58, our first historic district was Transfark, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and any comments from other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also let you write your name so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin a review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 29 staff recommendations for review. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 231 Deshea Road, replace roof. In the Elshard Historic District, at 38 Central Avenue, remove Diedon Tree. At 428 East Maxwell, renovate the structure. At 461 East Maxwell, rebuild the front steps. In the Belcourt Historic District at 136 Belcourt, replace the storm windows. At 220 Bell Place, renovate the chimneys. At 524 Sair Avenue, renovate the site. In the Constitution Historic District at 112 Constitution Street, remove a tree. At 216 North Limestone, remove ash tree. in the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 628 Ellesmere Park, renovate the structure. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 424 Fayette Park, remove Dying Tree. And at 425 Fayette Park, renovate the site and replace porch and replace roof. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 353 North Limestone, remove the Dying Tree. In the north side, Historic District at 437 West 2nd Street, replace the front sidewalk and steps. At 332 Hampton Court, renovate the structure. At 315 West 6th Street, renovate the front porch. At 433 West 6th Street, renovate the structure. At 424 West 6th Street, replace the roof. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 157 Goodridge Avenue, remove the dying pin oak tree. in the seven parts historic district at 119 arcadia park remove the trees at 144 shiny place renovate the structure in the south ashland central avenue historic district at 117 south ashland avenue remove the tree in the south hill historic district at 408 south mill street renovate the structure in sight at 517 south mill street renovate the structure at 333 south upper Street, renovate the structure. At 359 South Upper Street, install a garden shed. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 115 Jefferson Street, replace the railings. And finally, in the Woodward Heights, Historic District at 538 West High Street, repair the box cutters. We'll now turn to the applications that are pending before us. The first one is 371 L's replace, rebuild front porch, and construct one-and-a-half-story addition. Is the applicant here. And actually I should have noted the second one as well at 375. That's correct, yes. If you would like to state your name for the record please. Paul Lee with Studio A Architecture. All right. Staff has recommended approval of the applications I believe, subject to what I've always called the standard two conditions. Let me get to Actually, there's one other. Staff has recommended approval at 371 Ellsford Place if you'll submit the rear deck skirting details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Yes, we are. And with respect to the last two conditions, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work? Yes. And finally, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work? Yes, sir. All right. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? The chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 00980371-F at 371 Aylesford Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that they submit the rear deck skirting details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. 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. Motion passes, and the COA, as conditioned, is approved. Turning now to... Thank you. Is it me, or is the microphone just really lively today? Okay. I feel like I'm having an echo coming back at me, but that's okay. Let's turn now to the 375, Ellsford Place. The staff has also recommended approval on this one, subject to, I think, just the standard two conditions. Let me double check. Yes, just to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with that, sir? Yes, we are. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case 00980375-C at 375 Aylesford Place, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions as previously read. Is there a second? Yes, second. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Closed in. Motion passes and the COA as conditions approved. Thank you so much. Good luck with your project. All right, turning now to 463 East Maxwell Street. Is the applicant here? Chairman, the applicant owner is not here. He's currently in Europe. his deadline for board action is september 18th which is the next board meeting uh you can has he already had signed one waiver or or no yes that's the waiver that he signed it goes to september 18th can you reach out to him and see whether he goes on another waiver he will but that waiver will still be good i did discuss that with him okay so you're saying we don't need to get another waiver um not if he attends that meeting all right and if i hear from him prior to the meeting that he can't i will get a waiver i didn't hear you say again please He won't need a waiver prior to the September 18th meeting, but if for some reason he can't make that, I will get a waiver prior to that meeting, an additional waiver. All right, thank you. So when does he anticipate coming back from Europe? I think it's next week. Okay, all right then. In which case, I think so that he can have an opportunity to be heard, I would like to have a motion to continue. No, we didn't open it. To postpone this process, this applicant again to, what's our next date? September 18th. All right, September 18th. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Hearing no objection, the motion is postponed, is approved. All right, turning now to our next application at 319 Park Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. Scope of work is demolished, construct wood privacy fence. Is the applicant here? Chairman, the applicant is not here. He was sent the staff report by email Monday, and I have not heard from him. All right, I will note that the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. I believe we can move forward with this even though the applicant's not here. All right, if there's no objection, I'll read into the record. It's the standard two conditions that the staff has recommended that the COA be conditioned. Are there any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Again, the scope of work in this matter is the model shed and constructed wood privacy fence. If not, then I believe we are ready for a motion. Chair, per case 146-00319 at 319 Park Avenue, I move we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do we have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, the application is approved as conditioned. Turning now to our next application at 8 Preston Court. We're just moving right on, aren't we? at 8th Preston Court. Scope of work is Demarge, Deck, and Stairs. Construct new stairs, new porch and stairs. Please state your name for the record. Maynard Leon with Ama Studio. All right. Staff has reviewed your application. I believe they have recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions, which I have previously read. Did you hear those? