a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a in the upper corner of a house here yeah I think that just looks like the lines of the trees the way that the graphics represent them it's kind of a circle with lines that flare out so it looks I think I think is what you're seeing is it looks like there's a you know kind of a line right right here that looks like a sidewalk is that what you're seeing yeah what goes without saying you can't take out a mature tree we're not we're not we're actually we have as we as you may recall because miss Hill requested this we went and located every single tree located its diameter and modeled them as close as we could in their height so that we knew exactly where each tree was mature tree and so that's what we're showing and we're making sure that we're keeping around those and are not doing so we may just be extra cautious and add in a condition about please do yeah we've already assessed that for certain that's that's part of the plan trees can only be done in accordance with the guidelines yes of course I just have a question and maybe it's just the way this property works is there any way to change the orientation of the house so that actually faces out towards fifth Street with a garage underneath it so that it reached that whole street reads like garages and I was just wondering would it be more compatible and it may not be possible to change the orientation of the house we are quite tight on our side yard setbacks in fact we had to receive a variance which we've done from planning and zoning to make that work and that was our actually our linchpin is just figuring out how we had access and the depth for parking in where we have our front yard sand or side yard setbacks which are the same so that we had looked at that originally is when we started site planning when we were trying to figure out if it was going to be fifth or or Willie and given the existing curb cut in the way that works we don't have the depth in the side yard setbacks or the rear yard for that matter so you're gonna have a driveway that goes up into the property and then you turn into yes in an existing curb cut yeah it took me a little while to figure out what you're doing yeah off Fifth Street a lot of moving pieces and parts for sure big project yeah right anything else Sarah yes give Sarah a chance to talk Sarah question I don't have any questions okay question the photographs show that the vacant lot currently is fenced in is there any fencing planned for the property oh yeah after the construction is completed we're planning to leave that fencing in place and I think that's an important piece and it's showing it's showing kind of in a dash line but graphically we have it out of there so you can see the house and the way it sits but that's actually a really important piece to the park residents is that they want to make sure that there is control of that corner because that would be an opening if they did not fence that that could be an opportunity even if they fence at the rear for people to come on to that site so correct me if I'm wrong Barbara but that's the yeah that's that's the impetus is actually the protection of that corner in that in the way that that's presented as you saw in that photo that's how it will be which to us again bolsters the concept of this feeling like a rhythm of those structures along there behind that fence and protecting the access to the park I'm glad I asked that question glad you did too and then the fence would cover the driveway yeah there would be a gate much like the other property that backs up on Willie Street has so that it could could protect that access as well and there would be be no fencing at the rear of the new structure I believe there's existing chain-link fence back there is it not no there's nothing yeah no it's open so for now I don't think we have anything planned on okay and if that got proposed later obviously we'd come back to the board for that but right now I don't think from what I'm hearing that's all right all right any comments from the audience if not I think we're ready to close the presentation of the case and take comments from the board members Sarah do you have any comments that you would like to make about this I I always struggle sometimes when I see a project like this that I think really does fit in a neighborhood and how we interpret the guidelines and for me this infill like this and with a very modern approach to how this looks with the garage attached makes a lot of sense now in in a setting like this even if it doesn't have exact context and historical context in Fayette Park itself I think that any modern house that has nice architectural quality is going to have an attached garage it's just how modern construction happens now and the I really appreciate the tight footprint you know this could be I think looking at what this could have been could have been a much bigger house or the much bigger footprint still with the attached garage and we would be still having the same conversation and I like that it's tidy and tight and very contemporary I think it does play to the two garages that have been built recently next to it but is its own thing with its own character and I'm not sure exactly how we say that this should be an exception to that detached garage rule in this neighborhood but I think I think it should be and I think this is a project and a little house that makes sense in in the place they're doing it all right right anything so I can't help but compare this particular project to the renovations that were done in Belcourt recently I don't know the street corner and in that particular case an existing garage had a living unit added to the second story so but the exception in that one was there was an attachment a connector between the main structure and the renovated garage I don't understand why if a adding a living area to the second story over a existing garage in a historic neighborhood is different from building a completely new structure of basically the same character in this historic district what is the difference there in fairness to the staff they recommended disapproval we were the ones that overrode