All right, good evening.

Let me call the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission.

October meeting to order this evening.

As we as we move into things here, just to let everyone know on the agenda, the Holy Cross case is I'll have a collective groan here is the last case this evening.

But we'll be moving through the cases appropriately ahead of that.

So just be patient.

The first order of business this evening is approval of the August and September minutes.

Could could I either get corrections or a motion for their approval, please?

Thank you, Annie.

Could I get a second, please?

Thank you, Anne Jeanette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

We'll move to old business, which is not a public hearing portion of the meeting.

The first case this evening is 2024 COA 356 Irvington, address 5814 Beechwood Avenue.

Yovanny Mondragon is the applicant.

If you want to come forward, state your name and address, and present your case if you're here.

Not seeing anyone here, but I think we'll go to Shelby.

And I think this is just an extension anyway, so go ahead and give us the background on that, and then we can see if we want to act on it this evening.

Yes, that is correct.

So this is for a violation case the commission saw last in July, and there was required correction work as far as that approval goes.

Um they have started that work, but it is just not yet finished.

I think the big hold up at this point is waiting on the new windows.

Um the property has actually changed hands at this point, um, and the new owner um is taking charge of those violation corrections.

Um they're asking for a two-month two month extension until December to allow additional time to get those corrections complete.

Okay, thank you.

Questions to the commission about the extension.

If not, I'll take a motion to approve the extension to December.

Thank you, Kristen.

Thank you, Susan.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

All right, uh, we have an interior designation update on monument 55 monument circle.

Meg, do you want to uh give we had a tour of the facility?

You want to give us an update, please?

Absolutely.

So I went ahead and I had a conversation with the owner, which is Centier Bank, uh, as well as holiday properties.

They are both uh in agreement that they are fine moving forward with an interior designation of the lobby space and the uh 1930s barbershop.

They are not uh necessarily in favor of anything additional to that.

So we're gonna continue our conversations as we get closer to the closing of that property, then we will come back to you with a designation request.

Okay.

So there's no action this evening, just uh information.

Just an update.

Yeah, all right.

Any questions, comments from anyone?

Okay, all right.

We will move on.

We have no new business this evening, so we'll move to the public hearing portion of the meeting.

And before doing so, let me introduce the commission members and uh staff with us this evening.

If you could silence your phone, that would be great.

Okay, thank you.

Uh to my right is Anson Keller, Commissioner.

I'm Bill Brown, uh president.

To my left, David Baker, Vice President, Annie Lear, uh, Commissioner, Susan Williams is our secretary, Deesa Watson, our commissioner, uh, Michael Bivens, Commissioner, and Jeanette Silvilich Commissioner, and Kristen Wiggs Commissioner.

Our staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmetz, our legal counsel, Emily Jarzen, our principal architectural reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Grace Gedecker, our preservation planner and recorder, Morgan Marejo, our architectural reviewer, and Caroline Emminacre, our architectural reviewer.

Uh the procedures that we will work under this evening, the commission has copies of IC 36-7-11.1, the Marion County zoning ordinances, the historic preservation zoning ordinance, and all historic plans for Marion County on file, which will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard by the commission this evening.

This evening's hearing will be governed by the commission's rules of procedure, which are also incorporated in the record of this proceeding.

Anyone wanting to get notice that a decision made by this commission has been appealed, they may fill out a notification form within five days of the decision.

The forms are available and may be obtained from the commission staff.

The commission strongly recommends against submitting new written materials at the hearing.

Doing so may result in the application being continued if the commission or the staff believes the material substantially alters the request or requires more to review than is reasonable at a public hearing.

However, if supplemental material related to a case is being submitted this evening, please submit it to the IHPC staff when you come up to testify.

The chair would also like to remind the public that expartheid contact with the commissioners, which is contact relating to a matter before the commission outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

The order of each of the cases this evening will be as follows.

We'll first ask the applicant for their presentation, and then we will also ask for any support of that application occurring, and both of those steps will be allowed up to a maximum of 20 minutes.

Then I'll ask for objections or remonstrations.

That'll also be allowed up to an additional 20 minutes maximum.

Then I'll ask for staff comment.

We'll take questions from the commissioners, and the applicant will have a last word or rebuttal of up to an additional maximum of 10 minutes, and then I'll ask Meg for a staff recommendation.

So before calling the first case, uh Grace, if you would swear everyone in who is going to be speaking to any of the cases this evening.

If you're speaking, please stand, raise your right hand, and Grace will swear you in.

Raise your hand for me, please.

Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Grace.

All right.

I will move to we have no withdrawals or continuances this evening, so we'll move to the first expedited case.

We have one this evening, case 2025 COA 282, Heron Morton Place, address 2106 North Talbot Street, Alec New is the applicant.

Uh any uh any comments uh on that uh Meg from your standpoint?

Okay.

Anyone wishing to speak to an expedited case here this evening in the public?

Name and address, please.

I'm Josh Smith, RG development uh 1073 Oliver Avenue.

I'm here representing the petitioner.

So that's fine.

Yeah, if you if you don't have any comments, we'll I'll see if the commission has any comments on this expedited case.

And Jeanette, please.

Uh the only thing that I request is that we look at the one, the living room windows on the one side and adjust the size and the head height because it the head height sits higher than the rest of them.

Okay.

Meg, go ahead, please.

Yeah, we'll we can certainly take a look at that when we do the pre-construction meeting and sign off on the final construction drawings, which is part of the stipulations in the COA.

Okay.

All right.

Any other final comments of the commission?

All right.

Could I get a motion for the approval of the expedited case?

Please.

Susan, David, thank you.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

We'll now move to applications uh which are continued.

Uh first case this evening is 2017 COA 049, Amendment A, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, address 901 Carrollton Avenue.

Ryan Stout is the applicant.

Uh please come forward, state your name and address, and present your case to us.

Yes, my name is Shea Grabbois from upstate UAD architects.

I'll be representing the Edricks Group.

Right.

Could that make it today?

Okay, that's mine, please.

Go ahead.

Uh yes.

Do we have a slideshow or no?

Yeah, we should.

Yeah.

Just take a moment to bring it up.

All right, great.

So uh if we could go to the next slide.

So, really, the only change we made since last time we were here was to move the entry and exit to the garage portion of the building from Ted Street to uh Belfoten.

And uh we did leave an entry only at Ted Street.

Uh if you go to the next slide.

Landscape played.

Next slide.

Here's the ground floor played, just to give you an idea that exit and entry off of Belfautain and the entry only uh Ted Street.

Next slide.

We just have a typical floor played uh very similar to last time, just the rampage is a little bit different.

Next one.

And then the elevations that have changed here, you can see entry only off of Ted Street.

And here you can see the new entry and exit off of Bell Fountain.

Everything else has stayed the same since last time.

Next slide.

And then we do have just two images to kind of give you an idea of what that entry and exit looks like on Bell Fountain.

That's all I have.

All right.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

Okay, we're ready for a staff comment.

Emily, please.

Yes, so this project has been in front of the commission the past couple of months, and the big sticking point was the single entry exits on 10th Street.

Um, and then also trying to wait on DPW's response to that.

DPW had indicated they had a discomfort with that approach.

Um in light of that, uh, they didn't hear the applicant didn't hear back from DPW prior to final plans being owed to our office.

They went ahead and changed the plans to have the exit entry on Bell Fountain.

That is what was originally approved in 2017 and the other revision, and they will keep a single entry point onto 10th Street, but there will be no exit access onto 10th Street.

Um I did, I was forwarded an email chain that included DPW.

They said they are comfortable with this approach as long as I think there was some request from Indigo not to put pavers at the bus stop that was just redone there.

Um so staff is in support of the application as presented and can answer any questions.

All right, thanks, Emily.

Questions from the commission, please.

Uh Anjanette, please.

Um two meetings ago, um, we uh there was some talk about seeing if you can push the building down a bit more and make a sub-level for the garage.

Um, and there was some concern about a possible water table issue.

Has anything been investigated on that any further?

Yeah, we did take a look at that.

That is problematic.

Um we ended up leaving at the same, but if you look at the elevation, the height uh change compared to what was previously approved uh for the garage portion is very close within uh less than 10 feet uh difference.

Okay.

Um and then also there were some concerns brought up about the transparency of the garage screening, and there was some mention of some maybe some alternate material materials.

Um have you looked into that any further?

Absolutely.

Uh so the mesh that we're showing uh on the garage screen.

We were hoping that we'd be able to work at the staff level to come to uh an agreeable solution for that.

Um it is something that needs to be uh open enough to allow for open air circulation, so that does restrict a lot of the choices like a perforated panel.

Um so we're sort of limited on what we could do there, but we're hoping to work with staff on finding the best solution for that.

Okay, thank you.

And I guess uh Meg, I assume we're gonna be getting mock-ups and so forth uh as the project is evolves from construction standpoint.

Is that the case?

Yes, so the this approval is subject to all the original 2017 stipulations, and that does include a mock-up for each building that is constructed.

Yeah, so we can have the point is we can obviously study that as well when they start looking into that.

We can actually see the final materials.

So, David, go ahead, please.

Now I was not here at the last meeting.

I did have her watch it on video, so I saw it.

And one of the issues has been the I don't know, I'd almost say the proportion of the top to the garage, the bulk of the garage.

Um you did bring it down four feet or something like that, which helped.

Um I don't know.

I I'm still struggling with that a little bit, and there's something that struck me uh as a possible.

I want to throw this out.

I've got a was going to try to explain it, but it's better to show a picture.

So I've got a copy for everybody.

Yeah, give one to the applicant.

There's the two you know for the applicant and the staff.

Uh what I'm I'm just throwing this out to for people to chew on.

Um I'm suggesting a uh another heavy, I'm calling it a cornice, it's not really a cornice, but it would be at the same level as uh the building, the historic building, and so it would accomplish two things, I think.

Thank you.

It reinforces that connection to the old building, and to me, it uh sort of breaks down that the mass of the uh parking garage, and somehow, in my mind, in my eye, it's proportion is better with that added.

So I'm just throwing that out.

I'm curious what people's opinion is of that, and it seems like that shouldn't be difficult to do if that helps okay.

Thanks, David.

Any other comments?

Susan, please.

Yes, um David alluded to one of my three concerns.

There were three things that um I raised at the meeting and reading the minutes.

I confirm that one of them was to give a nod to the historic building next door, and I looked and didn't find that there was any attempt to do any kind of alignments with windows and other straight lines across that building, and so that was disappointing.

Equally as disappointing was that I I suggested that you you beef up the planting beds on Bellfoun to give a nod to the cultural trail, which is another important part of the fabric of the community that you're setting this building on.

And then the third thing, and this may have been addressed at the last meeting.

I don't know, I wasn't there either.

I apologize, but um since we once again are losing housing, um, I suggested that we think about balconies on the building to give it that interest for one thing, and um that that feel um the buildings having that um balcony balconies on them because it is a very flat front.

Um and the answer that I got at the meeting was well the ice miller doesn't want them, it doesn't want to use them, and I think we heard that same thing when we tried to get balconies put on college, and in fact, we did get balconies put on college, even though it wasn't residential as promised, and um it's really surprising that people are using them, and they're attractive.

