Historic Preservation Commission denies request to remove chimney at 809 Burnett Avenue

The Ames City Historic Preservation Commission on Wednesday denied a certificate of appropriateness for removal of a brick chimney at 809 Burnett Avenue, rejecting the property owner’s proposal to remove the exterior portion and the chimney through the attic. The motion to deny carried; one commissioner abstained.

Commission staff told the commission the property is a contributing structure in the Old Town Historic District and that the city’s design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards call for retaining existing brick or stone chimneys whenever possible. “Existing brick or stone chimney shall be retained whenever possible,” staff said while citing provisions in Chapter 31 and the city’s single‑family conservation overlay provisions in Chapter 29.

The applicant’s contractor, Zach Shearer of Shearer Construction, told the commission the chimney is deteriorated, not in use and would be extremely expensive and technically difficult to retain. “The chimney is not used in the house for any purpose and is so far deteriorated that future use would be inconceivable,” Shearer wrote and read to the commission. He said suspending or supporting the above‑roof portion would require “a very intricate fabrication of welded metal I beams” and that the structure would still be “holding up almost a ton of bricks.”

Homeowner Eric Romsdal told the commission the chimney had been capped and previously tuckpointed and that the flue liner likely needs replacement; he said there are signs of water intrusion and that the fireplace is nonfunctional. Romsdal said the house has other venting and utilities and that no utilities currently run through the chimney.

Commissioners discussed several points: whether the chimney is a defining element of this Queen Anne–era house or simply part of its historic fabric, whether a lighter replica or brick veneer could be used if the chimney were removed, and whether the commission has discretion to grant an exemption based on cost. A staff member noted the certificate of appropriateness rules permit consideration of exemptions “if it determines that the cost of replication is prohibitive.” Commission members also said a denial would not prevent the applicant from returning with a revised design.

A commissioner moved to deny approval of the certificate of appropriateness as submitted; the motion was seconded and passed. The commission’s decision was a denial of the current proposal to fully remove the chimney to below the attic floor; the applicant may submit a new application with a different proposal, including a framed facade or thin veneer.

The commission’s staff presentation cited the city design guidelines for alterations (Chapter 31), the single‑family conservation overlay language in Chapter 29, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Chapter 31, section 31.12) as the controlling authorities for the decision. The commission also noted that a building permit required for attic renovation would be reviewed separately for structural safety.

The applicant and his contractor emphasized maintenance burdens and safety concerns if the chimney remained; commissioners emphasized the preservation code’s default to retaining original historic material where feasible. The applicant was told he could return with alternative proposals.