I think the chimney cap is different than the removal of the chimney itself because if you look in these images that were taken last fall where the chimney was intact, it It was a chimney that had some corbelling on the top and then it had just a regular limestone chimney cap. So it wasn't terribly elaborate or anything, it was just a basic cap. So the chimney that's been lost is the one that looks like, what was it, a kitchen chimney? Well, I think it was even a bit more, it's smaller than the regular one. I'm just trying to find a picture. And but Mr. Dickinson, have you, let me pull this a little closer so you can see. Yeah. Okay. That one and then that. So it's smaller than the other chimneys. Right. But it has a bit of corbelling to it. And it just looks like it has either a concrete or limestone cap at the top. Looks like it's limestone. Mm-hm. That was common for that period. But they could build it back with, because we did talk about at one point if he was going to reuse that, because that was going to be in a closet, that he could use that as a light well and maybe put a different kind of cap up top. Okay. All right. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Elder? Well, if you would like to see, I actually have a better picture of after it fell of the chimney cap, and it does have quite a bit of detail. It's not just the normal smooth limestone cap like our headers and sills. It is more of a chiseled piece that matches the other chimney caps on the house. It's sort of more of an ashlar split facing. Anybody like to see it? I think they've got pictures of this. Okay. I didn't see that yet. I had a close-up color one of it when it was laying up on it. It's hard, yeah. so okay okay all right but i think you know per our process the the chimney itself versus the chimney cap are two different issues so we could address i was just thinking if we're going to rebuild it if it's not going to be back to original then well probably our solution is going to be we'll add a condition that specifications as to the chimney cap itself will be submitted to the the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. So if there's an argument about what that cap should be like, that arguably could come back to us. But right now we're dealing with your desire not to replace the chimney at all. And I think we have to address that issue separately. Right. Okay. All right, so are there any questions from the board members? I'm a little confused about this window issue at the rear, the narrowing of the window. Like I said, my stance is, or her recommendation on keeping the middle one and not approving that is fine. It's the one to the right, my right. You want to narrow that? I was wanting to, yeah, because it's been shortened over time, like I was saying. I wanted to match the far one on the left just so the aesthetics would be the same. And the aesthetics that you're talking about are from the interior, so that they're all in- Exterior, yeah. I mean, both ways, but yet for sure the interior, but the way these are stair-stepped and they're all different sizes, it's like, you know, over time. I know just from talking to somebody previously on the house, that middle window was added when it was turned into a duplex. at some point the window on the right was added. I don't know when, but it does have new lumber framing that was added to shorten it. It does have the shutter dogs on there, so I don't know at what point those were added. But my request would be strike the request to remove the middle window and accept her recommendation on keeping it change the glass and but i'd like to be able to narrow that one down okay any questions for the board members um i had a question on the chimney issue so just to clarify that whole back brick area is being rebuilt it's you've taken it down it's hundred times brick by brick it came down that's correct and that's using the original brick and rebuilding it that that is correct it was the original roof line of that good question when I first even prior to purchasing the property the rafters had all been deteriorated it was hard to tell there There was a slight gable pitch to it, or excuse me, a hip. It was really difficult to tell. It was almost flat. It was probably a 112, if anything. I don't know if we have any pictures of that. But it was in such disrepair. It was really difficult to tell. All right. And that would be, I guess that would be, I'm sorry, that would be a question of what that needs to be rebuilt. There is a new addition going on the back, like an outdoor living area. I don't know if we could do a continuation on top of that structure of the new roof so it matches the addition. But I really don't know what that roof was. So, Ms. Irwin, if you look at this picture in the staff report that has the old 1980s edition with it, you can see that was, as Mr. Elder described, a very low-pitch roof, practically 112, that had a continuous roof over the 1980s edition. But we think that that is original to that brick area? Well, so the brick area was there and so as it has lived since 1980, this is the situation. Okay. Which is now, strangely enough, almost 40 years, or 40 years. I had slip over, we were done with this house. And there's no ghosting on the chimney or anything else that would have any kind of other flashing to it from our recollection of when it was standing. That it had a different roof or had any kind of cricket that would bind it in a particular way to any kind of pitch back there. Okay. If that makes sense. All right. Anything further from you, Mr. Elder? No, sir. Okay, I'm going to close the taking of testimony and the question and answer period. We'll open the floor now for comments and observations from the board members as we try to decide how we want to move forward. I think what we should do is just go ahead and address each element separately and see where we are. So let's talk about the windows first. I will lead off, and for