Um so I I don't know where if you discussed this last time or not, and um I I'd like to just put my two cents worth on that, and then and this is a little bit out of order, so perhaps at the end of our session with you, there was an editorial in the Indianapolis Star.

Um I don't know, was last week or so uh talking about the fact that this project was going to be all office and no residential, and the reasons why that shouldn't be, and they were very good reasons, and um I don't always like what I read in the star, but I did like that, and so I'd like to know first of all where that came from, that there were gonna be no residential in the the whole project, and um and what we can do about it as a commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Susan.

Other comments from the commission?

Nansen, go ahead, please.

I just wanted to circle back to Anjanette's comment about the screening, not necessarily just about the material, but the ground floor um treatment at on 10th street.

The parking garage is completely transparent uh as it's depicted in the renderings and the elevations, and I think we've talked about that several times where we don't want to be able to see the parking garage from the 10th street since it's a pedestrian corridor, um, and I didn't see that addressed at all on this design revision.

Um do you have any comment?

I'm sorry, could you state that one more time?

There's direct visage into parking garage, which I feel is inappropriate for, especially for the pedestrian traffic that that uh occurs moving to the Monon Trail.

Sure, I understand your point.

Um one factor that that factors into that is that we need to keep have that garage have a certain level of openness in order to get the understanding of business requirements, but that would preclude you from doing what I'm talking about.

Um yeah, so we can't put any screedy dilemmets that's uh too opaque.

Uh we did also place a park and landscape element uh uh what a a dog walk that's kind of uh uh right in that area.

We felt that the landscape really becobs the pedestrian uh it really activates the pedestrian uh level.

Um yeah, that's by two comments on that.

Well, I I I really couldn't support that the facade as it exists.

I think if you'd be willing to maybe change materials that that so that the screening at the first few feet on it, yeah, uh Lance Evangel.

Sure.

Yeah, name and address Lance.

Lance Evinger, 345 Massachusetts Avenue.

So I think that rendering doesn't really pick up the landscaping that we're gonna do in the dog park and the the little half wall made of concrete.

So the garage is gonna sit a little bit lower, and it's gonna have a lot of landscaping in front of it.

So I think that'll help screen the garage.

But if there's additional things you'd like us to look at in terms of screening, we're open to evaluating that with you guys.

I think a simple material change could, especially when you're you deal with the you know the bright sunlight versus the dark garage.

I think we all had the concern about lights in the garage and and screening those since the bumper wall isn't required on the first floor, there's nothing to screen those uh at all.

So there needs to be something there to screen it from from public view and from uh especially the nighttime.

I think we can find some precedence to work off of for that.

And as far as uh on Bellefontaine, it's it's not picked up in the renderings, but there will be more extensive landscaping than what's shown and with more blooming flowers and things, it's just not picked up in that rendering there.

It'll be more than just a row of three trees.

Other comments from the commission.

I'll just offer uh one comment.

I thank you for solving the vehicular circulation.

I think it will be much better than relying on U-turns on 10th Street.

I think this will be a much better solution for for not only Hendricks, but also for uh Icemeller.

I think it'll work much better for you.

Um so I guess uh any any final comments from from you all, and do you want to address some of the other comments offered by the commission, please?

So there will be uh residential at bottle works.

I don't know where that came from that was in that piece.

The the last phase we're planning on doing apartments there, uh, like in our original proposal, and that's still a stipulation of our COAs to have residential, but it'll be part of that last phase.

And I would also say that you know, if you think back to 2015, we originally did these submittals of 2017.

There was not nearly the housing that there is around this project now.

I believe the the node that we've created here has had a halo effect on the neighborhoods around it.

You've seen a lot of houses that have flipped and new apartment developments that have happened all around the project.

So you know, we look at these market factors too when we're gonna build uh new buildings at the district, and we just saw a whole lot of housing supply.

And frankly, we're not really multifamily developers.

That's not our main business, it's an ancillary piece, and it's still going to be a part of this project, but just as things changed over the 10 years we've been working on this project, you know, we saw this opportunity for the shift to office, but I think now we are done with office, move back to residential going forward.

That is very good news.

Um thank you.

You're welcome.

And just for the record lines, it might be helpful for you just to kind of describe what the last phase is geographically so people understand where the area you're talking about.

So at the corner of 10th Street in college, the northwest corner of the project, we'll do a development there with a central parking garage and then wrap that with units.

I think there'll be a small retail component to that as well, but primarily residential.

All right.

Any other comments from the commission?

I guess a question for the commission are we comfortable with having the applicant work with staff to solve the uh items that have been brought up?

Like you know, any any thoughts about this sketch, uh either Lance or we will consider and review it.

Absolutely.

Okay.

All right.

What's everybody's attitude about that?

Uh obviously, and Meg, you can speak to this.

We have many cases come back under old business as well, which allows the applicant to continue and then work with the staff, and then if the if you all the staff feel like it's really imperative that they come back under old business, they can continue doing what they're trying to do.

You may want to speak to that.

Yes, we'll work with the applicant, and if there's anything that we feel is not something that we can consider as staff, we'll bring it back to you.

I guess just look for everybody's opinion about all this.

Okay, go ahead, speak up.

Well, I I do I'm very serious about the historic building.

If nobody else thinks that's a problem, then I'm just a voice.

Well, I think the wilderness.

Yeah, I guess my question is for you, Susan is do you think David's sketch starts to address that with the the scale?

I think it's a start, but at the pedestrian level, um there's you know, those straight lines that we like to see that that acknowledge the historic building.

It just seems like it would be an easy thing to do, and it's might be something that staff can work on.

I'd be happy, but I'm the only one crabbing about it, and so if it's not a big deal to my colleagues and I think it's the same thing that David was addressing.

David, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you were suggesting is having an alignment with the the Coca-Cola building next door.

Uh just to subtly make the proportions right relate.

Right.

Um as well as I think breaking up that the facade that side of it.

Right.

Okay.

So I'm sort of I'll take this to say that I'll take a uh a motion to approve the project.

Uh Meg, you want to give us a uh recommendation?

Sure, I'll read that and have you take a motion.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Staff recommends to approve an amended certificate of appropriateness for the previously approved design for building two, including any design changes discussed by the commission at the October 1st, 2025 IHPC hearing.

All work is subject to stipulations and notes in the originally approved 2017 COA 049 uh certificate as issued July 19th, 2017.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

I'll take a motion for the uh staff recommendation as read, please.

Uh thank you, David.

Thank you, Mike.

Any final comments?

All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, please?

One nay.

All right.

Uh the motion passes uh 821.

Good luck with your project, and please work closely with staff to address the issues that were discussed.

We'll do.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh the next case, uh, continued case is 2025 COA 301, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, address 656 East Arch Street, Abby Robertson is the applicant.

Annie needs to recuse herself from the case due to proximity.

Uh Abby, if you would come forward, state your name and address, and present your case to us.

All right, go ahead.

Hi, all right.

Um, I my name is Abby Robertson, address 9663 Elm Drive.

Um, that's Carmel, Indiana, and I'm with Inovo.

We are representing our clients Parker and Julie on this project at 656 East Arch Street.

Okay.

Please go ahead.

All right.

Um so on this project, uh a little bit about Parker and Julie.

They've lived in Chatham Arch for 10 years, um, and they're just a very um uh integral part of the community and the neighborhood there.

They've um really poured themselves into um the just the the fabric of the neighborhood, and that's seen by the support that they've received on this project.

Um if you notice on pages 169 through 176 of the submittal, the large submittal packet, um, there are five letters of support from surrounding neighbors.

Um it's just overwhelming support for this pro for this project.

Um there is also an additional letter from the Chatham Arch Neighborhood Association encouraging or stating that there was overwhelming support from the Chatham Arch Neighborhood uh association and encouraging support of this project.

Chatham Arch is really comprised of people like Parker and Julie have really poured themselves into the neighborhood and built those connections and are what help it to thrive and just the add to the vitality of the neighborhood.

So this project is one that they are desiring to be a long-term home that they can live in as they grow their family.

And it's you know definitely not a project that they're trying to just uh live in for three to five years and move on.

They really want to stay a part of Chatham Arch neighborhood and just continue to invest their time and energy into it.

So along with that on this project, so they purchased 656 East Arch Street in November of last year.

The home has been vacant for 20 years, and that's very evident through the images of the existing condition of the home.

There are also BNS reports and showing the condition of the home.

I don't think it made it in the submittal packet.

So I have a few copies here.

Yeah, I was gonna say give it to Grace and she can pass them out.

So that they've their uh BNS has received numerous uh complaints and is also imposed uh fines on this property due to the unsafe conditions of it.

Um and again, this is just meant to show the existing condition of this home and the state that it's been in for uh you know continuing to digress over the last 20 years.

Um Parker and Julie, they are uh desiring for this to be a long-term home, and that means adding on enough uh square footage or just adding off on enough functional space where there's enough bedrooms and a home office, which honestly has just become a staple of today in a home with uh so many people working from home now, um as well as those functional living spaces, um, public spaces like the living room, kitchen, dining room, things like that.

Um, and so as we look at this project and the scope of it, um, would love to just point out the lot size of this.

So the lot size is under 3300 square feet.

So we're already dealing with a really compact uh lot.

The um the application um we had to file it as a demolition, uh, which is obviously very jarring language and rightfully so.

Um, and so want to point out um if we could compare page eight from the staff report with page 17.

I think those are I think it's 138 shows the rendering of the proposed design on there.

Um, and then page eight of the staff report shows the existing uh condition.

I just think that this is really helpful to show you know, we're not seeking so ANOVO, our company has restored multiple uh Indiana landmarks historic properties, and we really do believe in restoring historic homes that have those beautiful historic features and that character and trying to honor that.

Um, and so on this particular project, part of what is really adds to the character of this home is that original or is are those is the front elevation.

So about that front the front edge or the front facing gable there on that existing home.

Um it has a beautiful rafter detailing the original window casing that has a detailed architrave detail on it, um, which is beautiful, has since been removed.

We would love to add that back on to those front window, uh, the front window elevations.

Um we're proposing to keep those front window opening and sizes, um, and then what would be where the addition would start is where you see that cross gable.

So basically we would keep the front 40% of the house, and then the cross gable is where the addition would start.

Um you can kind of you again if you compare on what is it, page eight on the staff report versus 17, which is shows the rendering, it's a little bit easier to see there where the addition begins, and then yeah, that cross gable.

So the reason for placing the cross gable in this location is allowing us to put the staircase.

So if we look at the floor plan, the staircase it begins in that cross gable, and it allows it to be more central in the house, which means you can easily access the front existing portion of the cottage as well as the back rear addition.

And without inhibiting the flow on the main floor, it's not encroaching on that main floor, and it's not encroaching on the second floor.

So it's just a really intentionally placed staircase.

When we're dealing with the total livable proposed square footage of the primary house here, is under 2,000 square feet.

So every square foot counts.

If we can avoid it, the second floor on the main or the existing structure at its peak is currently under eight feet, and then down on the knee walls or the side walls, it goes down to three feet, which makes it which makes it very it's not functional for bedroom usage or bathrooms and things like that.

So that cross gable with where we have it placed, it allows us to maximize again a little bit more of that second floor square footage to get a bathroom in there, and then we tucked a bedroom in that front existing gable section of the house.

