♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ So I want to pull up what we had been discussing previously, what was previously proposed. What I previously proposed was an entablature that matched the detailing of the front porch. We had a fascia, we had a crown, we had this bed molding, and basically a three-part entablature that made up the greater composition of this beam. We also had double columns that were round Doric columns that matched the front porch. The feedback that we received last meeting was that the design, that the location of the portico chair was not necessarily a question, but more the design and the design details. So that's what we focused our efforts on. It was reducing the detailing of this portico chair. And so I'll pull up this same image showing our updated design so that we can see the comparison of those two. This is the same perspective but showing the new detailing. What you'll see is a simple fascia with enough room for a beam to support the load of the roof rafters. This is a much more minimal detail. The beam has shrunk approximately 8 inches in total depth, and there is no molding that would be imitative of the front portico. Also, we did maintain double columns, but we changed them to squares. There is no crowned capital. This is a simple one-by cap on the top of this column. We maintained double columns because at the height that this portico needs to be to align with the fascia of the front porch, single columns appeared quite spindly and, frankly, odd in nature. It almost seemed like the porch was unnaturally tall for the length of the columns that they are. So that was our baseline in both options. This is the details that you'll see in both options A and B. The feedback that we also received from last hearing was whether to attach to the existing masonry wall or to abut to the masonry wall without structurally ledgering or attaching to that masonry wall. We consulted with our structural engineer, and at some point that load has to make its way to the ground, and if we're not going to attach to the masonry wall, then we need outbound structure to support that roof. I'll be honest. It's not something that our clients want to do. We would much prefer to attach to the wall and not have an outbound structure that would support this roof. I put this together so that we could see it graphically at this hearing. We feel that this is going to be invasive and, frankly, counter to what we're trying to do here and preserve the nature of obstructing the historic façade. We feel that we could simply ledger to the masonry wall. We could bolt through our mortar joints, and if this portico chair were to ever be removed someday, that Simpson connection could simply be unscrewed and it'd be a matter of re-point-tucking the location where that portico chair once was, and really there wouldn't be a trace of where this portico chair was. So we feel like we could delicately connect to the building, which I'll show, which would be on this page. He doesn't like you. For some reason, he doesn't want to show us. Let's see. Here we go. This is what we're talking about without pilasters. We feel like this is a cleaner connection and is free of any obstruction on the façade. That is where we are currently. We've emailed these PDFs to staff ahead of time to request feedback on the design. We haven't received any specific design feedback. This is what our clients are happy with. We feel like this scales this down. At the end of the day, we need columns to support a roof and we need rafters to cover, to make up the roof structure so that we can have a weatherproof barrier. It's a minimal design and this is where we are currently. All right, any questions of Mr. Gibson? Any further questions of the staff? Do I have any comments from the audience? All right, I'm closing the evidentiary part of this proceeding and we'll close now for discussion. Let me begin at the other end with Ms. Hill. In addressing the pilasters versus direct attachment to the building and I think the images that you showed made very clear that the impact that those pilasters have on breaking up that historic building, which is really important to be able to see the continuation of that brick façade. I appreciate the slight change in scale, the elimination of the details that imitate the front porch and I do appreciate the fact that the double columns, when you remove one of them, it kind of looks like it's structurally not going to hold itself up, but I do appreciate the shape of the columns and the detail on the columns have changed. The concern about the visibility of that side wall with the portico chair moved back so that the entire steps are visible and the roof element over the top of it, the feature is totally visible and none of the pieces proposed on the portico chair interfere with any of the window elements, historic elements or detailing. I find that a very positive step. Thank you. Mr. Marquette, any comments? Ms. Lindner. I'm going to say I agree with the staff. I still think it's imitative. I still think the details are trying to be a little bit too historic. I really appreciate the additional work you've done. I think it really has come a long way and I appreciate that you've listened to so many of our comments through all of the ones that we have given, but I still feel like it is pretty imposing on the side of that building that having a portico chair for this house that is a big house is not necessary to the function of the house and putting this on the side of the