your information, those of you who are in the audience, I am a layperson. I am not an architect, but I have been involved in historic preservation, some significant projects in the past. Personally, I think given the news that the entire backside is going to be relayed, rebuilt basically. I think Mr. Elder's solution for the windows is a good one. And I think it will be an enhancement to the structure for the windows to be almost matching rather than the hodgepodge that it is currently. Personally, changes that were made in the 30s denigrated the historic nature of the building rather than providing any enhancement. I don't see any justification for requiring that denigration to stay in place. So I like your solution to the three window issue. Okay, Sarwin, excuse me, I've got the wrong today. I see in the guidelines where the staff has rightful recommended denial of changing the sizes of those windows. However, I also feel that it's the fact that they have been altered over time, you know, in the way that they have It's tough because the guidelines are, I mean, the recommendation is appropriate to the guidelines. but it also is odd to keep them at the same size when they're that many odd sizes from just the standpoint of it being aesthetic both from the inside and the outside just to say here's a record of when we added a bathroom in 1930 and made this window here and i'd you know But the guidelines are clear, so I don't. Excuse me. Sarah? Can I actually ask one more question? The width of that back window that's been shortened, is the width of that window the same width as like the window we're seeing in the bay window? It would be historically the same size, but it is not now. But the width of it's the same width. So that width is not just a random width. No. It is and has precedence on the house. Right, and when it was added, when it was shortened, it was shortened for cabinetry. And we specifically don't change windows to accommodate just cabinetry willy nilly. Yep. So I guess I would fall in, I think that window is sized appropriate for the house. I would like it to go back to its original longer length, but it is what it is and I think there is precedence on the house to keep that width. The width, the wider width. wider width as it is. But is the proposal to make the wider width window longer to match the one of those other ones? No, it's just to make it more narrow. But it will keep the same, it would actually be the same dimensions as the windows with burglar guards over it if that makes sense actually i'm sorry amelia i wanted it to actually be the same elevation as well so it would be narrower and taller so would you want it the same as the bay or the way is the one with the burglar guards the the first one correct yes so narrower so what was the answer the same as which one it's the first window and it appears that like if you see the the original framing in there, that is the same as the first window. So I would just extend it back down into the original height, but then just make it narrower to match that first window. Which is in line with those other, almost in line with the other two. It would be in line with the first one. The one that we've agreed we're just going to keep, it still will be slightly higher. You can tell it's probably about maybe a brick or two higher is all it is. So I would just say that I think keeping it wider and lowering it would give you more consistency in how those look. And that width is with the May window, so I would be okay with that. Like I think that would be nice. But I think narrowing it, I mean it has character. And it adds to the character and the rhythm of that house by having a wider window there. So are we actually changing the application? I think that's what his application is. No, his application is to get it, sorry. The application is to narrow it and I am going with the staff recommendation that it shouldn't be narrowed. That's what I'm trying to say. Another question. So is there, talking about the short window. Is there any second or third short window like that in the house? There is not. Right, so it's an anomaly. It is. And again, you're proposing to make it match the first of the three. That is correct. Right. That this was done back. This change occurred in what, the 30s? What was it, 100 years ago? I believe that's what we have. That rear window, I think, has a different history because it's got a metal jam liner, so I would say that happened in the 1960s. Okay. Can we actually look at the window that we're talking about? I'm sorry, which window? Looking at that window right there, that's the window. Okay, this is not, okay, this to me looks like a side elevation. It is a side elevation. Okay. We keep talking about the rear elevation, that's where I'm confused. Sorry, I'm trying to describe it sort of the most rear of those three windows. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I may make one more observation. Having driven by this property, this side is almost impossible. This area is almost impossible to see from the street. If it were on a corner, it would be different, but it is pretty obscured. But if this fence went down, you could see it. And Brad, I'll point out to you, since you're new to this, the first thing you're going to have to learn is that we have what's called a 360 view. That regardless of whether it can be seen or not, we have to adhere to the guidelines. So that's not really a relevant factor as to whether it can be seen or not. I'm going to agree with Sarah. I think this window, quirky as it is, is there. And it needs to be respected. There's always that argument, when you've got bad architecture, do you fix it retrospectively? That's the architecture that came into being. That's the architecture it was when we approved the overlay. And so good, bad, and different, and quirky, it's there. So I think I'm going to have to agree with Sarah that the windows basically can't be changed. I think the