Again, just trying to give some reasoning of you know the what we're proposing and and the logic that we put put uh to this.

Another consideration that we had is maintaining green space in the backyard.

So right now there's a little under 18 feet between the garage and the house.

Um we really want to be able to maintain as much of that green space as possible without also encroaching past the rear elevations of the adjacent properties.

So if we were to push this addition just further back on the house, we would be almost negating that green space, and we'd be significantly going past the existing rear elevations of those adjacent properties.

So that's another consideration that we had in this proposal.

Finally, well, not finally, but in addition, um, something we're proposing is uh removing the existing garage again in those BNS reports, you can see the existing condition on it, and we're proposing a new uh new garage with an unfinished space above, which could later be converted potentially to a carriage house or something of the like.

Um then we're proposing a front porch, um reopening that front porch up and uh wrapping it around on the front.

So we've heard neighbors call Chatham Arch the front porch neighborhood.

Um I think that's just because uh people are so friendly there and they love being able to chat with each other and sit out on the front porches, which is a beautiful thing.

Um, and so something that we've seen before throughout the neighborhood, actually on pages 158 through 162 of the submittals, the large submittal packet, um, are other examples in Chatham Arch neighborhood where a front porch was added where it did not exist prior.

Um, another example is 820 Broadway Street where there had been structural changes to the existing side porch and it was allowed to be the wraparound porch was allowed because of those structural changes that had been uh done to the original side porch on 656 East Arch Street.

There have been structural changes completed on that project or on that porch.

Um if we go back to page, and I'm sorry, I know I'm jumping around a lot here.

Um, if we go back to page, I think it's 17 or no, sorry, eight, um, and the staff report, it'll show the existing house again, and it shows how that side porch, which used to be open, has now been enclosed, and aluminum windows have been added, an aluminum front door's been added, um, whatever the existing wood porch floor, what used to be that's been removed, and now it has a concrete cap and concrete block as a foundation.

Um, so again, because of those structural changes and some of the other past cases, just re-adding that front porch back on.

Um, there's also the house right next door to this one used to have a front porch on it.

Um, at some point it's been removed, and now it's just a stoop.

So it's really trying to add that back into the fabric of this streetscape.

And again, that is something that the neighbors have been um have given overwhelming support on because I think they really want to encourage um having more of these uh porches in Chatham Arch.

Finally, and I really think this is finally the existing chimney.

That was something that staff had noted, and uh we're proposing to keep it.

We you can see the chimney is a little higher on our rendering, and that's really something I think we could lower that because it wouldn't be existing, it would just be keeping it um as a decorative chimney.

So there's that's something that we're kind of still working through.

Um but the other thing to know is if you look at page uh 163 through 165 on this middle document, um, it goes through the existing condition of that, the chimney that's there currently, and there's an image um on there that shows uh if we go, yes, that one.

And if you actually go down, scroll down a little bit, um, and then it you'd have to zoom in a bit to see it, but the shape of the chimney is tapered, and so we believe that there's this chimney has been modified since um this date, and uh masonry's masons have looked at it and they concur that there's um been modifications to the material um of this chimney and the the shape of it, obviously as well.

So um we included it on the proposal because that was a staff request.

Um we would love to be able to remove that if uh the commission saw that reasonable.

Um I believe Parker and Julie Um, or perhaps a neighbor is also going to speak on their behalf and on the behalf of this project and for the the neighborhoods or the the neighbors in the area as well.

But um, and it really it's from the neighbors in Chatham Arch, the overwhelming message that we have heard is um this is gonna be beneficial to the neighborhood, Parker and Julie A.

It's giving them an opportunity to create a long-term home.

Um renovations are very expensive.

Uh it's a very uh taxing undertaking.

It takes time, energy, and a lot of resources to do it.

So um, but it's gonna be well invested uh with Parker and Julie being able to stay in this uh in this neighborhood and bringing this property that's been honestly self-proclaimed by a lot of neighbors, the biggest ice hoar in Chatham Arch, um, just restoring it to a beautiful position.

Um so tonight we're requesting approval.

Um, but we're also if the commission does not see fit with that, we were just here to gather feedback, and then we would just request a continuance to be able to capture that and work with staff to continue to refine.

Okay, thank you.

Um anyone wishing to speak in support of the application.

Please uh come forward name and address, please.

And just FYI, we got about five minutes left in the time frame.

I would say by brief, but you know it doesn't not always true.

Um I'm Tom Hanathy, I live at 664 East Arch Street, uh, two doors down, and with me is my neighbor, uh Mr.

Farabach.

Yes, Greg Framework, A25 Broadway.

Yeah, we we just stand here uh supporting this project and the overall concept.

We live adjacent to this, and we've been dealing with this eyesore for many many years.

The neighborhood absolutely is overwhelmingly supportive.

I was at the neighborhood meeting, and finally want to get something done with this property, and we really uh appreciate every consideration to get this role.

And the last thing it's so important, the neighborhood's changing.

And when some of us moved into the neighborhood, um it was a lot of um people that look like me back then, and uh and rentals.

And it it was uh now what's changing, dynamics changing, we're getting Airbnbs, and it's really a problem.

We're losing that fabric.

The mayor's neighbor office, I know it's briefly.

Um the mayor's office talked about 30,000 new people downtown.

Well, we want these viable neighborhoods, and Airbnbs will destroy them if they if they overwhelm the place.

When people that have made a 10-year commitment to the neighborhood already have property here, adjacent property, and um want to make this commitment.

We ask, we I beg you, and we both beg you to give uh considerate consideration to this project and move this along, right?

I I totally agree with what Tom just had to say.

If you think about it, years ago when we moved in and uh began to help with the neighborhood developed, and and one of our good friends here was also a big advocate of that and helped out with the neighborhood.

And I think these two people are really committed to turning this neighborhood into the same thing that we had hoped it happened 30 to 40 years ago.

And if you look at what we're our hair uh is a little bit wider than when we came aboard or less or less that we came before the before a board of this nature uh a long time ago, hoping that we could come and uh be allowed to create the uh my new home, our new hobberry methodized new hope, and Tom's variety homes that he put together.

So uh we would just uh uh I support this entire project uh and hope that you would allow uh these younger people to uh be the same younger people that we uh we all were uh a part of doing it uh uh in that time.

I I leave you with this.

Uh many of you know my father, may you rest in peace, and uh we built a brand new home, and Tom was there and Susan was there and helping us all do it, and my dad's stood on the front porch on the front porch.

I said, Dad, what do you think?

He says, Well, he says, This is the dumbest thing you've ever done, and you've done some stupid things.

X amount of years later, I said, now what do you think?

He goes, You got lucky.

I think we're very lucky to have these applicants uh willing to take this uh major difficulty on, and uh I would encourage the board to uh approve it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you both.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Got about uh two minutes, please.

Uh name and address, please.

Uh Tim Erickson, I'm at 653 East Art Street across the street from the preferred property.

Uh I felt that I needed to speak since the old people are saying there's young people moving in, and that is the case.

Um yeah, I I wanted, I think it did a great job of covering kind of the um pros of this.

I really wanted to speak about the the porch in particular.

Um, you know, there are a lot of Airbnbs coming into the neighborhood.

I think there's like three in the last year.

I've been there for three years at this point.

Um, so we do want to have some permanent community fixtures.

Um the house as it is is very small.

I don't think it's livable, and I think if it does not turn into a project for somebody who can uh stay there long term, it's gonna end up being another Airbnb.

So just like uh y'all to take that into consideration.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to please speak in support uh maybe maybe one more okay?

You got about um one minute.

You got it.

Uh Parker Hale, 660 East Art Street, also the owner of this property at 656.

Uh I had a little less gray hair before we started this project.

Um, but I just I just wanted to say, I mean, going through this, I'm I know there's some exceptions that we're looking for, and I really appreciate you know all the neighbor support.

Um, but I mean the reality for Julie and I, you know, as the owners and going through this is we're so constrained on this project.

Um we already have a lot of money invested in it.

We paid a year of taxes on it, we paid fines.

Um and going through it, you know, it's just there's just such a narrow margin where we're you know, financially, I think people are comfortable and able to to make these projects work, and uh and that that is you know also part of the reason for asking for a lot of these exceptions, and and you know, for us we need this word footage um for the next stage in our life.

And uh when we bought this house, I did not realize the uh how involved the process was.

So we've been learning a lot about that, and you know, we really tried to put our best foot forward on this project and and do something for the neighborhood, and that respects the architecture of the neighborhood while also being financially feasible for us.

So thanks.

Thank you.

And I think we're out of time.

Uh so anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance of the application.

Okay, seeing done, we're ready for uh staff comment.

And uh Morgan, I believe you're up.

Yes, um, staff is recommending denial for this request for the seven reasons outlined in my staff report.

Um, the main reason being the request does not meet the plan and eliminates any character of the existing cottage.

Um, other than that, I have no additional comments, and I can answer any questions.

Okay, thanks, Morgan.

Questions from the commission, David, please.

Well, your client is clearly very popular in the neighborhood.

Um but I'm sure you understand that can't be the basis for a decision on our part.

Um so I read the staff comments.

And I I sort of knew the house from the past.

And I think the thing that struck me when I looked at the house and then looked at the uh what you're doing to it, uh is that I didn't get a kind of a sense of the form of the original house, which is a bit obliterated in the new in the new uh rendition of it.

Um I know a lot of it's gonna go away, which is bothersome to preservationists uh, but I also understand that in this particular case that's probably gonna whatever happens, that's gonna be the case because it's in such bad shape.

Um I also know that it's I understand it's got to get a lot bigger for modern use.

Um but before this meeting, I went over there, I stopped and I got out and I walked around the house and looked at it, and I looked, peeked in the window of the porch, and you know, there's not a whole lot on this house of original detail, but if you look inside the porch, and I don't think there's any picture of that anywhere along the wall there, because the original porch is it's long, there are two intact door openings with transoms above, and between them is uh intact, intact doesn't mean in great shape, but intact window with what was probably original two over two sash still there.

Um pretty character defining that on that side way more so than even the front because those windows are really bad.

But um, I guess you know, if if I were if you had come to me before you ever designed anything and said, what do you think about this?

I think I would say uh that I understand there needs to be a cross gable to add bulk in this thing, but I would say you need to try to get that to start at the end of that porch where you continue to have where you can preserve the two doors in the window, which are very character.

I mean, they're the most if that was opened up in a porch, they would be the most character defining features on that house.

So I have no problem with there being a cross gable, and I have no problem with there being something pretty big and bulky in the back.

Um I don't even have a problem with the fact that I know a lot of the original material is gonna have to go.

Um I think I probably can go along with the the wraparound porch.

All these houses historically, they've had them and not had them, and it changes and that sort of thing.

But I would really, really like to see you try to preserve what's there on that side of the building, and then have your way behind that, if that makes any sense.

May I speak to that?

Yeah, yeah, go ahead, please.

Okay.

So there is a window opening on the demo plan on the uh it's probably the easiest to understand.

Uh yeah.

Should be page 140.

Um, so there is a window proposed there on that side porch, and we're proposing.