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes, I am. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 1541008-E at 8 Preston Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion is conditioned. The certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. All right, turning to the Bell Court Historic District at 524 Sayre Avenue. Install a new tiered patio with seating walls. Is the applicant here? Hello. Make your name for the record, please. Robin Campbell. All right, Ms. Campbell. Staff has recommended approval of, and have you all received the plans? They were in the initial package. Yes. Staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 16780624-G at 624 Sayre Avenue, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much and good luck with your project. Thank you. Okay, turning now to 628 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District. Scope of work is the move of a tulip tree. Is the applicant here? Did we just skip that one? Yeah, skip one. I knew he was getting ready to skip one. I sure did. I believe it should be 128 East 3rd Street. I am wondering, but I apparently, thank you. That applicant is present. All right. I am sorry. Come on up. Apparently this one was left out of my packet. Don't worry. Again, this is 128 East 3rd Street in the Constitution Street Historic District. The scope of work is install a front yard fencing and gate. Say your name for the record, please. Aisha Jamal. All right. The staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. I've read them into the record before. Did you hear me on those? Are you in agreement? All right. Do we have any comments from the board members? No. Any comments from the audience? I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 18790128-H at 128 East 3rd Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. I do have a second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I have lost Preston Court. Do we have it? The Preston Court won 628. I am sorry. I don't know what happened to my father. There you go. sir thank you so much i i apologize uh this is 628 north broadway uh the scope of work is removed tulip tree is the applicant here actually um mr dickinson can we go back to 444 bay park which is number i don't know what's happened to my The applicant has requested a postponement to the September 8th meeting date. She's traveling and she will be getting a waiver. And I will be sending that over to you momentarily when she gets back into town. This is a request for a postponement. Do I have a motion to approve the postponement to September 18th? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. No objection. The application is postponed until September 18, 2024. All right. Turning now to, I hope, 628 North Broadway. Scope of work is remove the tulip tree. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present, but he has received a copy of his staff report. Again, please. He has received a copy of his staff report. Did he indicate agreement with it or disagreement, or did he say anything? Oh, I got him. He actually conducted pruning already, and then after the discussion of pruning is when he asked to remove the tree. So I'm doubtful he's in agreement of that discussion. I think that you gave him an opportunity to be heard. We should probably postpone this one. So do I have a motion? deadline is August 25, so we have we need a waiver. We can actually probably try to get a waiver and have it sent it over to you. Just be careful to make sure I understand. Unless you guys want to go ahead and act on it. I need to have advice of counsel on this one, since we don't know and we have a deadline right on top of us like this, I think we probably won't have to go ahead and hear it or hold him in default. The deadline for action, you have to act within 60 days. So considering that this one, the deadline is August 25th. No, that's 60 days from the filing of the application, not 60 days from today. Yes. So the deadline, I think, is August 25th. Is that right? Correct. Okay. Yeah, the deadline is August 25th. The problem that we have is that there's some case law that has indicated that if we do not take action on the application, then it stands automatically approved. Now, the staff has recommended denial of this application. I don't think we have any choice. We're going to have to go ahead and hear this one. So let's open the record. In this case, is this? It's mine. Okay. We can discuss if we want to go ahead and just summarily deny it because of his failure to be here. And to postpone it with a waiver until September, it's the legal concerns? I think we have to have the waiver before August 25th, and that's two days from now. and we're not going to be able to deal if he refuses to sign the waiver. That's my problem. So my secondary question is, there is, I think, a default procedure. Since he did not appear to be heard on this matter, we could just go ahead and do a summary approval of the staff recommendation of disapproval. if that is the desire of the committee members or we can go ahead and have a hearing do i have a motion to summarily to deny this one so moved do i have a second second all right any discussion on that motion the motion is this now it's a two-step motion the first motion is are we going to summarily do not go ahead not have a hearing all those in favor of not having a hearing at this time, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Second motion then is I need a motion to summarily deny this application. So moved. Second. Can I make a clarification on the first motion? Sure. I mean, the reason that I'm voting to summarily deny it is the lack of appearance