drywall is a decent solution aesthetically indoors. That will give you the wall space that you need to work with. So that's my view on the matter. Okay, I mean, now turn to the chimney. Okay, let's talk about the chimney. Let's start with you, Sarah. Don't laugh like that. The chimney. I think that chimney has character and adds to character to the side of the house. More than just the corbling, it has a real identity and the way it interfaces with the wall, it steps out, and I think if you just don't remove that. If you don't rebuild that chimney, you're going to lose character along the face of that wall. If you don't rebuild it, are you still planning on trying to do some detailing around that wall, or Or are you just going to go back with a flat wall? That's a good question. Because you can see it really does add character along that wall. And I think that plays into building that up and rebuilding that chimney. And I think I lean towards saying I think that chimney should be rebuilt for the character of that size of the house. Right, that's a good question. since that structure is now gone, we could follow, and there is a little bit of a bump out. It's really slight on this stone foundation that we could add even a detail of that bump out on the wall. But the chimney, like I said, it serves no purpose at all inside, even though it was just brought up that you can't see it from the street very well. I just don't have any of the parts and pieces to put it back to its original form. So I'd be building a new chimney, in my opinion, that wouldn't be truly historic, especially with the loss of that chimney cap. Any comments? Suzanne? I do agree that along the elevation of the wall that having the step out of where the chimney has been is a nice feature. I have a you know I'm I'm very conflicted on recommending the rebuilding of a chimney above the roofline when there is no functional purpose for it, when it is to be rebuilt, and when the roofline is being changed drastically. that's why i smirked i'm like i i mean it just is it does add to the texture of the wall but i it's really hard to recommend to build something above the roof line that isn't there doesn't isn't useful so well i think i'll i'll chime in at this point the the chimneys many of the chimneys in today's houses have no function they're just there and they're not even used but the the chimneys for that decade for those style houses had a aesthetic view function they balanced the house in some ways they are part of the landscape and rhythm of that street i have to agree with sarah i think she's right that that the way it butts out makes it a very interesting distinguishing feature i know that this chimney will have no function but probably it needs to go back and that's my that's my final view of this so i do think uh there's some you can explore with the staff how to do the capstone if that's if that's giving you an issue as to how to do that i think that's something that we can understand that you're going to take to the staff for review and if there's any further disagreement about your capstone we can pick that up later so um i haven't asked for questions or comments from the audience is there any hearing none are we ready to move forward to trying to do a motion i'll pick on you sir a chair in regards to case number zero zero seven one zero one two 28-0 at 128 South Ashland Avenue. I move that we decline the certificate of appropriateness to remove the chimney and to reduce the windows and remove the windows. And that we approve the other parts of the application with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Are you saying nay? Are you opposed to the motion? Okay. So we have a 3-1 split. The motion carries back, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Mr. Eller, thank you. However, the application has been disapproved with respect to the chimney and windows. All right, so I'm in a bit of a quandary. I have another meeting I need to be to by now actually. But I want, I think I'm going to have to leave no later than six. So let's move forward now with the Fayette Park application. The scope of work is to construct the retaining wall. And your name, please. Bo Spicer. Okay. Mr. Spicer. Yes, sir. All right. Who is... Okay. Bo Bo, you've seen her procedure. We'll go through a presentation. We'll then poke needles into Barry and then you'll have an opportunity to give your viewpoint. Thank you, sir. Okay, 444 Fayette Park, and it's to construct a retaining wall. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a retaining wall in the front yard of the property. The retaining wall would be located along the sidewalk here and then running back towards the house. So it's proposed to be in the southeast quadrant of the front yard of the property. The proposed retaining wall varies in height with a maximum height of two feet. and it would be constructed of Ashler Tandled Natural Stone by Bell Guard. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal to proposed introduction of the retaining wall into the historic district that has not had retaining walls associated with the pattern of development does not meet the guidelines. Guideline 3 states site and setting in addition to building elements of the surrounding site and setting contribute to the character of the historic properties. These elements may include both natural and man-made features such as trees, fields, gardens, fences, driveways, retaining walls, and boundary definers. Historic site elements help define a property setting and feature and should be preserved and maintained. Guidelines 3.6A and 3.6B state respectively, land features, land forms that are significant should be preserved and maintained and that are altered or introduced shall be compatible to the site and with surrounding properties. Guideline 3, 6F states vistas and approaches should be preserved and maintained. In Fayette Park, the front yards are rolled from the finish grade down