that disapproval and said we disagree with that for the reason in Belcourt in Belcourt okay good okay thank you I I agreed with the staff recommendation I don't know why because I thought that we were impacting very clearly the existing structure and that structure and changing the character whereas in this particular lot it really is standalone with its own street kind of face etc so to me I'm not contradicting what I said in Belcourt I think we are working very very hard to find consistency my impression was and this is where sometimes just getting out of the car and walking the street and that's what I did I spent yesterday afternoon walked the entire Fayette Park walked Willie Street which our fifth Street which really reads like an alley quite frankly and when I saw the lot and looked at it and noticed that completely divorced it was from Fayette Park I was going we really shouldn't be looking at Fayette Park residences for the context and then it popped out to me I saw this other character that looks like a house there's the you know lovely candle laver roof live and found out that basically that is a garage and an upstairs I think maybe used for a sauna perhaps yeah so the more and more I looked at this project of saying this project actually in a rhythm way still reads properly in terms of being an accessory building I think we got hung up on terminology of attached garage why don't we just say built-in garage you know that you have two bays underneath the living area that to me is not the classic suburban attached garage situation that I think the the staff just got hung up on and with all fairness to the staff I think they tried very very hard to make an elephant of a mouse because to me this is exactly and I agree with Sarah here this is exactly the kind of infill project that this board should approve we have you run into resistance saying that historic districts are getting in the way of sensible good development and I think this is a good project that we should go ahead and approve so I put my two cents in worth are there any other comments or questions yes Brett I think I always have to give him the last word well I'm sorry hey I was teasing go ahead okay all right so all right it are we ready for a motion then in our motion we need to make a finding we do right that's where I always struggle is how exactly does Bradford try to make that funding a finding Brett would you like to make that fun Sarah I think you did a very good characterization when you were discussing it that that was it be suitable for findings all right I will attempt something we can kind of go from there chair in regards to case number 0 7 0 3 0 4 9 3 at 4 9 3 West 5th Street or whatever that Willie Street address was I think is what it's gonna be I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the finding that in this case because the residents does not face Fayette Park it has its own character that allows the attached garage to be included as a part of the structure the way it for for urban infill all right and I also include the standard two conditions and the condition that all final details go to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA like to add one more condition that the project be sensitive to all mature trees in conformity with the guidelines I'm in agreement with that okay all right do I have a second second okay any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question thank you for a good discussion all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion passes your house is approved good luck with your project thank you all very much and I want to say to both the board and the staff I think this is the precedent for how this process should go I think the analysis the review and ultimately the way that you all looked at this is really great and I think that will serve for future projects so we've been at this for a little while I want to take a stretch break for a moment okay we're ready to start yeah we're ready to start let me call the meeting back to order we're now turning our attention to 265 South Ashland Avenue come on up now I know you're not Darren close it's Baron that's what I thought but that's why I was struggling for Baron because I thank you very all right so as you know the drill buried is this your case I will do that go ahead and introduce yourself for the record Baron Gibson Gibson Taylor Thompson architects all right thank you and this is the application the the construct for sure go ahead this is for the portico share yes okay 265 South Ashland Avenue scope of work is construct portico share addition so this is 265 obviously looking at the front across South Ashland Avenue this is the location of the proposed portico share take note of this cover covering for the side door and the landing there's a close-up of it okay so the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a portico share the portico share is proposed to be located on the west elevation of the historic structure the portico shares approximately 18 feet by 20 feet single-story with low slope copper flat seam roof supported by wood columns on on a brick base the board has previously heard and denied a request for a COA as large as part of the larger project Street which was denied the guidelines are included for your use so this is looking more from the rear of the structure back towards South Ashland and again you can see this kind of a character-defining feature on the side of this structure so this is a site plan showing the structure and you can see the portico share there on the right side of the structure South Ashland to the front staff finds the proposal to construct the portico share requires additional construction just concerning its size location and determine if it if the design replicates history the proposal to construct a portico share replicates non-existent history and covers or obscures a significant architectural feature on the side of the house the installation of the portico share would result in the negative impact on architectural detail of the awning over the side entrance guideline 11 a detail shall be maintained and retained and shall not be removed or changed if original to