Um so there is a window proposed there on that side porch, and we're proposing, I think some of what makes those openings so beautiful on the side is the casing detail that was used, and like you said, those that double sash window, which our proposal would be to use that double sash window throughout, you know, to replace it with um material of its kind or an other double sash windows on the front.

Um and then those the front windows and elevations, that original casing that's so beautiful has been removed at some point in time.

So we would like to propose adding that back on to those front windows with that architrave detail to kind of pull that back into this home, and then that window that's on the side there, um granted it's moved, but it would still kind of beckon back to that when the window there on the um that's currently existing on the side.

Is that something that would be um an in-between enough, or what's your response to that it'd be my choice to have you try to find a way to design this thing so that you could restore that one section?

Um the front, it probably had two over two windows, you know, and you can get new windows like that and those could be put in the front openings too, but uh I guess I'd need to be convinced that there's absolutely no way of designing something and preserving that one section of the building.

Well sorry, I feel like I'm always about to talk when you're okay.

I was just gonna say that um if we pull up the floor plan view on 140, I think it's 140.

So looking at that, it showing where the stairs then tie into that cross gable and the placement of it, it allows room for the living room across from that, and then ample room for a working kitchen and then dining uh bank area on the opposite side.

So if we were to expose more of the um, sorry, I'm blanking, that would be the east side of the house, uh no, sorry, the west side of the house, so that wall there where the window is and the door, that would mean we're pushing that stair, we would end up having to push all of that back significantly further on the house, probably another 10 feet back, which then currently we have um we have 18 a little under 18 feet of backyard space.

So it would end up resulting in a significant either we're significantly reducing the backyard space, or we're significantly uh limiting how the function we would be reducing ultimately reducing the square footage of the addition and having to make these spaces a lot more compact to fit the staircase in and still have an adequate living space in kitchen and dining.

So that was the reason for the cross gable placement.

Um that's at least what I have for you today.

So there's no doubt that you can't just make a tweak.

Uh you'd have to rethink your spaces and the design.

I understand that.

Um the others haven't spoken yet, so they need to speak.

Um but uh to me if I were identifying something important to keep that is what I would have identified and um give up on other stuff.

Okay, thanks, David.

Other com comments from the commission, please.

Susan, go ahead.

Yes, um I apologize that I wasn't at the last meeting, but I did read the minutes carefully, and um the the one thing that I think we're talking about this a little backwards.

We're talking about demolishing a large percentage of a home of a cottage that if otherwise somebody just came and said we want to demolish this thing, we would never let them do that.

And so, you know, I think of this as a facade ectomy, which is not preservation, it's design, it's cute or whatever, but I think you know, I'm really persuaded by David's comments because I didn't peek in the window and I looked at this thing for 40 years and saw potential there.

But I think you know, I'm really persuaded by David's comments because I didn't peek in the window and I looked at this thing for 40 years, um, and saw potential there.

And in order to demolish, you have to meet criteria.

It's a long list, it's something we do all the time.

And I think that my problem with this is the amount of demolition that's gonna happen.

And I noticed that you um took a picture as an example uh of a house on Broadway that happened to be my next door neighbors, and they did demolish.

But they the whole house, the whole historic house was retained.

The only thing that was demolished was the back, which was a non-historic addition.

And so that isn't really what you're doing, and and that isn't a good example.

So the amount of demolition is what gives me concern.

I can't really get too upset about the wraparound porch, even though it isn't consistent with what's in that section of the neighborhood if the porch is made to align as a setback with all the other setbacks along that street.

It just it needs to conform for sure before it I think it should even be considered.

So those are my thoughts.

But you know, just to give you a flavor of of where I am on this, I think we need to work harder at preservation and the floor plan needs to conform to what what makes sense in terms of uh retention of this house.

Okay, thank you, Susan.

Other comments from the commission?

Some please go ahead.

Well, start off with a question for David.

Um you've got so much experience with this.

Um the porch space that you identified with the the doors that are existing, it's now enclosed.

Isn't that technically an interior space now, which we wouldn't have purview over?

Like if they wanted to demo those out, would they even need the COA?

I don't know.

I guess I would not consider it that way.

Um I don't know that it's heated in the air conditioned.

I I don't think so.

What is the criteria for interior?

This is me just wanting to know for the future.

Yeah, I've maybe look to Meg to offer her thoughts about that question.

Right.

David is correct.

We would consider that not to be part of the interior space because of the fact that it isn't heated and cooled.

Um that's how we review new construction and how we procedurally treat it as well.

And that's been confirmed.

And that's really the only thing.

If it was heated and cooled, like if there was a vent in there for the HVEC system, it would all of a sudden be considered interior space.

I I don't know that it's quite that simple.

I think we look at a couple of things.

We look at the alterations that have been made to it, what's left behind the um I'll call them walls, but it's primarily glass.

Um we look at if the original wood porch is still intact, the siding, if that's all been taken out and absorbed into the interior space, that's a very different scenario.

But if you could very easily remove that porch and it be restored to the original exterior appearance, then we would treat it as such.

Okay.

I I think the reason I bring that up is because I was just looking up and down the streetscape, and I I found I saw 626 and uh Art Street, and that house seems to be almost a precedent for for this.

It's very similar, and it looks almost exactly like the end product that they've gone for here.

So it seems, and it's a very nice house.

Um so it seems very appropriate as far as it even has the wraparound porch.

And I was gonna say, had you not begin, you know, be started where you started, um, I wouldn't say just make it look like that, and I think it looks it would look great.

Um I'm a little bit torn because I myself renovated a house that was 30 years vacant, and I understand the amount of work and also the investment that goes into that because you can't just you know put that kind of money into a house that's gonna be you know 1100 square feet or less, you know.

It's probably what, 800 square feet now?

Right around, yeah, somewhere right.

Yeah.

It just the money doesn't make sense.

And so there's a problem there as far as you know, resale value, uh, even though they want to stay here, it's still not a wise investment to put a bunch of money into something that you're not gonna be able to sell for for what you've invested into it.

And so I'm sensitive that to that concern, and I'd really like to find a way to help them get to uh an approval on that because it seems like they they've been diligent about at least trying to make it fit into the neighborhood and and engaging the neighborhood in their process.

Thanks, Hansen.

Another comments, questions.

Okay, I'll just offer a couple comments myself.

Um, you know, our our job is to protect uh historic resources, that's our that's our charge.

And you know, and to the point that David and Susan were talking about.

I mean, obviously we have seen a lot of small cottages in Lockerby, Cottage Home, Chatham Arch that have all you know been in I would say worse condition than what we're seeing here.

And people have found a way, you know, to add on to them and get the square footage that makes them usable you know, with a lot of different things that have happened on the backs of these smaller buildings, you know, with taller additions and this kind of thing.

So I it's hard to think that there may not be a solution out there uh that could in fact start to keep more of the existing property and uh and and accomplish what you want to here.

You know, as I look at the plan, and then again, these are all choices, but you know, there's a a large rear patio that is taking up a lot of square footage on the first floor that you know could become enclosed space.

And granted, these are choices that anyone living downtown has to has to wrestle with.

I mean, do you want the front porch or do you want the rear porch rather than having both?

I mean, these are these are things that I think David is getting at relative to you know, how can you look at this a little bit differently?

How do you start with the house and then what can you do with it as opposed to how much can we demolish and and accomplish it that way?

So my my thought would be is to look at some of the other precedents that exist in the in the in Chetham Arch as well as other neighborhoods that we oversee where we have done you know pretty significant additions in the rear that are quite a bit larger than the original house, and you know, we found a way to be comfortable with that.

Um, you know, there's no question that as you you know you you talk about having a porch.

Well, you this building or this home has a porch already, and if you could you know take advantage of that, uh granted it's on the side, but we have many, many examples in the neighborhoods that have side porches as opposed to having a direct front porch.

I guess I'm I'm more interested in you know seeing how you could work with the existing product, whether the wraparound porch occurs or doesn't occur is is less important to me and than how you're saving the the historic home, doing as much as you can with it and then figuring out how you're doing in addition to it.

Certainly respect the fact that you know the neighbors have been here or the owners have been here a long time in the neighborhood, and we want to we always appreciate you know the support from the neighborhood.

There's no question that we look at that regularly, but at the same time, our first charge is to take care of historic resources.

And so I think that I think as you're perhaps hearing this evening, I you're not going to get an approval tonight.

And so I would suggest ultimately we'll hear your final comments, certainly, but would suggest that we'll want to continue this and then see if you can work with staff, uh, because we ultimately would like this property to find its way back into the neighborhood in a very positive way.

At the same time, we're trying to be good stewards of of what our job is.

So with that, I'll let you offer your final comments and then we'll take a motion to continue the case to either the next month or the following month, whichever you would prefer.

So please.

Appreciate that.

Um so definitely taking all of the comments and feedback that you are giving.

Um any responses I get or just providing reason for why we're making decisions, but definitely respect what you're the feedback you're giving.

Um so a lot of the at least the examples we've been given, we prov been provided documentation for by IHPC staff for large-scale renovations that have been completed are on larger lots.

So they're either six feet to ten feet longer or twenty feet longer in depth and up to ten feet wider in the lot width.

That's substantial.

You know, if we think if we just had six feet longer in lot depth, that would allow us to move this whole addition back six more feet, which would almost encompass the window and door, would get us a lot closer.

So it's little things like that that although comparing it to other renovations than the area or additions.

It might seem you know easy out, just rework the floor plan.

I and I'm not saying that we can't we'll we'll absolutely be diving back into this, but even those little variances and those differences, they impact the end result significantly.

Um the last thing is on that side porch.

Another thing that we were really going back and forth on is obviously with the the scale of trying to maximize every square foot of this, um, you know, with it already being enclosed, we were kind of trying to figure out is there a way that we could actually turn it, convert it into interior space, um, keep it enclosed, and then add that to the square footage.

But we really didn't want to lean towards that because that didn't the open porch seems a lot more congruent with the neighborhood.

So that's another factor that we've been kind of working through and trying to consider as well.

So and then finally, I mean, it it does significantly come down to, like you said, these decisions when there's so much um resource and investment going into these projects, things like having a covered outdoor space.

I mean, that's that's something where if we're not able to work that in, that could be a really big impact for Parker and Julie on is this worth the amount of effort and time.

So it's really and again saying that with utmost respect of wanting to be considerate of the neighborhood and the fabric of the neighborhood and the historic nature of this house, um, but genuine concerns of you know long-term livability.

So I guess um something I would ask is if we were able to move that addition back a few feet.

Is that something that would substantially improve the outlook?

You know, typically what you know, we're not gonna try to sit here and design this with you.

Um what we always suggest is working with staff.

The staff, you know, has a has a lot of experience with the commission.

They are they understand our comments maybe even better than some of the applicants, and so I think I think if you work with them and you come back with a you know, I'll call it a in-between solution or something.

I mean, those are the things that we can can certainly consider.

The staff can help you, you know, as to where you where they think the commission is going to fall.

We we're clearly trying to maintain our historic resources as much as possible.

So, you know, just understand that that's where our beginning point is, and and demolition is is sort of the final act, and we you know, we don't want to get to that place if we don't have to get to that place.

So if you can show us a strategy where more of the historic resources are maintained from where we are today, that's a step forward.

Whether that's enough, obviously the commission will need to make that determination.