to the street or the sidewalk, or the street sidewalk drives and other surfaces retaining walls are not a historic feature in fayette park and should not be introduced into the historic district a similar retaining wall design was denied by the board during the july 7 2006 meeting this proposal should be denied as well. And then let me go through the photos so you will understand what I'm speaking of. So again, this is the property in question. So you can see with the number of steps here that the grade adjacent to the structure is higher than the sidewalk. And then it is, they're rolled down. You can also see that in this location. This set of stones has been recently placed without a COA, and I have contacted the owner to make an application for that. So I'm going to work across. Here's a tighter shot of the property in question. and I'm working my way south so this is the southwest corner of Fayette Park and this is a introduced brick wall that was constructed without a COA at some time in the past according to other staff members it was before my time so this is looking up towards the east on the south side of Fayette Park and you can see how these lawns are rolled down. This is going back to the north side and looking looking to the east and again you can see how these yards are rolled to the sidewalk. Now this is again on the north side but it's looking back to the west and it's a little more visible in this shot of those rolled yards. There is this retaining wall stone, but it is part of the Broadway Northside historic district and not in character with the rest of Fayette Park. So these are the layout as I mentioned running to the west, I'm sorry to the south and then west and then back to the house. Obviously the wall won't be this high but this is an example of the stone that is proposed and the painting wall recommendations staff recommends the denial of the demolition of the chimney and in your packet was also excuse me yeah what did i say yep retaining wall for summarize and i've got the wrong sheet there um as i was saying the um staff report and the meeting minutes for that previous application were included in your packet. That's the end of the retaining or the end of the staff report. The board has any questions for staff. I just want to make sure in the application that was circulated to the board members, you had staff recommends denial of a demolition of a chimney. That's being corrected and simply you're denying the application for retaining wall, correct? Correct. All right, stating the obvious. Okay, before we bring the boat, before we turn to you, any questions for Mr. Dennis? The brick retaining wall then was already in place before the historic district designation? That I am not sure of. Amelia, you could help with that? That was installed right after, I think, it became a historic district, but it was done without a certificate of appropriateness. Was one ever tried to be approved or not, or do you remember? It was actually, I mean, this became a historic district in the 80s. Right. So I was not around then. Okay. It was not in the state. it happens sometimes that we have non-approved elements in a historic district we do try to catch those but sometimes they sneak through all right any other questions okay bo is the spice all right thank you board um kind of give you a backstory here the reason for uh this application as the slide show shows here one of the beauties of my industry is unlike structures we're not static our plants grow and fayette park is becoming extremely historical with age of course and we have trees in doing so we are seeing a large amount of deterioration of the soil due to root structures. I think I can do this here. As we can see, let's back up. There is an extremely large and two, the time of the construction of the house Sycamore, right in the corner of the house, or of the property, I'm sorry. In doing so, the neighbor's house and 444 have no ability to drain the chimney water, or not chimney water, the roof water, appropriately to the storm drain. So it runs directly through the middle of the yard. You can't put in any type of underground drain. In doing so, what we're getting is this pitcher was done probably in the last couple weeks. She is having to have her yard sodded yearly. This is freshly laid sod. As a matter of fact, I was the one who suggested that. She actually stopped a little shy of where you can see the dirt there because why put down sod in an area that we may or may not put down a wall. This has become a persistent problem throughout Alfea Park. Mr. Dennis' slideshow shows that. We have homeowners who are trying to remedy this on their own. And the other part we're seeing with these large trees is, you know, we got cracking in concrete. You can't see it here, but her walkway is cracked because of this tree. So that's what we're trying to do. Now, one quick note, I did go over there and revisit that one of the neighbors did have a concern about the height of the wall that proposed. And so one thing I would like to throw into notes is that we would be able to construct this out of the material that matches somewhat to the foundation of the house, but keep it under 15 inches, 15 inches or below. The height would be here in the corner closest to the drive, would be the revised proposal. It seemed like that was kind of a nice fit. Up near the house, it would terminate with just being ankle high is where it would. The purposes of this is to hold back the soil that she's having to pay to be put back every year and kind of eliminate this ongoing problem that, well, we can see through the whole neighborhood. Any questions? All right. So I'm looking at the non-approved retaining wall that's running in front of that tree. Is that on your property or on the property? That is the property line. There's actually a pin somewhere right there. Right, that's what I thought. Now those houses sort of fit oddly in terms of the property