the building including the installation of additional ornament which gives a building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed in guideline 1 1 2 C states addition should not cover or conceal significant architectural detail the loss of these details are detrimental to the over our overall architectural style of this structure the design principle porches and room additions and porches room and wing additions help to develop the overall philosophy regarding the proposed additions design scale and character the porch design principles porches are often prominent features of a building and help establish scale proportion and rhythm along a streetscape construction of a porch on an existing building should be compatible and scale and material with a principal story and with adjacent and surrounding buildings and the do and the district porches should be in keeping with the principal structural architectural style and not reflect an earlier period style the room and wing addition principle or design principle in planning additions the best approach is to place the additions where they will have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan the rear of the building is the best location for the additions of rooms and wings guideline to a 3 C states porches that give a building an imitation appearance are not allowed guideline to a for a and to a for e state respectively additions are most appropriately appropriately located at the rear of buildings and additions should reflect characteristics of the current period and design and be compatible with the with the original building staff finds that the design of the portico share does not comply with the guidelines the location is not appropriate and the portico share being located on a prominent side of the historic structure and not at the rear of the design does not reflect characteristics of the current period in design and creates an imitation historic appearance additionally the size of the portico share is approximately three feet too wide and if the board were to approve it should be reduced by three feet and with recommendations staff recommends denial to construct the portico share any questions I do have a question when you say that it is three feet too wide do you mean it is extending too far over and close to the neighbors property line yes and then I have a second question is we have a site plan here but it doesn't include the garage which is a big significant part of of that site plan there is the garage the swimming pool and I think it would be important to understand the size of the garage that is a part of that site I was under the impression those elements were not built the garage is there yes okay if there is on the existing site plan the garage does show up it's not does not show up on the proposed site plan so if you go back one I don't think this is a two-car garage with it I mean I don't think that that it represents it accurately so this is the existing site plan okay you can see the pool and the garage there is a so it shows up there but then it doesn't show up on the next one but then you're correct the pool does but the other structures did I okay any other questions miss Hill no those were on first two questions also all right by your account and you may not have done this count how many other houses on Ashland actually has a side port-a-chair we have not done an account done a count there are I know of two but those are original to the structure any consideration given to perhaps allowing the removal of that awning no okay all right okay and actually let me show a little more detail of that possibly you well you can see the portico share and the canopy underneath it so in the staff's opinion it loses its entire integrity and character by being shoved right up or the roof shoved right down the new portico share roof being shoved right down on top of it and losing the detail of the brick and details around that canopy okay any other questions if not we're ready for the applicant Barron I have some slides that I'll present thank you for your time today one thing I do before I get started want to clarify just for the record Barry stated that this project has been applied for and had previously been denied that is incorrect this project was presented in conjunction with a rear porch design which was approved four years ago and it was mentioned that this side portico proposal be continued to look at there was no denial of this I think that's important context as we continue to look at this project so since the last meeting was conceptual and not formally on record and several people were missing I'm gonna just present some context that I covered last time I'll be brief in that but I want to I want to mention that obviously we're looking at 265 South Ashland as Barry showed you can see the side kind of decorative awning and the side entry four years ago our office appeared before the board to review exterior improvements including a rear cover portico inside and side portico the side portico is what we're discussing today at that time the board approved the rear portico or the rear addition covered patio and continued the discussion on the side portico requesting additional context and study the owners are now returning to review the side proposed portico as previously mentioned just for some context that proposal is in these drawings here you can see in these renderings that we're primarily focusing on this rear covered addition but you can see the side portico in these initial proposals and you can see how these two elements are corresponding to each other in their design so I feel like that's that's important for you all to know and see as far as the existing conditions the property includes a detached carriage building it does have two garage doors on it but this building which we believe is either original or was constructed shortly after the house was constructed was never built to accommodate modern vehicles while historically valuable the garage is not conducive for our clients to park in the width of that parking space is roughly 16 feet and the depth is roughly 20 whereas modern garage standards are much bigger than that we