But you know, the staff has worked on many, many, many projects similar to this.

Understand the dimensional constraints that you're speaking of.

We have seen this in so many different situations that I don't know whether we've seen these exact numbers, but I can assure you we've seen a lot of a lot of situations come to some really good solutions.

So I'm just asking you to to take that under advisement, work with staff, and then come back.

Would you like to come back in a month or would you like to come back in two months?

What would be your preference?

Our preference would be um I think a month.

Okay, that's fine.

So I'll take a motion to continue the case to the November 5th uh meeting.

Thank you, Susan.

Thank you, Anjanette.

Any final comments from the commission?

David, please.

We'd be helpful when you come back if you could have if you could document maybe in a drawing and also photographs, what's back there so that everybody can understand it.

Okay.

Yeah, we can do that.

In the porch there.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I'll call the question.

Oh, sorry, Answer, and this way you clarify that the house that I was talking about that looked like a precedent was 625 arch, not 626.

Okay, thanks.

All right, I'll call the question all those in favor of the motion continuance to next month.

Please signify with saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your time with the staff.

Thank you.

All right, so we're at we're moving to the next uh category applications to be here, which are new this evening.

Uh we have two cases.

First case is 2025, COA 345, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, variance 2025 VHP 009, address 922 North College Avenue.

Matthew Payton is the applicant.

If someone would also get Annie to come back in, uh then Matthew, please come forward, uh, state your name and address and present your case to us, please.

Good evening, commissioners.

Um, my name is Matthew Payton at 6219 Guilford Avenue, Minneapolis, Indiana.

Um, I'm with Pat Architecture representing the client, the owner of the property.

Um he does own the entire property at 922 North College Avenue, which a little bit of history um for you guys on the property.

It originally had three separate parcels before uh the city of Indianapolis um expanded the right-of-way along 10th Street to add in the turn line.

Um this dating back um to 1956.

There were three houses uh on the property, both with four with four residences total.

Has been approved in the past, as well as an addition off of the back to raise the roof line to add an additional bedroom and convert to a duplex and a detached garage following.

This you can see in the site plan and my documentation.

And then on the other two parcels, there was a parcel that encompassed a large portion on the corner of Tent and College that had a single family residence historically on that site before 1956.

There was also in the back corner by the alley along 10th Street, another very small parcel that had a very modest duplex, which was two additional units on the property located in that corner as well.

So all that was demolished sometime after 1956, where that turn lane was added to 10th Street to create a little bit more of a traffic flow, I assume that the city dressedly needed.

But so with my design, we are currently working with the awkward shape of the property as it is sitting now.

The city did take it upon itself to combine all three parcels into one last year.

I already have written notice that they will be re-established by the register's office or assessor's office, I can't remember.

One of those offices, but we do have a written letter, and I shared with staff as well that the next tax year they will be put back into place as three separate parcels.

We will only need to combine the two to the north.

The owner clearly owns the entire property, so that's easily done.

This would be allowing us to provide this new project that I'm presenting to you now of a new single family residence and a carriage house with two parking spaces on the back.

So the design of the home will have the house mainly facing College Avenue with three floors in total of 2,265 square feet.

The first floor is 843, second floor is the same, and then the basement is a small modest portion to allow that there is no dig zone along the historic home and preserving the historic foundations next door.

So it'll be around 500 square feet in the basement, much smaller than the first floor program.

Um approximately 543 square feet.

The first floor design allows for an open living space with a central staircase up and down.

The basement allows for another family room and an additional guest bedroom down there with a bathroom provided as well.

So the main form of the house is a gabled roof line with a 1212 slope that will fit nicely with the character within the neighborhood while still adding some variety apart from the adjacent houses, which are hip roof lines that have a different character, but then further down the street you get those gabled forms showing up in other houses along the street.

So this would add to the variety of a very neglectic college avenue, which we love, with the height of the house being a total of 30 and a half feet, and then a kind of an angled addition on the side to reclaim some of that extra space as the site gets larger towards the west that would be 23 feet high along that side of 10th Street.

The house will have 10-foot ceilings on the first floor, nine foot ceilings on the second floor, uh the and close to about nine-foot ceilings in the basement.

The angled portion along 10th street will have a flat roof construction with a parapeted wall to provide minimal gutters, exposed gutters on the property.

Um it'll all flow to the west and be hidden with a downspout in the corner for a clean, seamless look and not draining, obviously, onto the sidewalk or nearby.

Um again with gutters on the sides that are not as visible from the street and providing that parapet and a more seamless, clean, airy feel for the front and back of the house, as well as for the carriage house with the side entry.

There's a small porch along with that.

The house will be clad in a painted smooth fiber cement trim and siding throughout with a dimensional asphalt shingle roof along the main gabled portion of the house.

And then all windows will be Anderson 300 Fibre X series windows and the entry doors will be painted fiberglass.

There is a sliding glass patio door on the back, which will be the same 100 series as the windows.

They will all be painted the same color, so it's only a textural pattern versus a stark abstract avant-garde kind of look to the house that we're trying to acquire.

The portion along 10th Street will be a full panel exterior system with those two by two battons flanking all of the windows as well, with creating kind of a patterned infill with varying exposures of 12 inches, 16 inches, 24 inches, 32 inches spacing to create a more dynamic facade along 10th Street.

And then so all the parapet walls will have a two-inch painted metal coping.

The front porch will be a poured concrete with steps along the northeast side of the property facing the corner of 10th and college.

And then it'll have a low uh 30-inch railing that will have a shadow box effect, so there will be a gap between those trim pieces, so it still provides some airy and a little bit of privacy screening as well.

Um then so the post will be clad in painted smooth trim, um, and then the center portion by the front door will actually be a steel column to allow for that line angled of the front porch to be continuous and be more expressive on the front of the house.

Um cantilevered effect that's happening on the corner.

Um, and then the back porch itself will be wood with composite decking panels, um, same low railing with the same shadow box effect.

Um, it'll still have the flat roof, um, but the columns themselves will be clad in wood.

Um, it still will have a cantilevered portion if you'll see from the back exterior elevation.

Um the side by the front door is actually cantilevered out to the corner, so the columns are more inset off away from the sidewalk.

Uh the gabled roof line itself will have a deep 18-inch overhanging eave with a slope soffit underneath to match a lot of the character of existing historical homes within the neighborhood.

Um, and then also providing that very express rake board that is not too wide and more historically appropriate for a lot of these historical homes as well that are adjacent, um, tying back to the character of the rich character, obviously, here in the neighborhood, um, and not providing new dynamic styling that's beyond what's currently uh surrounding.

Uh, variances that would be needed for the project would be a clear site triangle along 10th and college street.

Um, currently the clear site triangle is 120 feet in both directions along those streets from center of right-away.

Uh, the proposed reductions would be to reduce it by five feet in both directions to 115.

Um, this would actually put it more in line with the existing historic home and will not uh create any further impeachment on or uh encroachment on this clear site triangle.

So we will not be worsening the current conditions that are already on the site.

Um, and then the side setbacks themselves, um, given that it is zone D8 and a corner lot.

You are required an eight-foot side setback on the north side of the property.

Um, I'm requesting the variance to reduce that down to five feet.

Um, and the southern side of it is only required three feet.

So I think that's a pretty decent compromise.

Um, it's very similar character to a lot of the other adjacent houses on 10th street.

Um, at 1,000 two college, it's at six and a half.

Uh the porch is actually four foot six off of uh the sidewalk.

And then adjacently, it's 650 10th Street is 6'6, 640 10th Street is 7 feet.

935 Broadway is at 8 feet for the main house, which is much farther away.

But the garage itself that is built right next to the property across from the alley is exactly a foot off of the sidewalk.

Almost on top.

Closer than what might have been required given the weird shape of the house and still allowing for a 16-foot wide front facade that would be more appropriate for the scale of homes along the street line.

Okay.

And then we have met with the Chathamarch Neighborhood Association back in March 25th.

I originally designed them a more let's say interesting design with a monoslope roof that was very contemporary and very modern for the time.

But I did not hear any comments about the design or materiality of the house that they were opposing.

The only comments that were brought to my attention were that the garage was a little close to the alley, and they would prefer that it would be pulled in a little bit to allow for a parking space.

They wanted two parking spaces similar to the new detached garage behind, but then fellow neighbors also argued that it would not be conforming to the current alley conditions where everyone's garage is five feet off of the alley.

So I am showing an eight-foot, which would still allow for a parallel parking space, given that there is no street parking at all on this corner.

I think it's valuable to have that additional parking.

So that was a very easy compromise that I thought would bring value to this project.

Also mentioned that they recently planted trees along 10th Street as well.

They will be preserved or moved as needed.

It was obviously done without the owner's consent by the city, I believe, by request from the neighborhood.

But we can still reuse them, they are fresh and mature.

So we have no problem relocating them and reusing them and re-establishing them along the street lines.

And then so after my meeting with uh Chatham Arch, I did share with staff at Historic Preservation Commission that on April 25th we got some initial feedback about the designs as shown.

Again, this was with the monoslope roof, and that the proposed design was inappropriate with modern elements as the forum being not compatible with historic buildings and traditionally designed new construction dwellings along the streetscape.

And that was built in 1998.

So again, yes, it's newer than the preservation, but I wouldn't say it's new construction given either way.

No comment on that.

Encouraged to read the guide.

I was also encouraged to read the guidelines for new construction that Chathamarch has provided as public basis.

And then after reviewing those standards, I made that decision to change the roof line to a gabled form that you will see today instead of that monoslope roof.

It was also suggested by staff that the layout of the structures be rearranged to propose a smaller residence facing 10th Street along the northwest corner of the property.

We had later discussed my concerns that all the properties along that block on college, that only a couple of properties along 10th Street actually face 10th Street, and everyone else faces either college or the adjacent streets in respect.

Given the history of the site, I think it's historically appropriate for a two-story single-family dwelling on the corner of Tenth and College that would face college.

And uh and also knowing that there was even a duplex way in the back for this carriage house as well.

After updating the designs, I did share the changes with staff for additional comments.

Um it was mostly some of the same comments were still voiced and a few concerns, but that they were suggesting doing like an L shape to bring the front facade closer to the College Street if we are going to face College Street.

If we did do an L design given the shape of the current property, the front facade would be 10 feet wide versus 16 feet wide.

And just in my personal opinion, it would be very inappropriate for the scale and massings along these street uh streetscapes that you see today.

Um but something to consider moving closer to college, obviously setting it back from the street might not be desirable for a continuous street front.

Um but at the same time it does provide some nice pedestrian relief on the corner.

It is a busy corner.

Um you do have multiple crosswalks, you have a lot of people getting to Mass Ave for restaurants and businesses, and of course, Bottle Works is right across the street.

So there is kind of some precedent there to give a little bit of relief for a pedestrian as they are kind of continuing on to these new downtown environments.

Um Shelby actually mentioned today in an email um that uh they have talked to the departments of public works about reducing the right-of-way along 10th Street.

Um I'm assuming along 10th Street.

Um it's just very quick comments.

Um, but that's something that I'd love to hear a little bit more about staff from today with more details and something that we can clearly talk about further.