lines. They do. And one thing about this corner lot here, and one of the reasons for the deterioration of the soil, is though Fayette Park is very shady, most of the shade is either tree structures in the Middle Island and or really close to the house. just so happens this one fits right in the corner of the property and those roots i had a historical photo i don't know if it's still up there there were shrubs around the handrail there and due to the root system of that tree that actually died so this that's one of the reasons that we're suggesting that i use the term retaining wall because it is a static structure I don't think we're necessarily going to affect the rolling of the lawn. The lawn will still have a roll to it. It will not be leveled by no means. We are not giving this a flat grade. In most cases, at that level, which one of these does the laser? That one? Right about there is where the wall would terminate. So the wall will still retain its natural roll, or the lawn will, I'm sorry, but we will be able to retain that and help with this ongoing issue. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll start off with you, Brad. So in the picture, this is the stones in front of the mulch, in front of the tree. Correct. are on the same property? On the same property. And a COA would have been required for those? Yes. Okay, thank you. For landscape edging? Yes. And it's acting as a retaining wall, so probably there should have been a COA applied for them. Well, there's no structural integrity to it. They're laying on top of the soil. Gary? Yes, a COA would be required, and as I mentioned, the adjacent property has stacked some stone along the front of theirs, and they've been contacted to submit a COA application for that work. Just so I'm clear, are we talking about that stone? No. actually some of this landscaping did get approved yeah in um 2007 and the knee walls at the front stoop okay that stone is what you're talking about right is that what your concern is this stone is on the adjacent property yeah um and it's just stacked in there It's not laid with mortar or anything. So if you go back to the picture that we were under the tree. Is. You're going. Other way. Other direction, yeah. There, stop. So the stone in front of the mulch, in front of the tree there, is that also on the same property that has the... The neighboring property. The neighboring property. Is that a different border than the one you showed us just a moment ago? No, it's the same. The same. Yes, that stone is just laid in and it continues the width or up to their sidewall. so we have two pictures of the same property of the stones laying in front of the property that's correct they're just laid in and not constructed in any way they're not um haven't used landscaping adhesive or mortar or anything to hold them in place so they just laid them there. All right Suzanne anything? I don't have any comments. Sarah? I don't have any comments. I'm just going to have to point out we've I wasn't on the I don't think I was on the board at the time but we've been through those application once before. I'm going to have to defer to the staff on this one. There aren't any approved retaining walls in this neighborhood. I realize there are some drainage issues that probably can be mitigated through other means. I would hate to introduce a whole new element into a pretty well-established. Fayette Park's been there since the 1910s, 12s? 1914. that yeah right and so i think i don't think there's any wiggle room in this one that we can go ahead and approve the retaining wall the staff has made an appropriate recommendation in my view that this element should now be introduced in this particular neighborhood so is there anything i agree with that all right uh are we ready for a motion then okay uh can someone make that motion please. In regards to case number 06900444-Y at 444 Fayette Park, I move that we deny the request for a certificate of appropriateness. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Any questions or comments from the audience? I'm sorry. If not hearing none, I'll call the question. all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion carries and the coa is denied thank you you're welcome uh suzanne i'm going to turn the floor over to you if that's all right okay okay thank you very much uh i look forward to seeing you all in jail all right thanks i'm off to the human rights commission uh we will take a five minute pause and then come back to case number 1268 0716 desk H Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. we will hear case number one two six eight zero seven one six dash h this is for Crestwood rental properties owner Dudley Burke applicant is the applicant here if you can state your name hello my name is Dudley Burke thank you we will hear a presentation by the staff and then we will have you present your case as well 716 west maxwell street the proposal is to remove a flue chimney at the back of the historic structure the guidelines are included for your use and findings the proposal to remove the chimney does not meet or does not comply with the guidelines guideline 1 3a states materials original to the building should be preserved and maintained the chimney design principle states chimneys are are often significant features of a property and help define its architectural character the chimneys on many lexington fayette county buildings were designed to to be architectural features in their own right and display corbelling inset panels and decorative elements reflected of the overall building style chimneys should be retained and maintained even if they do not serve their historic function removing an original chimney lessons of properties architectural integrity as well as a true traditional building pattern indicative of a property's history chimneys should be maintained and preserved in accordance with the brick and mortar guidelines guideline 1 5a states chimneys should not