personally at our firm don't design really any garages less than 22 by 22 to accommodate for modern SUVs on top of that the garage is nearly a hundred feet from the rear entry of the house this makes the garage not a practical solution for parking vehicles on a daily basis as a result the owners park along the side of the house and enter through the designated side entry that you can see again in the image here this side entry leads into a mudroom and has always functioned as a primary everyday entry because of this we believe that reinforcing parking and access along the side of the house with a covered port ago is both logical and appropriate the proposal is not about enlargement of the home our convenience alone is it about addressing a functional limitation that is created by historic conditions while preserving the historic garage carriage house and the character of the property so our approach architecturally I'm going to go to our current drawings that we have just a second the intent of this design is always to has always been compatibility and restraint the proposal is secondary and scale to the house uses historically compatible materials maintains subordinate flat roof massing it is minimal in its visual impact you'll you'll see that in our design we're implementing a flat roof to just be low and discreet and innocuous we have columns to support a flat roof and it's not any more than it needs to be structurally the goal is not to introduce contrasting elements or something that speaks louder than that the existing house but rather to resolve a functional need in a way that remains subservient to the house and neighborhood context the design for the rear cover patio was approved by for the design for the proposed addition was approved by this board remains unchanged the proposed side portico was designed to be architecturally consistent with that previously approved work using similar proportions materials and detailing so that if the rear portico were to be constructed that the improvements read as a cohesive whole rather than two separate additions the location of the portico at our previous conceptual review a suggestion was made to consider relocating the portico to the rear of the home behind the gate on the property after discussing that option with clients it was determined that relocating the portico to the rear behind the gate would not functionally serve the purpose of the project and would introduce logistical and site constraints that make the solution impractical the homeowners keep their dogs in a gated backyard and accessing the home from the rear would require regularly opening the gate creating safety concerns for the animals on an already busy Street additionally the approach would shift the primary entry directly into the kitchen which is not ideal particularly when there is already a designated mudroom entry on the side of the house and naturally serves this function for those reasons the side location remains in our opinion the only practical appropriate location for the covered parking that said we have discussed the possibility of shifting the portico slightly further back on the side elevation so that it does not cover the decorative awning while still providing adequate covered parking and access to the to the side entry this would staffs concerned was was this covering this the the decorative awning this would completely remove that from being a factor in our opinion this keeps it on this side of the gate and would be something that would work functionally for our clients one thing I'll also mention South Ashland has multiple examples of cover porticos elements and on the side elevations where historic garages limit parking options I'll show just a few of these this one you know is a is has a similar inside entry type setup where the cars could park alongside it's more of a hip roof than a true flat roof like ours is you can see several of these I have a map that has outlined there may be more that I missed but these were the ones that were obviously stood out as I drove down South Ashland and could see from from Google Earth I would also like to note that that the owners in our office remain open to refinements in the detailing such as column proportions or simplification of trim if the board feels that adjustment would improve compatibility we currently have round columns square columns or something that the board would consider we'd certainly be open to any of those suggestions or any detailing I feel like the structure of our design is barely minimal as it is but if there's any suggestion to scale back we would certainly be open to to that as well my clients Thomas and Kim have approached this project patiently and respectfully and their goal is not to change the character of the house or street but to complete a thoughtful improvement that allows the home to function for modern living while remaining historically appropriate and they're also here have some comments to make as well as the staff actually had an opportunity to look at this proposal that you currently have displayed not yet we there was a mix-up in us getting the staff report and me being able to it didn't come to me till earlier this week and so I had a chance to talk to my clients about it and we we did this just just yesterday so okay if we disapprove the current application is this different enough that we can move forward chairman I'm sorry I can barely hear you I appreciate that I was just asking if we disapproved the application that we currently had before us we do have that one-year restriction on similar applications I'm wondering if this is dissimilar enough that we could take it up at the next meeting well that is entirely up to the board the board there are two if it's a substantial enough change or not to reopen the case I would think not interfering with the historic details would be a legitimate reason for saying it's different it is nevertheless on the side of the building that's why I didn't broach that Baron I hate to do this to you I'm just wondering should we have one more postponement and bring that application for us as an alternative sure I think that we would be open to that but I'll check with