house doesn't enhance the house. But I appreciate you trying to get there because I do think that this option B, thank you, is very close and if I was going to support a portico chair on the side of the house, that would be my favorite of everything you've shown us so far. Thank you. There is an old expression I'm sure you've heard way too many times that there's a lot of art in architecture and I think you all have attempted to exercise a creative art in trying to come up with a solution that complies more or less with the guidelines. In fact, I think we do comply with the guidelines. First of all, we are operating in a bit of a vacuum that we don't have specific guidelines that deal with the construction of an additional, for lack of a better word, awning to protect people from the side entrance. This particular design that you have come up with, especially your option in the plan called option B, which matches up with your A, I think is a good solution. I think by moving it further back, away from the porch entrance itself, that you have solved the imitative history issue, in my opinion. You've also solved the imitative history issue by changing and simplifying the design of your columns so it doesn't imitate the front porch. I drove up and down Ashland several times. None of the other port-a-chairs are pushed back as far as this one is being proposed. I think that clearly makes it look like the new boy on the street. I think with that design, we should not be in the business of denying the owners of the South the opportunity to come up with some kind of a shelter that for whatever reason was not put in when it was first done. It's an option that we've heard a lot of testimony about, weather and the distance and the fact that the garage is not in a good location. I'm inclined to think that we have found a way to move forward. I want to also echo, Mr. Mayor, that you have worked very, very hard on this. We appreciate your diligence and your patience. Thank you. Any further comments? Which version of the pilasters is going to be B? It's what they call option B. Is that with the support on pilasters next to the house? No, the one without it. Are you straight on that? Not that one. It's this one. Okay. Any further discussion? Ms. Marquette, do you have any comments you want to make? All right. I think then, are we ready for a motion? Chair, per case 00710265-P at 265 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness given these particular conditions that have been made during the design and review process. One is moving the portico chair toward the rear to completely expose the side entrance with the roof feature and allowing access into the historic house. And I do feel that the drawings provided, the 3D drawings provided showing the front of the house and that long side clearly show how visible that is. It's compatible in scale now by simplifying, by lowering it, by simplifying the details so that it no longer looks like it was built at the same time that the front porch was, doesn't have the same mass or the historic detailing. I also move that we accept what I'm going to call option B with no pilasters. I'm confused by A and B, but with no pilasters so that once again that entire side elevation is completely visible all the way through and under the proposed portico chair with attachment by a ledger as proposed by the structural engineer. And with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? I second. All right. Second and then we can, what is your amendment? I think we need to specify that the addition of the stairs on that little side entrance to the rear is also approved. I don't want someone coming back and saying that we didn't discuss that. It's in all the photographs, but it's not spelled out anywhere. Ms. Hill, do we accept that? I accept. That's acceptable. As amended. We don't have to go through the whole process of amending and whatever. It's a second. And we have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Nay. Motion passes. At long last, the COA, as conditioned, is approved. Thank you so much for your time and patience. Thank you. Thank you all very much. We appreciate this process and you all at the board. So thank you very much. And we'll do it back right at you. We appreciate you being so willing to work with us on this process. It's been a while. I know that. Thank you all. OK. Thank you. Do we have any minutes before we close the meeting? OK. We had minutes before us, but none of us have had a chance to review them in depth. I will postpone consideration of the minutes to the next meeting. Is there any other business we need to consider? Chair? Yes, ma'am. Meeting minutes? Did I just... OK. It would be helpful to have those in sequence before we approve the April meeting minutes. We're working. OK. Thank you. With complicated meetings like this one, it would have been helpful to review what we had said previously. I'm sorry. I saw your email, but I needed to make sure we could have had them prior to them being approved. I understand. Because a lot of times we have to flush out a couple of comments that have been said and orders and things like that, and it's not so easy to sort of plop them on you without them being reviewed properly. And I'll make one more comment. Why have we been over off to the side all this time? We just found out. The acoustics are so much better. We just found this out today, so I apologize. I almost fell into that one. All right. Are we ready for a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.