or contact by the applicant themselves. Right. It has nothing to do with the content of the application. It's that we cannot have a dialogue with the applicant since he is not present. And if it didn't make that sufficiently clear, I agree absolutely with what you're saying. We are not actually approving or disapproving the application itself. We are denying it because he failed to appear for a hearing. Or to notify the staff of why he was not making an appearance. Absolutely. Yes, Brad. And he is still permitted to reapply? No. Since his request was removal, the pruning request was granted. The removal request was not. he will not be able to submit an application identical to this one for another year okay but he can at some point he can if he wants to do further pruning or need not sure he even needs an approval from us for pruning does he he does not okay all right so i think we're we got a reduction in a row. The motion now before us is to summarily approve the staff's recommendation of disapproval. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and this application for to remove the tree has been denied. Did I make that sufficiently clear. Sorry about that. Okay. I knew that's why I was on the edge. Turning now to 436 West 2nd Street in the north side historic district. Scope of work is to construct a solar wreck. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here? Ah, okay. Mr. Dumer, is that right? Is it drummer? Doomer. Doomer, all right. Mr. Dumer, staff has recommended approval, although you started this project without a permit. but i believe there aren't any questions or complications for this one the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what we call the standard two conditions let me read i don't think you've been present for our prior discussions let me read them into the record and get your agreement the first one is once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work Are you in agreement with that? I cannot hear you that well. All right. I hate these microphones. Can you hear me now? Yeah. All right. Let me read this again. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. The second one is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work or in agreement. Yes. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Chair, is ready for a motion? Chair, in regards to Case 168-404-36-E at 436 West 2nd Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the Standard 2 conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say hi. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and your application has been approved. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Turning now to 518 Arcadia Park. Construct deck. Actually construct a freestanding wood deck. State your name for the record, please. Hello, my name is William Olney. Ms. Nollinley, staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. I previously read them in the record. Did you hear me? Yes, sir. Do you agree with those? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. I do have a question, and it's in regard to the site plan and in looking at the photographs. So on the site plan, there appears in the corner of the L of the deck what I think by the photographs, it's not identified on the plan, but it's a large tree. Yes, or it's oak leaf hydrangea. Yes, ma'am. Wow. What kind of tree is it? So it's not a tree? I don't believe it to be a tree. You're speaking of the plant with the large green leaves? No. So on the site plan, looking at the site plan, it's the right plan here. It is the tree. It's a large tree. I may be just referencing it or not understanding which plant you're speaking of. It's the site plan that I was looking at that shows the proposed deck, and it's L-shaped, and in the corner of that L is a large tree. Yes, ma'am. Yes, the general oak tree. Yes, ma'am. Yes, so the scale of that oak and the location of how that structure is going to go around two sides of that tree is what my concern is. Because you're right in underneath the canopy, right against the trunk of the tree itself. And we do have a framing plan, but it doesn't really have the tree in the framing plan. So it appears to me that there may be, in fact, a post right at the intersection of the ale at the corner of that deck. in which case there's going to be a post drilling down right next to the trunk of the tree, down through the roots of that large tree. A little concerned about that. Yes, the size of the tree is four foot diameter across of it. Yes, and this corner is actually about 18 inches or two feet from the base of the tree. Okay, so when I look at the site plan, which is the one before the framing plan, yeah, it's the next to the last image that I have. There we go. So that round dark circle, is that the diameter of the tree? Yes, ma'am. That is the diameter of the tree. Okay. So I'm not seeing that the deck is two feet. off of, it looks like it's right up against the trunk of the tree. Okay. Is your question just to revise this image of the plant? No, I'm concerned about how the structure is going to be placed so that it doesn't have a negative impact on the health of a very large old tree. Yes, absolutely. There's a significant distance from the base of that tree in that bottom corner. I can create measurements or redesign this display to be able to depict that. It should not impact the health of the tree. I'm sorry. I want to make sure I'm following you correctly. Are you saying that your plan is not accurate when it represents the edge of that deck being right up against the tree? Yes. In this image where that round tree is, there's actually a significant distance between that and where the deck will be. I believe it's about 18 to 24 inches. All right, why don't we do this? Let's add a condition in, if you're in agreement, that your deck be at least 18 to 20 inches away from the base of the oak tree. I'm in agreement with that. Are you in agreement with that? And in extending that to require a review, a potential revised review of how the framing plan is being done to minimize a post being drilled too close into the trunk of that tree. I mostly, there's really just one post that I'm seeing that looks like it has some potential to be the problem post. and it's not an insignificant drilling down to just the mess of construction, just the getting equipment in there to get a hole to put concrete in and get a post in there. Yes, ma'am. It's going to