be removed or altered if original and architecturally significant original or additionally guideline 15b and 15c state respectively chimneys should be repointed and cleaned according to masonry guidelines to match original materials color shape and brick pattern and should match the original design if they have to be rebuilt being due to becoming unstable or if they are falling down repair should match historic material shapes mortar material and color and brick patterns so this is 716. unfortunately with all of the leaves out it's hard to see the chimney but it's located on this back corner you can see it peeking through here in this location and we have on the overhead a photograph without the leaves where the chimney is much more obvious in this location recommendations staff recommend recommends denial of the demolition of the show of the chimney and the deadline for boar action is July 3rd 2023 that's completion of the staff report unless the board has questions. Anyone have questions for the board? Okay. Applicant, Mr. Burke, if you could present your case, please. Most of my arguments were probably covered with a previous chimney case. The only thing I could say is the chimney is in completely bad shape. The house has been not taken care of for quite a long time. They are ready to do the right thing now. The chimney is contained in the house. We're going to have to do quite a bit of framing. We could do a better structural job if we could take that chimney down on the inside. It serves no purpose. It is a flue pipe. It is in the back of the building, but I understand the 360 aspect of it so i respect y'all's decision thank you thank you could i make a comment by the board yes um based on uh mr burke's comment there that he wants to take it out of the inside chimneys have been allowed to be taken out of the inside if they're supported on the roof and remain in their original state. So the finding would be that it just needs to remain from the roof line? Correct. In this case where it doesn't have any expression on the exterior walls? That is correct. To grade? Are you interested in commenting on that? Yeah, we're going to have to take the chimney down no matter what. So if we did do that, we would be taking it down to rebuild it from the rooftop up because it isn't safe. That's where we stand. Any other comments by the board? Okay. So I think we're ready to have a motion on this case. Yes, please, Chair, in regards to 716, Weston-Matchwell, case number... I've got to take off my glasses to read it. Case number 12680716-H, I move that we deny the Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the rear brick chimney. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of the chimney. Thank you for your participation. Thank you. um now i think we have a conceptual review paul kelly owner darren taylor applicants construct an addition at 225 south ashland avenue have a presentation i'm darren taylor i'm the applicant but my partner vincent thompson's gonna speak okay thank you thanks okay conceptual review i had 255 south ashland this is the front of the house so the proposal is to construct a addition in this back corner where this wood frame and siding is located The addition will project out towards us. And in this one it would project to the left. It's two stories tall. I'll let Mr. Taylor go through the actual architecture. So the guidelines are included for your use. And the findings, as this is a conceptual review, there are no findings at this time. The following are some issues that the board may want to consider. Is the location of the proposed two-story addition on the side of the historic structure appropriate? Is the size and volume of the proposed addition in scale with the historic structure? Number three, is the connection of the roof and the roof line of the proposed addition appropriate? Is the building form and shape compatible with the existing and adjacent buildings? Were the openings compatible in scale, size, and proportion to the established pattern of openings in their adjacent and surrounding buildings? Number six, does the roof of the proposed addition overwhelm the structure? Number seven, did the proportional emphasis and rhythm of the new addition reflect the predominant proportion emphasis and rhythm of the existing adjacent and surrounding buildings and there are no recommendations at this time and no deadline for board action that's the completion of the staff report for that And the red is the pointer. Perfect. Thank you and good afternoon. I'm here representing our client at 255 South Ashland. And I'm just going to go over the design and what they're wanting to do. So let me go to floor plan. So we've got the existing floor plan, the existing condition here. Currently the desire is to have an expanded living space to accommodate more family gatherings. Currently the way that the first floor is set up, they don't have that space that they can entertain, have family members over. They have a really nice garden in the back of the property that they'd like to take advantage of, some views and have some adjacencies to the kitchen. So what we're proposing is, back here is the kitchen, and we're proposing to come off. I'm going to grab this right here. we're proposing to come off of the existing kitchen here it appears to us that this was it's currently the mudroom this was at some point closed in I believe it was an existing sleeping porch it was some type of addition that was closed in at a later date but we're proposing to come off of that existing sleeping porch and actually reuse the windows that are in place right now so all the openings in the new edition are actually us taking those existing windows and repurposing them in the new design and in the same light let's go to the plan. So you'll see in the proposed plan, we're expanding the existing mudroom right now to make it more functional. We're not changing anything to the existing footprint of the