Um, but at the same time, it kind of stipulates that either the owner of the city would have to make these improvements to the curb and sidewalk as well as well as the owner potentially buying additional property from the city at that point to build a home in this uh location.

Um but yes, it does have maybe some possibilities of moving the house closer to college if we were able to more square off that front corner.

Um but overall, I think this is a great uh improvement to the currently vacant um property that you see today.

Um it is obviously sets back from the corner, which actually still exposes the historical house that you see um being restored now.

Um it does cover the back portion, which has already been deemed non-historically contributing.

Um so from a corner perspective, it's not inhibiting or covering up very historical character that you'll see on the corner today.

Um the distances between the houses along 10th Street are very similar to this in design.

Um as you walk by another two-story house, this is the same situation, only being uh six feet off of the curb of the sidewalk.

Um, yes, the design is a little bit more modern, but I think it respects the scale and form of many homes within the neighborhood.

Um, and this project would be a very welcome improvement again to this very vacant, maybe dangerous corner with who knows what's happening going on at late at night at two in the morning on this property.

Um, but uh that is what I have to present to you today.

Um, and I look forward to hearing your comments.

All right, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

Okay, seeing none, we're ready for a staff comment.

Shelby, please.

Staff finds the front setback, the narrower form, especially the front facade, and some of the more modern design elements of this proposal to be inappropriate rather than settling into the streetscape, we believe the structure will stand out and be incompatible with its surroundings.

So this evening we are recommending that the commission discuss the proposal and then continue the case to allow time for any changes.

Um, and as the applicant mentioned, um, there were sounds like some internal discussions with DPW about the possibility of vacating or the property owner vac vacating more of the right-of-way on 10th Street.

Um, there were no solid yes or no's as far as that goes, but that there might be a possibility there to give more width to that lot, um, but that the owner would just need to explore that with DPW, and I can answer any questions.

Okay, Shelby, thank you.

Questions from the commission, please.

David, please.

I'm going to ignore the whole thing about that the street might change because I don't know what to do with that.

So I'm just gonna deal with what's there.

Um so before the meeting tonight, I went to the site and I walked it, spent a little time there.

Um I've known the site for a long time.

Uh and I'm a big proponent of if there was a building on a site, even if it was a small one, someone has a right to put one there.

Now, the difference here is this isn't the same site that it was when there was a house on it.

So you know it's a little hard to see how that house is going to be there when you're you know standing there and uh it's staked out, so it's staked out, yeah, which is very helpful.

So I'm just gonna speak for myself.

I don't have that much of a problem with the modernist design of the building.

Um, but that's me.

I may be alone, I don't know.

Um I think given it's quirky odd siding set way back from the house, um it sort of calls for something that's different than the traditional.

If it was too traditional, it would really like why is that thing pushed back kind of thing, you know.

I don't know.

So uh you know, there might be a little finessing you could do with the windows on the front.

Um but again, I'm not don't I kind of like the design, and it's kind of interesting the way you've put the section that's angled on there.

What I am really concerned about is all that cement board.

Um I don't know.

It it I'd like to see a different kind of material.

I'm not sure what maybe brick.

I don't know.

But uh the cement board, I uh that's a lot of cement board right on the street there.

Um I don't know, there's probably a lot of other things to talk about, but those are just some uh of my observations.

I will also say that the staff made a comment about the findings of fact, and I looked at them, which I don't usually do, but uh they they seem a little weak.

Basically, the findings of fact all talk about well because it's you can find the same thing somewhere else in the neighborhood, it's it's okay.

But I think they need to be and again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think they should be specific to this site, something about it.

Um but you might want to consult with if you haven't already.

Okay, a land use attorney or something.

Okay, thanks.

Maybe other comments from the commission, please.

And Jeanette, I can definitely appreciate the challenge that you have with the property that you have.

Um kind of my only concerns are when you look at the front of the home in relationship to the others, it is kind of jarring because you have the windows and the doors kind of clumped together, and there's really not a lot of space between them.

Um you might want to look at respacing those a little bit so it blends a little bit better with the adjacent residences.

Um, and then I also do have a concern um with David that with all of that wide um paneling on the side.

It looks great when it's first installed, but give it a few years and it starts to look terrible.

Yeah, um, it starts to warp and it fades differently.

So I would urge you to look at a different material.

Okay.

Can I comment on that as well?

Yep.

Um, just briefly.

Uh so I did mention that the exposure is going to be of 12 inches, 16 inches, much smaller than what you see on downtown multifamily houses, um, where it is the full four-foot sheet in width.

So I will have battens breaking up all of those panels and forcing them, making them look better.

It's similar to a board and batten style, which is 12 to 16 in spacing for reference.

Um, so it's more of that character and a more historical instance.

We're in R2 weather report.

Please ignore the weather combo.

Thank you.

But going back onto that, I guess we can talk over this a little bit.

Um but uh it obviously guessed the the hardy panel siding, is what will be used, or that I'm presenting will be used on this facade currently.

Um they do come in four foot by eight foot or ten foot sheets, um, but when you add those batteries, it breaks up those spacings into much smaller, more appropriate aesthetically.

Um but when you add those battons, it breaks up those spacings into much smaller more appropriate aesthetically segments along the property.

And it creates that more dynamic pattern that I'm creating with the varying spacing.

Thank you.

Severe weather is coming into our area.

Please move away from interior wall and windows.

Go to your floor and lobby or interior room or hollow.

Cover your head and protect yourself from flying debris.

Protect yourself until the off the given.

Bay, I'll make feebles and pistol or so or you interior.

Severe weather is coming into our area.

Please move away from interior walls and windows.

Go to your floor and lobby or interior room or hallway.

Cover your head and protect yourself from flying degree.

Protecting stuff until the off-clear is given.

Severe weather coming into our area.

Everyone brushed up on their Spanish, correct?

Any idea how long it's no.

Okay, maybe.

So sorry, folks.

Let that testimony be stricken from the record.

Um Matthew, I would just like for you to repeat some of what you said when the audio came on if you don't mind.

Absolutely.

Uh so I was bringing to the fact of the light that the patterning on the panel side of the house will have broken up the four-foot-wide sheets of hardy panel siding into smaller segments at 12 inches to 16 inches with a varying pattern dynamic that you won't see on these very large formatted um apartment buildings downtown.

Is that enough for you for yeah?

Just one question.

Are you using medium density or high density uh board here?

It is the James Hardy panel product.

I don't know what density it is, but it is a fiber symmetric board.

Yeah, what you what you might look at is uh high density product that will last a whole lot longer.

It's a little more expensive.

Sure.

Like an equitone, not I'm not here selling equitone.

Absolutely.

Just using it as an example.

It has a much higher uh propensity for color fastness and longevity rather than going to a medium density product that you're describing, just stuff wise.

Absolutely.

And also, you know, historically, um a lot of these multi-family houses that we see of that are hardly panel, hardy panel downtown, do deteriorate over time, and it's because they don't have the proper rain screening behind them.

Right.

Um so they do wick the moisture and start to rot.

Um obviously we could provide that rain screening system to prevent this from happening.

But again, I understand there are um I guess some risk in using um this material on the project, but I have high confidence if you do a baton board baton uh batten and board side sided house, it looks way better than you see with these full sheeted hardy panel houses.

Other comments from the commission.

Mike, please.

I like the design.

I think it's uh pretty creative.

Um like the massing the scale, the setback, I think is obviously the weak part.

I think that's what I think that's what um detrimental to the historic character of the district, which isn't your fault, obviously.

You're trying to uh pardon me.

You're you're doing the best with what you what you've been given by you know the past city decisions.

Um I like that you address because my question was going to be why isn't the house oriented the other way?

Um so I appreciate that.

I don't know that it's um I don't know that um it's enough to sell me yet.

Um overall design science and on any other block, I think I think it would work.

Uh the one thing that I'm a little nervous about is the materials on this busy intersection.

I used to get stopped at this red light every day after work, and I would look at the house next door.

Um so I'm familiar with how busy that intersection is, is I'm sure you are.

Um I remember there were a few instances on corners like this one where automobiles would jump the curb for whatever reason and run into the buildings where the house.

I would urge you to maybe consider or urge your client to if you haven't already think about masonry, uh either concrete block or brick or some other work or concrete, uh something that would be more resistant to vehicles and uh importantly noise, because I I think if you were to live on this corner in a house for a year that did not have the mass of masonry or concrete or something like that, it would drive you nuts.

That's my sense.

So uh if it's not too late, that would be another suggestion.

Okay, cool.

Cool.

Uh I will say, like a brick brick veneer house is obviously not gonna stop a car.

Perhaps so maybe a thicker concrete wall would be required and some actual substantial economic barrier at that point.

Um, but yes, I do prefer your comments.

Um, maybe it does also make it better that this house sticks back from that corner, so when someone does jump the curb, the house is not there right on the corner, like you would see in most neighborhoods.

Okay, any other comments from the commission?

Nansen, please.

I I appreciate the difficulty of this site.

It it I wouldn't uh enjoy this challenge, I don't think.

Um but that being said, I it there's a probably a combination of things going on here that I think ultimately leads me to feel like this isn't quite appropriate at in its current iteration.

Um the first being the thing that I can't really get over is that to me, looking at it from this vantage point, it looks like it it's a project that you know might have been in another spot and it just got picked up and pushed back just because it had to be pushed back.

There's not really a uh a recognition of that shape of the site, only in the the large um box shape that that which is actually another issue that I think is gonna be problematic because it's so visible at the intersection of 10th and college, you're going to see a lot of that facade.

If that was in between houses and in the neighborhood, you wouldn't it wouldn't matter as much.

But when you walk by that, when it's so crowded up on the street, you're just gonna see that two-story corrugated almost like a con shipping container looking siding, uh you know, and that's all you'll see.

You won't see the gable, you won't see the house beyond.

It's dominating that side, especially as you're so close to it.

So it just feels like that portion is going to be you know, at that particular intersection, way too prominent and and way too dominant of for the facade.

It needs to, I think it it needs to be subordinate, or even if it was flipped around the other way, it might be a better solution.

I think it's it's successful on the carriage house, but not so much on the main house.

I I think it it looks almost like an afterthought.

And so between those two things and then just kind of the um you know the lack of recognition of that angled corner in any way.

It it just feels like there's you've just taken a building or a house that would be on any other site and and pushed it back.

And I think as you come into that intersection, it's gonna be very noticeable.

It's gonna feel very anomalous to that neighborhood.

And I feel like there's gotta be a way to it, and maybe it should, but this feels like it's something that's just a a remnant of uh a site that's been you know altered.

So it just it doesn't feel like this was designed for the site, if it felt like this has been fitted on the site, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I understand your um reasoning.

Um flat iron building recognizing the flat iron building.

Absolutely, yes, yeah.

Yes, yeah, but that is a multi-floor commercial building.

Sure.

Again, different situation.

Um, and this is a residential structure.

Um, the 16-foot front facade is almost exactly like 914 segmented section and more reference to the current forms of the neighborhood.

That's the ocean.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'm just saying that there could be a more creative solution that maybe changes the placement of buildings on the site that makes a more creative use of that corner space that celebrates it and recognize it as an anomaly and and designs around it, rather than putting a normal, rather normal looking modern house on a site that it doesn't really fit on.

True.