be very disruptive. And so I'd like some staff review with input from the city's arborist just as a condition for my being comfortable with approving this. Ms. Kerr, we're at 518 Arcadia Park. May I make a comment? Yes, please. I believe where that four-foot dimension is adjacent to the tree, that member could be turned into a beam that comes down to the second one and then just hang her there and not interfere with the tree. I totally agree with you. I just would like for that to be documented so that it's understood that that's the approach to take it, but I totally agree. And Ms. Hill, probably the best approach is simply let's put them in as conditions. Let's have the board member, and I'd like for you to make that motion then. Mr. Marquette, do you have a question? Another observation, the framing plan as you refer to it, I don't believe it is in the same proportion that the site plan is. The site plan shows the width of the final L to be the same as the width of the current deck. On the framing plan, this width appears to be wider than this width. This portion is not the same proportionately as what appears to be of what's in this. Right. Hold on. I have a hunch, let me ask and let's clarify this, the hand-drawn plan that's showing so-called this one, I'm assuming that is not to scale? It is not correctly to scale, sir. Yes, sir. Is your other plan to scale? Is the larger plan on a different slide to scale? Yes. Yes. All right, Mr. Marquette. Yeah. I think we can clarify that you need to construct your deck in conformity with your to-scale site plan. That this is just illustrative? Yes, that's just illustrative to show where the beams and joists will be developed for the city district. All right. Rack point well noted, but I think we can handle that through the conditions. I completely agree. We just need to show that tree on the framing plan. Sure. I can add that to the framing plan, yes, ma'am. Because the 13-foot length of that deck seems to, based on the site plan, would suggest that it's kind of in the middle of the tree. Right. So we need the tree properly located both on the site plan and on the framing plan because they don't look like they're in the same place. And that'd be part of the staff review. All right, we can do this one of two ways. We can try to add these conditions in, or we can ask them to redraw the plans and bring them back to us. in next month? I'm comfortable with it's going to be a little bit of a process to get this condition added in, but I'm comfortable with doing that. Alright, let's do it that way. Alright, any other questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Okay, Ms. Hill, you're very This is your motion, if you don't mind. Chair, per case number 00510518-D at 518 Arcadia Park, I move that we approve the certificate for appropriateness with the standard two conditions plus one additional condition. that the large tree around which the deck is on two sides of it, that it be accurately represented on both the site plan and the framing plan, and that the framing plan be revised to remove the column that will be close to the trunk of that tree and that the staff review this prior to any work occurring on site. All right. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. Do I have a second? Second. Any further, any questions or comments from the audience? yes yes mr do you have a comment i was just going to say on on your motion rather than just talking about one post does it not make sense to review the location of all posts and the final design to make sure they're not impacting the tree i'm comfortable with that change yes all right we'll accept the friendly amendment second as made all right i have a motion and a second any further discussion on this motion if not the chair will call the question all those in favor the motion is amended say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the coa as amended is approved good luck with your project thank you all all right turning now to 10 210 south ashland avenue uh scope of work is removed a chimney is the applicant here mr dickinson can we go back to 133 shawnee place well what i i'm sorry i don't understand what happened to my packet which one is this 133 shawnee place you can pass this down i don't have it this is attachment number 12. i'm sorry the agenda i had had it's a different agenda okay at 133 shawnee place Scope of work is remove opening and stoop in stairs. Is the applicant here, please? The applicant is not present. She was not able to be here, but she's agreeable with the findings. All right. Findings are the standard two conditions, which are, I'll read them into the record. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And secondly, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Do I have a second? I'm sorry, do I have a motion, first of all? Chair, in regards to case number 17020133-J at 133 Shawnee Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes as conditioned and the COA is approved. Turning now to 210 South Ashland Avenue. Is that where we are? Yes. Scope of work is remove chimney. Deadline for board action is September 25, 2024. and all right you state your name for the record please John Todd Schweitzer the owner and occupant of 210 South Ashland all right the staff has recommended that this application be denied I don't think I have one other packet item in front of me for 380 South Hills What I'd like to do is sound this last case, if you don't mind. Okay. And we'll come back and hear the denial, because I'm assuming you're going to be heard on this. Is that correct? Yes. All right. So I think the other one's a routine approval. Okay. Sure. All right. Thank you so much. Turning now to 380 South Mill Street, Construct Edition and Deck. is the applicant here hello baron gibson good to see you all again all right uh this is the uh dudley what we've been referring to is the dudley restaurant yes or the restaurant project that's correct uh staff has reviewed your you've been through the board of architecture you've been to the Board of Adjustments and they denied certain aspects of your plan. That's correct. It was the porch protruding onto the Maxwell street side. And the staff has now reviewed your project and they're recommending approval subject to the standard two conditions. Yes. Mainly you're removing that deck area that was impacting the tree we were concerned about. It's the deck on the Maxwell side that's been removed and that was close to one of the trees. Okay. Okay. So staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions, which I previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? We agree. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? Just one comment, that that deck extension had been lively in discussion during design. So it seems to me the simplification is a very positive move for the health of the trees. We agree. And probably financially healthy for you as well. There's a few positives to it. Okay, so do I have a motion to approve this application? Chair, with regard to case 13150380-BB at 380 South Mill Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with a standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Very well. Thank you. Thank you, sir, and good luck with your project. Okay, let's circle back around to 210 South Ashland Avenue. Thank you for your time, sir. Absolutely. All right, staff has recommended disapproval of the application. I'm assuming you want to be heard. Our normal procedure is the staff will make a presentation and will be subject to questioning as to their findings. Then you'll have an opportunity to be heard as well. All right. So I'm going to have Ms. Armstrong open up their record. This is the structure at 210 South Ashland. and they are proposing to remodel the kitchen, which causes – there's a chimney in the back. You can see the two chimneys that are the main chimneys on the structure flanking each end. And as we walk around, you can see the – oh, sorry. Oh, there it goes. This chimney is the one in question. would like to remove. And you can sort of, again, see it on the back of the house here. And per Mr. Dreyer's discussion, he finds that there is no way to remove the chimney without actually taking out some of the masonry wall. and there is his discussion in your staff report as well as a picture of that situation within the staff report. And to sort of give you an idea of what this chimney looks like. Yep. Guidelines are included for your reference. The design principle in regards to chimneys reads as follows. Chimneys are often significant features of a property and help define its architectural character. The chimney on many LFUC buildings were designed to be architectural features in their own right and display corbeling, inset panels, decorative elements, reflective of all overall building style, removal of original chimneys, lessons of properties, architectural integrity as well as a traditional building pattern indicative of the property's history. Design Guidelines 15A says state chimneys should not be removed or altered if original or architecturally significant. The proposal to remove this chimney is not appropriate nor in keeping with the LFUC design principles or guidelines regarding the chimneys. Principles or architectural elements should be retained. Staff suggests the chimney be retained. Staff recommends the disapproval of the removal of this chimney. And the applicant and the owner are present. Okay, before you step away, I have a question. The guideline actually says should not be removed or altered if original or architecturally significant. Did you all make a finding as to whether this particular chimney, which is a crooked chimney, is architecturally significant? We look at all chimneys as equal per our guideline, per us as staff within the guidelines. I think there has been times where this board has disagreed with us. Because I'm just noticing, really making, initially I was thinking, okay, this is significant because of the height above the roof line or above the roof. But when you look at it relative to the other two chimneys at either end of the building, the building actually would look better in some ways without it. The roof has been interrupted by that opening, if you will. And so you lose the shed roof appearance. And so I'm wondering, this chimney also does not have an interior fireplace. Is that correct? Correct. All right. Any other questions? Any questions from the other board members? So I agree that the two chimneys, the two primary chimneys that are seen from the front elevation of the house and the side elevation are primary architectural features. They're part of the wall, exterior wall of the building and are taller. I think I may reserve other comments until after the owners had a chance to give their comments. Let's hear from the applicant, please. Come on up. Thank you all. We're requesting the removal of the chimney. We'd like to expand the interior kitchen. And on the inside, this chimney is in the wall that we need to take out in order to expand the kitchen. one of the photographs of the interior shows that there is a window directly across from the chimney and i'm going to defer to scott dryer to explain to you all what it would take in order to support the chimney from the inside if we were to retain it above the roof line i'll also point out to the staff or the admission members board members there is a letter from scott dryer who i believe is your contractor yes sir yes sir i'm scott dryer from studio 89 So there's no way to do a workaround with this? So if you look at the picture he provided here, you can see the chimney stacked above these cabinets right here. And then directly across from that is this window here, which on the picture up top is the right window on the bottom you see to the right of the meter stack right there. So, this house is a structural clay tile house, which means the, it's not a wood frame house with a brick veneer on the outside. It's actually a structural clay tile on the interior that's plastered. And then on the outside is brick veneer, like a typical brick veneer house. What a structural clay tile doesn't have in it are structural headers over the lintels of windows. For example, the window you can see in there is where, so if this was a wood frame house, it would be easy to put a beam across there and post it into a header over top of the window and down to the foundation. but because of the construction of this type of home. And also you can see that funny little shape in the corner is actually the staircase going to the second floor. To put a header over top of that window that would support the steel beam that would be needed to carry the chimney load from the second floor system up, we'd have to take the entire side of the house off and reframe that, take the staircase out to the second floor, reframe that whole wall