I know mr. chair the the deadline for board action is March 30th I mean I'm sorry March 20th meetings March 18th so we're within the period so you would be good I do have a couple questions even if we ask you a question okay we do have some more questions from the other board members though they would be open to that but also would like to speak before this hearing okay well let's see what the other board members have to say so my question has to do with the what I'm going to call the rear porch that it has never been built is that correct that's correct okay and is the intent to build it or is this in place of building that back porch that remains open they haven't we haven't fully committed to doing that yet I think that that is very much on the table and something that they may consider doing the portico share is more of a need right now than the than the rear design but it is probable that that could get built okay thank you any other questions yes right with regard to the three feet two wide issue how do you react to that well I'm not entirely sure what that is in regards to I believe we meet the side yard setback from zoning so if there's a three foot two wide issue I'm not aware of it we we could investigate that more the width is kind of a minor we didn't hear your comment what I'm sorry hear you say it again we could investigate that further and for staff the width is a lesser issue than the substantial portion of the portico share well I think go ahead Brett I'm sorry if if we were to postpone we would need to make sure that coming back with something that was still the same width was not an issue sure so what what is the current passage width between the edge of the stairs and the outer edge of the column base I believe from memory I can't read the font text but I believe it's 12 feet 12 and 3 feet then would reduce it to 9 and I just I don't know what kind of vehicles the clients have but a Ford Expedition is basically 8 feet wide and so that would be a very narrow passage so I have a second question sure while covering the doorway entry does not matter to me whether or not the addition covers it or goes behind it but if it went behind it then the one thing that I did see the last time in this time is that the the top of the roof elevation on the front porch and the top of the addition elevation the addition is a little higher than the elevation on the front porch I don't know architecturally if it is preferred that those elevations match but I was wondering that perhaps you had raised the one on the side to get over the decorative piece over the door sure and and I don't know but that from the street view that was the one thing that bothered me a bit I think you changed the roof line on the addition as maybe part of that I don't know we we probably did I think it's slightly off I can go back and take a look I think these are the older drawings that don't have the awning in its context and so since we drew this we had gone back and drawn the awning I haven't looked at that particular moment specifically but but certainly would if we continue the the view from the street toward the house there's just that slight difference in height but that may be immaterial I know I see what you're saying let me go to the elevation I'm now you're referring to this relationship correct it looks to be about a foot or so different yeah and then getting back my question was if you raised it to complement the current thing over the door that if you put it behind the door mm-hmm would you be able to lower it back and does that make a difference I don't know I'm just pointing it out it doesn't matter no I think that's a great observation and I I think we would be able to drop it down and line it up and that probably would be the better thing to do yeah you can see it more clearly here that it would probably need to drop down eight to ten inches and I think we would have that to be able to do any other observations or questions I do have a question I do proportionally like pushing it back behind that really nice detail that is a part of that side house which I really didn't want to see obscured and I think pushing it back helps a lot once you push it back you no longer have that direct access over those stairs would you or could you consider a detail where this thing just wasn't attached to the house at all so you're really separating it making its own thing rather than trying to tie in because even when you push it back you have those really nice stone keys and elements at that window which are at the same height as that little porch piece and so I think I'm still gonna have difficulty even seeing attaching to the house there but maybe if you remove that from the house it becomes its own structure which still give you some protection I would be more open to a scenario or reviewing something like that I do appreciate the moving it further off the front of the house I think that's really helpful it doesn't draw quite as much attention to itself and it certainly resolves the issue with that wonderful little roof over the entry into the mudroom I think even though I generally really agree with not attaching new such features to a historic house I think given the stairway the way it comes along the house that could prove a little challenging but I think it's that's an architects I agree but I challenge but in looking at it from the street from the front of the house the height of it really does bother me because it proportionately seems a little out of scale now to the front porch and which seems a little uncomfortable but I certainly appreciate moving it back toward the backyard more I think that it minimizes its presence off the street sure and that also helps reduce the imitative character of it I definitely yeah my eyes popped when you pushed it back I was saying whoa that it reads entirely differently than what you originally had proposed it's not nearly as imitative sure and I think Sarah may have an idea that you can live with that maybe be a freestanding anyway I think we inadvertently turned into another conceptual review I want to thank you again and your applicants as well for your clients for your all those patients it's a