Um, could I ask you if you would agree that doing something that's more addressed onto that corner farther to the front of the existing home would be inappropriate at two stories high?

I don't, I'm not even saying that it could should be part of the house.

I'm saying it could be a gazebo or a folly or anything like that.

It could be something completely that that we're not even thinking about currently.

I mean, I I think this needs a more creative approach than, like I said, putting something that looks like it could go anywhere and then just moving it back.

You know, that it feels like it's just been placed on the site and not designed for the site.

And I understand that's probably frustrating to hear, but um the really the only way you'd know it was fit for the site is just the angle in the plan.

And and that's really the only difference.

And so I it just feels like there needs to be something a little bit more celebratory of this oddity that you have to deal with rather than something that that uh you know is sort of run of the mill for the the project type.

Okay, I understand um that it might not be as expressed to you, but yeah, that's fine.

Any other comments?

Yeah, Annie, please.

Um my comments would be um regarding the siding.

I think if it does go forward, like Bill said, using the high density.

I'm not really a fan of the product, even if it's battened up, so to speak, you know, by broken up, just because it just regardless of where it is, depending on the owner of the home, which I know you can't control how it's maintained, it makes all the difference.

And I think the good thing is that corn the hard thing is that corner is unique, but that corner, as Anson said, is extraordinarily visible, like there's just no getting around it.

And if that's what makes it a unique opportunity for who you're representing because of where it's located, but it also is going to, I feel like require a little bit more responsiveness to what it actually is and whether Anson said something in front of it.

And I also agree with what you're gonna see.

I walk that corner every day, and that's a lot of just closeness to the corner of just going straight up.

And I feel like it the design is I like the design, it's just there's something about it that just feels a bit overwhelming when you're on the street.

So I think if you think about it, and to Mike's point, I do think having some kind of masonry on it, you know, might serve it better.

I mean, it might serve it better just from a noise standpoint, to be honest.

I mean, is it gonna prevent a car?

But that's also that that corner's not it's going to only get busier.

Absolutely.

So to say it can happen, it's unlikely, but those would be my two concerns, is really just the the breadth of that that north side.

Um, it just kind of overpowers what I think you I'm sure you can come up with something just based on the feedback we've given you.

Okay, okay.

Thanks.

Any any other comments?

I'll just offer a couple and then we'll move for a uh continuance here.

Um you know, I think it's gonna be probably probably improbable to move the building all the way up to a line on college just because of the clear site triangle, if nothing else.

Obviously, if 10th Street changes, they have a study going on on you know, doing the bump outs and some things further to the west, whether that impacts how this intersection works is anybody's guess.

So to David's point, I don't know that we can address that unless the owner or yourself decides to try to talk to DPW and see what might be possible uh relative to the change of the intersection and the right-of-way and so forth, relative to uh, I guess some of the other comments.

I think the the two-story, you know, sort of facade really comes off as fairly fairly out of scale with the pedestrian quality of the sidewalk along tenths.

So I would think about how you can rescale the north side of the building.

I think the materiality, I think there's a number of options out there for you.

I think just pr presenting you know this big two-story sort of uh print, you know, this rectangle, if you will, really, you know, I think is not as friendly as it ought to be with this closeness to the sidewalk.

So I would study that.

Uh you know, overall, I think your approach is is fairly good uh relative to the the design itself, notwithstanding the comment I just made.

Perhaps you know, something at the corner with landscaping or something may be possible there to try to you know try to bring the two offset buildings, you know, a little bit a little bit, knit them to better, knit them together better.

Um I I just don't think you're gonna be able to build much out in that clear side triangle and get away with it because we often you know fight that anyway.

So I I think um you know take the comments that have been offered this evening, uh, work with uh Shelby and uh and then see if you want to come back.

Do you want to come back in uh November or do you want to come back in December?

Yes, a month from now would be great.

Okay, well, yeah, Disa, I'm sorry, I didn't see you down there.

Go ahead, please.

I just wanted to add a comment.

Um, because I rely heavily on the information that the staff provides, and I think that you really need to work closely with them and just say, hey, what is it that we need to change to make this work?

I know you have a vision of what you want for that property.

But it's a bigger picture, is more than just I just own this land.

So I I this is what I want to do.

Don't do that.

How is it really going to impact the community?

How would that new bill fit in with the other historic properties?

And so I think if you work closely with the staff, they can guide you so we can get to a point where you can build this and get it over.

Absolutely.

And yes, after you move away from it here, well, interior room.

Cover your head and detecting about compliance.

Okay.

All right, well, obviously, this is going to take a while.

So it is.

So I was just gonna relay on the comment that when we were engaging with staff, um the feedback was mixed, and that's why we wanted to hear the commissioner's point of view.

No, and so it is I am working with staff, obviously.

Um, but we both agree that we would like to hear from you as the commissioners.

Okay, yeah, well, thank you.

So I'm gonna talk above this, and we're going to just try to keep moving here because this is going to be another you know, five minutes or something.

So I'm going to take a motion for the continuance of this case to the November 5th uh meeting.

Could I get a motion?

Thank you, Annie.

Thank you, Anjanette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor of the motion to continue the case to November 5th, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

We will see you uh November 5th.

We will take a break now until this is complete, and then we will reconvene uh and and hear the last case this evening.

Uh this evening, so we will continue on with the uh with the meeting here.

If we could get everyone to please sit down and we will uh we'll start again.

Order, please.

Order, please.

Okay, thank you.

All right, uh, we'll call the last case uh this evening, which is 2025 uh COA 351, uh Holy Cross.

The address is 125 North Oriental Street, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis is the applicant.

Would you please come forward, uh state your name, present and present your case to us?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon, Commissioners.

Evening now, I suppose.

Uh my name is Paul Carroll, uh offices at 13 North State Street, Greenfield, Indiana.

I represent the petitioner, uh, which is Roman Catholic Archdiocese Properties Inc.

as trustee for St.

Philip Nary Church and Parish, um, which owns the property at 125 North Oriental Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, um, which is the whole across campus.

Uh joined this evening by a number of folks, but uh specifically Father Dufrain of St.

Philip Mary Parish and Al Pulley with RC Engineers.

Uh we've submitted an application for certificate of appropriateness to remove the Holy Cross Church as well as the rectory.

Um, as well as to remove the or vacate the historic designation on the single piece of property.

Yeah, let me just stop you there.

We're not going to be able to hear anything on the vacation of the designation this evening.

You'll need to stick with the discussion about the removal of the property.

It's fair.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

The local parish has owned and controlled the Holy Cross campus for over a century.

Parishes such as St.

Philip Nary are governed by laws, regulations, and limitations of the Catholic Church.

And the Holy Cross Church is a place of worship, which is dedicated pursuant to canon law to the worship of God and the sanctification of its members.

Given the poor structural condition of the church as well as waning attendance, Holy Cross Parish was merged into St.

Philip Neri Parish in 2014 and stopped using the real estate for worship services altogether in 2018.

As part of the union of these parishes, the assets as well as the obligations of Holy Cross Parish became the assets and obligations of St.

Philip Neri.

In 2015, months after the merger of Holy Cross and St.

Philip Neri, the portico of Holy Cross Church collapsed into the street and sidewalk.

Fortunately, no one was injured.

At that time, Father Chris Waldleton of St.

Philip Neri engaged RC engineers to inspect and analyze the condition of the Holy Cross Church.

RC generated its findings in a 2015 report, which has been submitted as part of our filing packet.

Unfortunately, even in 2015 and almost a decade before the historic designation was placed on this single parcel over the objection of St.

Philip Neri, the costs of repair were well outside the means of St.

Philip Neri Parish.

Today we have asked for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of this structure.

In making the determination of whether or not demolition is appropriate.

This commission considers three factors, the satisfaction of any one of which would support the certificate of appropriateness.

First is that the denial of the certificate of appropriateness would result in substantial hardship.

It would.

Second, is the denial of the certificate of appropriateness would deny the owner all reasonable use and benefit of the subject property.

And third, that the effect upon the historic area would be insubstantial.

The first, and I think the one that weighs the heaviest in favor of St.

Philip Neri is the substantial hardship to St.

Philip Nary in maintaining this property.

After the designation of this parcel, St.

Philip Neri engaged local commercial contractors as well as engineers to inspect the property, provide estimates for the repair to make this a usable and safe structure.

Namely, we engaged Brant Construction, who's done work with the Archdiocese before, as well as Rick Wells Masonry, which provides commercial masonry work.

The estimates to make this a usable and safe structure are 7.5 to $8.5 million.

We obtained an appraisal of the property.

It's as is value today is a million dollars.

That's for the property, which includes this church, rectory, gymnasium, and former school.

So consider the math.

The repair costs are 750 to 850% of the increase in value to the structure.

That is not a viable or economical, economically justified decision that St.

Philip Neri can make.

Both because it makes no sense.

That furthers the mission of St.

Philip Neri, not at all.

But St.

Philip Nary does not have 7.5 to 8.5 million dollars to repair this structure.

The other hardship here is continued ownership of this site costs St.

Philip Neri approximately 20% of its budget.

It has since the designation of this historic district incurred approximately $80,000 to maintain this site.

That's the fencing, the insurance, the boarding and reboarding and reboarding of the site, and numerous repairs, as well as just site maintenance, mowing, things like that.

All of those costs should be unnecessary.

If St.

Philip Nary is allowed to demolish the church and the rectory, those costs go away, primarily because St.

Philip Neary can then market this property to an end user who can revitalize this area and redevelop this site.

The second factor to be considered is that denial of the certificate of appropriateness would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the subject property.

Staff and several remonstrators have argued that St.

Philip Neri can simply sell this site to another user who may be able to develop it at considerable cost.

That option is not on the table.

Saint Philip Nary and Father Dufresne specifically is obligated by canon law, the church's laws, regulations, limitations in how to dispossess itself of property.

This property being sold outside of the church is simply not going to happen.

While St.

Philip Neary has been approached by a number of parties with proposals, and after considerable discernment, Father Dufresne has determined that the property is not going to be sold.

That removal is the only option at this point.

While St.

Philip Neary and Father Dufresne will not ignore the regulations and limitations of church law.

It is just not a viable project.

This was a single parcel designation.

The area consists of only the Holy Cross parcel.

There's not an adjacent parcel that's affected by this designation.

The only effect of removal of these properties to the area, and by statute that's what we look at, is the removal of a structure that's been fenced for 10 years, that is falling apart, that is in disrepair.

It's frankly a blight.

The benefit to removal to this area is redeveloping this site and revitalizing the area and the neighborhood.

Again, uh we've asked for a certificate of appropriateness.

The only other option to St.

Philip Nary is to continue to incur the burden of maintaining a church that is not used, provides no benefit to the mission of St.

Philip Nary, and will not be sold.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Father Dufresne, just name and address, please.

And offer your comment.

Father Jeffrey Dufrein for St.

Philip Neary at 550 North Rural Street.

As Paul mentioned, in 2014, Holy Cross was merged into St.

Philip Neary because it was too small to exist on its own.

At that time, our parish gained responsibility for all Holy Cross assets and liabilities, making us the owners of the church, rectory, school, and gymnasium.

Our parish serves a majority Latino immigrant population on the Near East side.