house, and we're adding on. We're trying to make a small break from the existing to the new with this kind of indentation here and then our new living space is added on over here with a covered porch on the back to take advantage of the views and the nice garden back here. So the property line is right along this line that I'm showing. So we're not encroaching on the setback. We're actually about five or six feet in from the setback. so we're trying to get that as close to the house as we can while still maintaining a nice usable living space. On the second floor, again, we're repurposing that space on that second floor sleeping porch and maintaining the integrity of this existing wall and then creating a new guest bedroom for their guests and families. to stay the night up here on the second floor. So it's a little grainy on the elevation drawings, but you can see we have a gable roof that intersects the existing roof here. These are those repurposed windows. This is an existing window, I believe. And we've got a new kind of covered gabled porch on the back that's outlooking the garden. We're included in the design are these high transom windows to let some natural light in on the side in respect to privacy of the neighbor and also the amount of existing windows that we had to use. We didn't want to put those on the side. So here's some preliminary building sections. And then you can see from our 3D, this is the volume that we are proposing to add. We've got our new covered porch. And, you know, the idea was to not, you know, do anything to the front of the house. We're coming off of the side and sort of respecting that back building line as well by not going back into the garden. It's something that's very important to our client to preserve. So that's our proposed design. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions to clarify? Brock? Yes. Since it's chimney day, let's discuss the chimney. Sure. So there are, what, five or six existing chimneys. Yes, there's quite a few. The new one proposed appears to be wider and shorter. Mm-hm. And again, from, I turn to my architectural professionals here. While I am guessing that the height isn't a factor because of the uptake on the chimney, construction and what not is different. Correct. But architecturally, it is different. And as I learned with our discussion of Helm Place, new additions don't necessarily have to mimic the old. But in this one case, I was wondering just for the symmetry of all of it, why the choice was made not to extend the chimney as high. And basically make it the same dimension in terms of width. yeah i think um we could absolutely do that i know um on some other additions that i've worked on uh previously uh we don't like the the feedback that i've gotten we wouldn't want the the roof line of the proposed addition to overpower the the ridge line on from the front elevation and kind of take precedent there um so you know it's kind of hard to see on our our front elevation just because of the way it was scanned in. Well, and the new chimney would be the only one that's piercing a gable. Correct, yeah. So the new roof line is lower than the front of the house, and it's the only chimney that is lower. I would be open to exploring, modifying that, or having it match the other chimneys in some fashion. And my question was not in the disguise of a recommendation. I was just a little curious from an architectural perspective. Yeah, I think it was just a more common build, the way that we kind of detail our chimneys. I think I didn't want to have the brick competing with the existing conditions on site and wanted to have some different materiality. That was the thought. I am going to try to attempt some of the staff's questions that they pose to us in terms of thinking about this proposal. The first one is the location of the proposed two-story addition on the side of the historic structure appropriate. I would argue that it is not for a couple of reasons. I feel like putting it off to the side, and especially since it's even coming out, you have the original structure, and it has a big, broad face, and then steps in and steps in. And by coming out to the side, you're even coming past the face of the existing structure, and you're really changing the shape and the character of the house when you're doing it, and I don't think it's quite appropriate as trying to add on and coming and going towards the back. You know, we often talk about when you do come to the side having kind of a connector piece rather than kind of full-on attaching to the house. I see where you tried to kind of step in to create that connector, but I don't think it really does the job in terms of thinking about how you come to the side. It feels very large for an addition. and I think part of the reason it feels so large is maybe just because it is coming so far to the side and beyond the face of that original elevation of the house. So, you know, you are stepping in on the roofline, but you're also tying in directly to the roofline at the eaves, and that feels like, I think that also just really detracts from the original portion of the house in terms of question number three there. I think with all of those things that I've, I mean, all of those questions kind of blend together in terms of how I think that side addition is working. I do think it's really changing the character of that house and it's really crashing into the side of the house where we would prefer to see a little bit of gentler connection there. Okay. Yeah, and I think, you know, I'm just going to go back to the plan. you know the the idea for the design is the living space and and I completely see what you're saying respecting that line where the bay that existing bay comes out to about here you know there's there's really no way to maintain you know even the existing you know mudroom area we're kind of only growing it by about two feet just so we can have cabinetry on one side there