process unfortunately it takes two or three meetings just to get it pulled together I think we're making progress we certainly appreciate the board and all your feedback as well as staff right right am I correct that the stairs are reversed and is that need to be documented in such a way to but not become a hindrance in this moving forward that is a that's a great point these stairs are reversed in order to accommodate being able to get up easier especially if it moves further back you know that just allows you know otherwise they would be walking around to get back up good catch we we feel like the stairs it could correct me if I'm wrong Thomas but I believe the stairs were draining water back towards the house and holding water anyway and they need to be repaired and reconstructed as they are yeah I don't think the orientation of the stairs themselves matter in terms of the historic integrity of the house but my concern was working on them and changing them is are you required to get permission to do that unless probably so probably so include the reversal in your in your plan I would imagine yeah all right so are we in consensus that we're going to postpone if so do I have a motion and we continue actually Kim and Kim and Thomas would also like to speak sorry March 17 or 18 okay yes ma'am would you like my name is Kim Gaines and I appreciate your time as far as the stairs go we probably would not just for cost purposes just quote flip it we would just add a staircase that I could use and I would just like to appeal to the board and the staff that as you can imagine with this last catastrophe weather catastrophe for 21 years I've been parking outside and digging our cars out of the ice and snow was I mean brutal it was absolutely brutal and I'm the only female left in the house so I feel like I should be able to park under the potential portico share we don't even refer to our garage as a garage we refer to it as the carriage house because it's really not functional other than storage we've never I attempted to park my car believe it or not in in in the carriage house before the you know with the threats of this weather and scratched it so it's it's really vital and as I look across the street I see my two neighbors across the street with portico shares and the other thing is we have two dogs so right as the back porch you can see there's a an electric gate right there the it's very important to us that our dogs remain safe and my neighbors at 273 South Ashland have had two dogs die and I unfortunately witnessed one of the dogs getting loose running out into South Ashland and within seconds being run over and it was tragic it was horrible and the other situation their other dog they they were the owner was reversing his car in the back of the house because I know there was a suggestion to maybe put it in the back of the house but that kind of defeats the purpose and to be honest we would never use it because of our dogs he the neighbor ran his dog over and killed his dog so our dogs are really important to us and if we had any if we had to use the back of the house the gate would be open one of my dogs knows how to open doors he would probably take off running so that's why a structure such as this would be extremely you know helpful for us primarily me to avoid the elements it's not just for aesthetics actually it's functional for me because the number of times I've carried groceries and pouring rain and dug ice off of my car snow I would just like to have something that you know that is useful to me and we're willing to as you know Barron and I have been talking and discussing making it more you know you know something that would make the board and staff members likely to feel better about moving it back because I felt the same way I I love that architectural roof right there it's beautiful and if you were up close to it you could really appreciate the beauty of it it's really spectacular so I really had sort of a lump in my throat about losing that or at least the visibility of that so moving so when Barron and I came up with you know I think we could because actually what you don't under see is under those three windows is our garbage receptacle and I said to Barron I'm willing to lose that you know locate it elsewhere and in order to move move it back we could even lower it or accommodate you all however you would like it to be but I just wanted to to appeal to that and the only one last thing I'll say is if we make it its own structure its own standing structure it's a really tiny space it literally can only fit one car if I pull up in my car by that that porch right there I can barely open my door to get to get out so to make it I mean we'll discuss it with obviously the professionals but to make it its own standing structure might really impede the space and I don't know if the staff knows but our our neighbors property if you go six feet into that it's actually our property it looks like their property the way if you're driving down the street and you're looking at it you think oh this is their property and this is their property but actually our our property goes a good six feet into the other the other side of the driveway so I just wanted to mention that yeah so anyway thank you so much for your time we really appreciate it and we appreciate your time thank you all right so I have a motion that we continue this matter to March 18 so I have a second second okay without objection we are continued to March 18 we have several sets of minutes to go through or to approve so there are three sets do we have to accept them individually or as a collection I think we can just go ahead and approve them collectively unless there are changes to be made I had no comments on them okay if there's no changes to any of the minutes I think one motion will do it I move that we accept the November December and January meeting minutes as presented and there were a few minor changes that were sent in and those changes have been made yes do a second second without objection the minutes stand approved all right are we ready now for a motion to adjourn so moved that second second without objection we stand adjourned thank you so much