system there so that we could put a structural header over top of that window on the interior of the house, not the brick exterior, but the interior of it, and then we'd have to re-skin and re-veneer the outside of the house. That would be extremely expensive. This kitchen's not very wide. You can see how wide it is. It's very narrow, and it's got four doors into it. and two windows. So there's barely any wall space. And to pull off a kitchen remodel and a kitchen this small, the wall that's to the left, which backs up to the dining room where the chimney is, needs to be removed so that our island can kind of go in that space. And you can create a kitchen on the other, on this wall, the door there to the left, which goes to the front hall and the second stairs will actually be closed up so we can get cabinets more on that wall there too. So the steel work to pull this off would probably be a $25,000 or $30,000 item just to carry that chimney load up there. And it's a story and a half house, so where the chimney comes to the roof up here, there's no way to support it any other way in the attic because you can't put beams up and then sit it on a ridge of a house either because the ridge of the house would not have been designed originally to carry a beam load either. So it's kind of a catch-22. There's not really any way to support that without putting the piece of steel across and over top of that window, really. So I've had Jordan and Iger there, and we've done all the specs and stuff like that just to try to figure this out. and it's just a very, very significant cost of the project. So our normal workaround isn't really available to us by just removing the chimney inside and leaving the... Yeah, we did investigate trying to save the chimney because we understand the significance of architectural features. But in this case, it's just cost prohibitive is what it comes down to. It would probably be 90% of the construction cost outside the cabinetry and the countertops and the appliances. 90% of the cost would probably just put this beam in to save a chimney. Ms. Hill? For me, more disturbing is the disruption of the historic fabric of the exterior wall and replacing it. That, to me, is much more worrisome. And I do understand the nature of the glazed clay tile walls and how fragile they are, how unsympathetic they are to change. And structural bearing, they tend to fragment pretty badly. They do. And so the risk of causing that kind of damage to the exterior wall, I struggle with, from an architectural point of view, historic preservation point of view, that a chimney that historically was purely for a kitchen flue that hasn't been in use for quite some time and is not a dominant feature on the roof line to risk the damage that could incur on that exterior wall to support it. I find it problematic. Yeah, the matching that mortar would be next to impossible on the outside of the structure. I know you've been around historic remodels before, and mortars take decades to catch up with the age of the mortar that's already in the structure. And it's becoming more difficult, too, now that products have been taken away from the industry that help dye mortars and stuff like that. So it's becoming more difficult to pull off. Any other questions or comments from the board members to the applicant? Yes, Brad. What is the heat source for the house? I believe it's forced air. Gas, electric? Yeah, forced air, gas. Gas. And hot water gas as well? So where will that be vented after the chimney is gone? They're modern, so they all vent through the exterior walls. Nothing vents through the chimney. Okay. There's nothing being vented through that chimney now? No, not at all. Good question, Mayor. That was my question, too, because it clearly looks like there's a modern something added to the top of the chimney, indicating that it's still in use somehow. I think that whenever Mr. Graves owned the house and he put the copper roof on 25, 30 years ago now, he just put caps on on top of all the chimneys. Well, this is more than just a cap. I mean, this looks like something that's functional. Sorry? The picture looks like something that's functional, not a cap that matches the rest of it. No, ma'am, it's not functional anymore. I don't know if that one was ever used for venting of mechanicals, actually. The one on the front of the house, actually, the chimney on the right, I think, is fake altogether. There's not even a fireplace inside the house. They just put that up for symmetry on the front elevation. So to be clear... Actual symmetry. Yes. When the chimney is gone, the only thing on the roof will be that plumbing vent. Correct. Okay. Probably, yes. How old is the roof, and how do you propose to patch that roof to match? It's a copper roof. Again, I think Mr. Graves, who was the previous owner, put that on probably 25 or 30 years ago. So it's actually fairly easy to patch copper, and it'll be copper color for a while. before it browns out, but so it'll be noticeable for a little while. And I'll just state that I do think it's significant. I think you can see it from the street, and it does add character to the house. I know it makes a challenge when you're trying to make a more modern kitchen than you have, but I don't know what the floor plan is, so I don't know if there's another way to think about the floor plan to, you know, keep that chimney in place. And so, you know, without understanding that, I'm not going to approve removing the chimney. All right. And I don't want you to do all that work to the exterior either, but that's something that would need to go in front of the board to get approved. It would be a different discussion to do that work to support the chimney. Yeah, and the kitchen's very small. It's maybe, what, 10 by 12, maybe? Yeah, I mean, it's not. It's not a very big. it's an old house kitchen. You can kind of see the width of it there a little bit. You know, we're about 10 or 11 feet. That's all we have about right then. It's bigger than a lot of people's kitchens. I mean, I'm just saying. Well, true. I want to go ahead and close our proceedings to further comments from the applicant. Is there anything else that you want to add? I do because, you know, I just want to point out that there were some architectural features that were taken off some other homes in town that were approved by the board. In particular, a house at 468 West 2nd Street had a chimney that was on the side