would be really no way to add to the side of the house and create an adequate adequately sized living space by today's standards without I would even say that I'm not sure that even if it didn't come past the you know the original facade of the house that the original elevation even if it didn't come past it I would sure agree with it but I just think it's really overwhelming from that side especially that it does that. Okay. And I would only add, in preliminary conversations that I had Mr. Taylor earlier, when we discussed this earlier this year, I think we were looking at and not being such a massive form of having the second story and the larger roof. Okay. At that point, it was a one-story and it had a smaller and less substantial presence on the site, I would say. And, of course, those were schematics that were practically like napkin drawings. But at that point, could that possibly be a better location, given the fact that they do have not a huge yard because they have a massive garage? you know that that was looked at from staff's perspective saying okay you know maybe but i think now with the second floor with the massive roof it sort of takes on its own identity overwhelms the structure so i'm there's kind of two things that that i'm seeing and it's you know kind of the roof line i feel like is you know maybe a little overpowering and then also the volume on that second floor. So I guess my thought is if we were able to change the roof, change it to like a flat roof and try to make it more subtle, does that help get us closer to where we'd want to be? Or is it still kind of the volume? I don't want to help you design it on site because I hear, you know, because that's your job. I think a flatter roof, a smaller structure might help. I think that, you know, when you look at these elevations and these 3Ds, it's like you're almost making a front side of the house on the back side of the house is how this looks. It's just so overpowering. I would add to that that the connection on the backside of the addition to the brick existing brick elevation of the house is, it does not show the intent of breaking the addition or defining where the addition starts and the existing ends, other than the fact that it's of two different materials. So that side is fine. I mean, that side, yes, the back side right there. that there's there's no break in that elevation and so then it it again it it reads volumetrically as a really really large wall back there so i think that's adding to the volume um and i guess um i definitely see the proportionality of the space that you're creation creating and the need for that those dimensions but I do see that it is problematic that it extends beyond the edge of the of the house and it it's by quite a bit so I think that the volume needs to be lessened I think that we're all saying that the volumetrically it's it's a it it's too present sure and I think that outer edge the guidelines say that you don't want to go past the edge of the house and so that um it does that so that's that's a bit of an issue and i think we and to add to you what you were talking about we actually have done additions to the side we've done one on ashland you know about i think 2011 or 2010 you know we've done another one in south hanover so i think the idea of having a side addition is within the guidelines. I think this one creates a lot more mass and so much more identity that it overwhelms the main structure. And I'm thinking, just looking at your floor plan, if there's a way you can sort of incorporate that back wall of the existing addition and move around your spaces a little bit and make the living space closer to that side that you're not pushing so much out into the yard. I know you've got the side yard setbacks with no problem, but on paper, per the planning and zoning, but I think per us, we'd like to see it more compact and tighter. That's the way. as miss armstrong said the guidelines do say that additions to the side of the structure may be appropriate i think in this case i agree with the board it is overwhelming it needs to be reduced brought back to the south i think if it could be pulled to the south to where it didn't it didn't protrude past that bay maybe even if you extended the addition more towards the backyard I'm not saying put the whole addition into the backyard because there is the garage and it's not a huge property but there could be some way to massage it to possibly meet all the requirements that the board has pointed out your idea of a flat roof or a addition with parapets that could be possible also if you did stay with the gable roof as ms lemire stated the fascias and soffits of the addition need to come in under the existing structures, fascias and soffits. And if the roof could not be overbuilt as far onto the historic structure, I think that would be helpful if you did stay with a gable roof. Sure. Thank you. Any other? I think that volume would look a lot softer if there was a separation between those two roof lines rather than just crashing them into each other. Yeah, I agree. I think we can make that happen. I don't have any other comments. Any other comments? Did you have any other specific questions for us? No, I think that was kind of my biggest point, was trying to pull this out as appropriately as possible to get the programmatic requirement for that living space. But I think I'm going to try to work on scaling that volume back. I do have a question. So the intent would be siding? Yes. which would add to its obviousness. Yes. Right now we're proposing a fiber cement board painted. I think it's clear that it's a separate edition, but our point is that volumetrically it's not reading being separate. Anything else from the staff? We appreciate you very much coming and presenting to us. We appreciate you being a part of this. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. You have to move to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you.