of the house on a side street visible from 2nd Street that was approved to be taken off the house by the board because the owner complained about the difficulty of flashing around it. So I do think there's other examples where, you know, this, there's also like 115 Jefferson Street. There's a house where approval was given to put two different reveals of siding on the front of the house when it was remodeled. So I do agree that it is a significant structure from Fincastle's side, somewhat. But I agree with you more that it sticks up and I think it would look better without it also. So I think there's precedent that this board's given in the past for the same thing that's happened and given approval for. So I do feel that we should fall under those same guidelines that other people were held to. Full disclosure, Mr. Dreyer, about 15 years, I can't believe it's been that long, did a significant amount of renovation work on my house, including redoing of the porch and chimneys, I might add. Yes, sir, we did. It's about 15 or 18 years ago. I know there's precedents, and I know we've done it before. I don't know if I was on the board at that time, and I know I voted against it when it's been approved by the board. Scott, do you have the date of that motion? I don't. I don't. I'm sorry. I should have brought that. I know that we have, from time to time, approved what we view it as being non-significant chimneys, that they're just flue chimneys and were not a major seeable feature of the house. This one's a little different, but any other questions? All right, I'm going to close the dialogue with you all. Thank you. Any rebuttal from the staff member? All right, so I'm going to open the floor for discussion among ourselves for additional discussion. Any further comments about this? or we already said everything we need to say. Ms. Curry, you've been quiet. I'm just wanting to double check. We've had a couple of situations over on 2nd and Jefferson that one of the two wasn't in the H-1 overlay. Amelia, are both the properties that were referenced within the H-1 overlay? Yes. Okay. Yes, both of those, and one of them was the 468 was second, of course, is on the corner of Bruce and 2nd Street. And that was the former Dean Tony Early's house that was heard by this board. And the other one I think Mr. Dreyer mentioned is down on the first block of Jefferson and that had a fire. And they replaced siding that was, you know, I think he's mentioned the different siding materials. but they've replaced the siding because the first sighting that put on after the fire had deteriorated so and they put on hardy plank so i just wanted to be sure sneeze is coming on can i say one thing about that though the siding was put on was put on different reveals we closed i'm sorry you closed out i just procedurally wanted to be sure that both those because we've We've had another couple over there that people's perception is something's happened about, and they're not in the H1. So I just wanted to be sure. We were talking about the same properties. Sure. All of which is totally, you know, accurate in that sense, but just wanted to check that for the record. These chimneys, there have been instances that these flue chimneys have been removed. Okay. I tell you, this screen is about a lot of things, but being heard is not one of them. Yes, you're perfectly audible, but TV is a little different. Nobody's accused me of being silent. So it is, you're not any of you in error to think there have been some instances where some flue chimneys have been removed. but not all flue chimneys have the same significance or character impact on historic structures. Some of them can be really quite not integral to the understanding of the house. More than often, however, flue chimneys are part of the architectural story of these houses. And if you take all of the construction issues out of this picture, the staff would say this is a significant chimney. Just from its physical presence, it tells you a role that it had, how the house worked in terms of things. And it is architecturally a vertical element rising in the definition of the roof line and the chimney systems of this house. The fact that it is not as handsome as the primary two doesn't really denigrate its value in any way. It tells you I'm a different kind of chimney. I had a different function in this building. And it is part of the architectural heritage of this house. I think that's one matter that you're weighing. And the second matter you're weighing is what are the physical needs of this house and its construction methodology that brings its own sets of limitations. And so we leave to the board the fun challenge of working out how you balance these two pieces, the heritage character integrity issue and the expense and practical end from something that they want to happen on the inside. inside in this instance is significantly under the challenge of what is the construction method of this house, which isn't that common. You do not see the tile construction. We see probably the vast majority of either true brick construction or a frame with veneer, etc. So this one is a little different, and I'm glad it's in your all's hands. All right, so if we, if anyone makes a motion to go ahead and approve or disapprove the staff's findings and go ahead and approve this chimney, we will need to have findings as to why we are disagreeing with the staff determination. so that we need to focus on the issue of whether this chimney is truly architecturally significant and although it's not stated in the guidelines it's implied that there is no alternative economic remedy that is a remedy that's economically viable for this uh to preserve of the chimney. I'm noting a little disagreement from Ms. Hill, so let's talk about it. So I still maintain that I'm more concerned. The economics of it are rarely part of our discussion. This is true. I am more concerned about the nature of those historic walls, which are extremely unusual in a small residential house. In that neighborhood, I mean, Morton Middle School, that's how the whole thing was built. So that was part of the context at a given period of time. I am much more concerned about the potential to disturb the actual exterior envelope of this building. And I feel that that's a particular charge that we don't support some movement that that's what would happen. How they design the inside of the kitchen is not our purview anyway, but maintaining the original character and materials of the exterior of that building I think is really important. It's a lovely little home. So if they decided that they had, if we voted for them to keep the chimney and they decided their path forward was to do that exterior work, would that be something they could do or would that have to come in front of the board for approval for taking that wall down and rebuilding it? manner in which the work to accomplish whatever they're going to carry out has to be approached at would come before this body for review and approval before it can be done. That's what I thought. Thank you. To put the question another way, our normal workarounds aren't viable, I don't think, or structurally or even from a good architectural viewpoint. And so that yet is another consideration to keep in mind as to whether this chimney should be retained or whether we should go ahead and allow it to be taken out because it makes this kitchen very difficult to redesign in a contemporary way. So I think that's an issue that we have to take into mind. So fortunately, I don't have to make that motion. So I'm wondering if we, I would like to see where we are in terms of, do I have a motion that we accept the staff recommendation of denial? Yes. All right. Then let's move forward, and then we'll see where we play out. Ms. Lemire, make that motion, please. Chair, in regards to case number 00710210-L, I move that we deny the certificate of appropriateness to remove the chimney. Do I have a second? I will exercise prerogative so that we can move forward. I will second the motion. However, I am going to abstain from voting in this matter because I have had a very longstanding relationship with Mr. Dreyer in the rehabilitation of my house, and I may be overly influenced by that. So I'm abstaining from that, but I do want to second the motion so I can move forward. Now, any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Motion fails. Do I have now a motion to approve the application as submitted by the applicant to remove this chimney? So moved. I have that motion from Mr. Marquette. Do I have a second? Second. And I'm abstaining from this proceeding. Any discussion on this motion? Ms. LeBear? I would just say that it is short-sighted of us to remove a chimney that has visible historical significance based on a claim that there's no other way to rework a chimney in an existing house where we have no say on how they design and maintain that kitchen. And it's a historical feature, and we have no say on the inside. And I don't think that what they do or how the inside functions and how they say they want the inside to function should influence how we listen and think about this chimney. All right. Any further discussion? Yes, Ms. Marquette. I'll go on and weigh in here so that way away. My thoughts on this can be part of the record and only for that reason. And with great respect for the guidelines and the design principles and everything that's expressed here, what would make a big difference to me, like most houses I think that are being described here, However, the chimney stacks have an important architectural purpose within the house as well as exteriorly. They serve active fireplaces that were important at the time, even if they're not used now. In many cases, there are very deliberate architectural design features in those chimney stacks that connect them to the rest of the architecture of the house. In this particular case, the chimney stack in question is not attached to any historically significant interior element, unless you would say that a coal furnace is a historical interior element, which some would be able to say. But in this particular case, there are no embellishments that, if removed, would detract from the overall architectural integrity of a house that was designed to mirror a house historically that would have not had such a chimney stack. It would have been dependent only on its fireplaces. And such a chimney stack would have been on a separate or an L kitchen. All of this is to say that I'm not sure that there's architectural significance in this particular chimney stack enough to merit concern about removing it. Procedurally, if I may state, I think that needs to be the finding that the board will make if they approve the motion. That should be a finding that should be incorporated into the motion. I would also add the guidelines say original or architecturally significant, not original and architecturally significant, and or architecturally significant. And it is original to the House. Okay. Any further discussion on this motion? If not, the Chair will call to question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. Chair abstains. Motion passes and the application as submitted to the staff for review is approved as conditioned. All right. That ends our agenda today. We also have minutes to approve from the July 2024 meeting minutes. Yes, ma'am. Or is there something else? That wasn't intended for you to have, and we ran out of time. So we'll have those minutes for you at the next meeting. Oh, all right. So we don't have minutes. Apologies. Okay. Before we adjourn, and I realize we have an audience for that, I want to note, and Ms. Hill, thank you for bringing it to my attention. We lost a significant voice in architectural preservation and historic preservation. Martin Canaccio passed away back on August 17. For those who may not have known him, he was a member of the Office of Historic Preservation, this office that worked with Betty Kerr and Amelia and Barry for many years. I'm not sure when he started. He retired in 2012. He worked with us just over 20 years. All right. He was a remarkably passionate and compassionate man. I had a couple of encounters with him when I inadvertently cut down some trees, and he took me through seven acres and around the barn to finally get a landscape plan approved. But he was a devoted preservationist in terms of making sure that architecturally these houses were well preserved. He was an architect that was talented and very much a valuable asset to the staff and to the historic community in Lexington. Any other comments? And he loved our urban city. Right. I would like for us to adjourn in his memory of his death. So if I have a motion to adjourn. In his memory, please. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. You stand adjourned in memory of Martin Gunasio. Thank you. Thank you.