Some of our members are former Holy Cross parishioners, including some of our members here supporting us today.

Our parish family is rich in faith, but our financial resources are limited.

The building's deterioration, including the collapsed archway over the north entrance, has made its restoration no longer realistic.

It was unrealistic for us long before this commission hastily designated the property as a single parcel historic district last year, without so much as visiting the interior of the church, meeting with me, or engaging any expert to provide an opinion on the cost of repairs.

Recent estimates that we have obtained put the cost of restoration at 7.5 to $8.5 million.

An amount which, as Mr.

Carroll stated, far exceeds our parish's annual budget or savings.

Furthermore, the building's unnecessary preservation places a significant financial burden on the people of St.

Philip Neary.

During the last fiscal year, the historic designation cost our parish over $80,000, nearly 20% of our annual budgeted expenses.

In other words, just under 20% of our annual budget was spent on a vacant and deteriorating property which does not serve our mission.

Continued restrictions prevent us from exercising responsible stewardship with our parishioners' hard-earned dollars, as they force us to maintain an unsafe building which requires constant fencing and is regularly subject to break-ins, vandalism, and arson.

Money and valuable time spent maintaining the Holy Cross property could be invested in our mission at St.

Philip Neary.

Any proceeds from the eventual sale of the property will support the mission of St.

Philip's.

Attempting to pressure me and St.

Philip Neary to abandon our religious discernment is unnecessary.

We cannot and we will not compromise when it comes to our church's laws, rules, and limitations, even if the faithful exercise of our religion comes at an increasing cost.

This petition today is about religious liberty and responsible stewardship.

The future of another historic urban parish that is just trying to make ends meet hangs in the balance.

On behalf of the 560 families that make up our parish, I ask you all to acknowledge these realities, recognize our right to religious freedom, and allow us to move forward according to our religious discernment by granting us the certificate of appropriateness and eventually removing the historic designation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Name and address, please.

Across the street from the church.

Hey everybody, we've uh we've been through a lot here today, haven't we?

I can't help but notice when I look out here that a lot of us fall into the senior citizen category, and to me that indicates that there is a lot of history here today with the church.

I heard people back here laugh at the priest when he brought up his religious you'll need to speak into the microphone.

We're not I thought I was loud enough that you could hear me.

I apologize.

I heard people behind me laugh at the priest when he referred to his religious freedom.

There is nothing more important than our freedom.

This church was erected over a hundred years ago, and I would like for you to imagine and envision with me all of the sacred worship that went on during that period and ensuing years.

Can you see it?

The worship, the prayer, the communion with God, that is sacred.

Throughout the ages, that worship continued.

If you go into that church today, you can feel it.

That spirit is alive within that space.

The church built that space and consecrated it as sacred in their religion, as a place of worship, and as I understand it, a place of worship for the Catholic Church only.

If the Catholic Church decides that they want to tear the building down because they feel within the guidelines of their religion, that that building should not be used for anything else, or else it is a blasphemy of God, then we have to honor that if we appreciate and cherish our freedoms.

There are groups out there, and we all know it, who are working to chip away at our constitutional right.

And if you think that our constitutional rights are funny, then maybe you shouldn't be voting here today.

Some things are more important than our emotions, than buildings, than our feelings, and that is our freedom.

And if you cherish your freedoms, and you take your freedom seriously, then you have a sacred obligation to vote in favor of freedom, and that would be the freedom of the Catholic Church to do what falls into the guidelines of their religion.

Vote freedom.

Vote freedom.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have uh we have about a we have we have one minute and a half uh until the the time is expired, so you'll need to uh limit your comments, please.

Name and address.

Al Pooley, RC engineers, uh Fishers.

Uh the I have been asked to speak to the report that I produced back in 2015, and I must admit I just have driven by the structure since.

And believe it or not, it hasn't healed itself.

What we have is a multi-wise brick masonry building, which means the walls around the perimeter, are anywhere from 13 to 25 inches thick.

The way the stone, which is the primary concern that we have, is these large dimensional pieces of stone being connected to the building.

And over time, they have deteriorated.

The significance of the deterioration is basically because of a device like this.

This is what holds the stone in place.

This end and this end used to look the same.

This was in the stone, it's now missing in action.

So that's why the only portion holding that piece of stone is the friction between the mortar and the shank of this cramp, we call it.

So that device cannot be repaired.

It's got to be replaced.

What is the most troublesome part of what we have discovered or discovered years ago is uh illustrated on picture 20, I believe it is.

I don't know if you have the ability to pull that up, but picture 20 will show us what's going on with the stone in its grave details and why it's so difficult.

Um we wait for that to come up.

Al, you'll need to wrap it up here.

Well, thanks.

The kick this the critical point here is you will see a crack in the stone on the inside face of the segment of stone.

It doesn't reflect to the outside face.

It cannot be seen.

So when it lets loose completely, there's no advanced warning.

We've got plenty of them that show an advanced warning, but we have as many, if not more, showing no warning.

So the results could be disastrous.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, we're now ready to uh hear from any remonstrators who want to speak against the application.

Uh name and address, please have the same 20-minute maximum time frame.

Thank you.

Uh Tim O'Sullivan, 247 North Arsenal Avenue.

I'm the chair of the Holy Cross Land Use Committee.

Preservation.

It's more than simply stopping something beautiful from turning into a pile of rubble.

It's about history.

It's about safeguarding memories of the past, it's about honoring what and who came before us.

We preserve old and significant buildings such as churches to honor them, to learn from them, and to help build a brighter and richer future for the community that surrounds them.

The Holy Cross Church is one such important building.

It is not merely a collection of carefully stacked brick and stone.

It is the memories of those who grew up within its walls.

It is the soul and symbol of the neighborhood that surrounds it and which bears its name.

And while its primary tenant may no longer have a use for it, the building is still part of our community, for it is the community that gives a building life.

But is the Holy Cross Church beyond saving?

Well, let's start with some finances.

Maybe there's no interest from developers to purchase and redevelop a property.

Maybe it's too expensive, it's too daunting to take on.

Well, that's just simply not true.

To the contrary, there was a proposal and an offer made to the Archdiocese recently by the ORL Foundation, and actually this occurred just around the last time we met to discuss the Holy Cross Church.

The plan was to transform it to transform it into a performing arts center with a coffee shop and a bookstore, along with educational and athletic programming.

A nice plan for adaptive reuse.

Unfortunately, that offer landed on deaf ears, and the developer never received a response.

But make mistake, make no mistake, there is interest in this property.

So let's talk about reuse.

Can you even sell and redevelop a Catholic church and give it new life?

Is there any precedent for this?

Yes, there is.

After all, there's St.

Mary's in Greensburg, which became the beautiful Heritage Hill Event Center, purchased from the Archdiocese in 2022.

Then there's Our Lady of Providence in Brownstown, which, as reported in the criterion in March of this year, was decreed to be able to be sold as it had merged with a nearby parish years prior, and the church building was not in good shape, and they no longer had a use for it.

Kind of sounds familiar.

Then there are official documents from the Vatican in the forms of letters and guidelines which encourage the reuse of decommissioned churches, especially when those reuses have cultural or social aims, such as museums, conference halls, bookshops, libraries, meeting places, etc.

Again, preserving a church is not only allowed, but encouraged over demolition.

The Holy Cross Church should be given that same opportunity.

Lastly, what about its importance to the community?

Does the community want to see the Holy Cross Church carry on?

In early 2024, our neighborhood sent out a petition for those who wanted to help preserve the church and oppose its demolition.

We gathered over 750 signatures.

And as you may recall, we also received a letter of support in saving the church from Joe Donnelly, who at the time was U.S.

Ambassador to the Holy See.

In the past week, we've received several letters from fellow downtown and east side neighborhoods and organizations opposing demolition and looking to save the church.

But what truly matters right now is that many concerned citizens have come here tonight to make their voices heard to urgently oppose this demolition and to fight for the preservation of Holy Cross before it's too late.

I think people want to stand up.

Thank you.

That right there is why this church property should be preserved, should remain standing, and should live on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address, Mark.

Yeah, good evening.

I am Mark DeLossi.

I am here on behalf of Indiana Landmarks.

Our corporate address is 1201 North Central Avenue here in Indianapolis in the Old North Side Historic District.

A great example of a historic church building that has been adaptively reused for other purposes.

And you all approved that unanimously.

So there was a strong sense that this building needed to be protected.

And I have to quickly add the woe is me about our site being an individually designated property.

Believe the staff can tell you that there are a number of individually designated properties under your oversight.

This is not the first.

Commendations to staff.

We all know that churches are amongst the most architecturally and historically significant types of structures in our communities.

And one of the things that Indiana Landmarks has done over the decades has worked very, very closely with congregations that are struggling, or in the case of needing to move on from their historic building to say, okay, how can this place be used in a different way?

I fully respect, and I want to make sure this is really clear.

I fully respect the values and the belief system of Father Dufrain and the Catholic Church and the decisions that they feel like they need to make.

Okay, so he's well aware of this situation and yet still authorized the sale of a Catholic church, you know, to the market.

So I guess I need some convincing as to why that can't work in the case of Holy Cross.

Um I uh had a wonderful conversation um via email this afternoon with um Judy O'Bannon, Indiana's former first lady.

And she has heard about this situation and expressed concern over the fate of Holy Cross as well.

And Judy is a board member of Indiana Landmarks, so I felt compelled to bring forward just a portion of commentary that she made on this situation.

Uh so and one other point to make.

I think all of us are up here talking about architectural and historical significance or the economic benefits of the redevelopment of this property.

She brought it back to faith, which I really appreciated to uh state what she wrote.

Holy Cross is a sacred space to all Hoosers.

So add my name to the list of supporters for reusing churches.

It is a spiritual commitment to using the resources of this planet to serve in the advancement of life.

I think that is put in uh just an excellent fashion.

She is in great company, though.

The other parties that are also opposed to this application by um St.

Philip Neary.

Uh that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has provided you a letter where they are also opposed to the approval of uh this application, my organization, the historic urban neighborhoods of Indianapolis, I think also provided you with a letter, as you have also heard from Holy Cross neighborhood and others are opposed to this.

Um in closing, we will always at Indiana Landmarks keep an open door to dialogue with the Archdiocese.

As a matter of fact, we would welcome that to figure out how something can move forward that could look at a reuse of the building, but also address the restrictions that they feel need to be on the property to respect canon law.

But despite multiple uh requests to have that, those conversations have never occurred between our organization, despite our wish for it, too.

So uh thank you for your time and and good luck in your deliberations.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

Yes, hello.

My name is Evan Hammonds.

I'm at 4347 Yarrow Court.

Uh I think uh to deem Holy Cross not historic is to now rewrite history.

Uh I believe uh it says to everyone that the council has changed the definition of historic or that the council was almost unanimous unanimously wrong just last year.

Uh members of St.

Philip Neary state that the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission has no business meddling in church matters, but it also boasts its position on the National Register of Historic Places where it receives similar protections.

Uh I think preserving the historical status is not a violation of religious freedoms, but rather acknowledges the cultural importance of the structure outside of looking at it through a religious lens.

Uh the church has to be separate from the state, but removing the historical status seems to prioritize the church's laws over the state's laws.

Yeah, if the church does not want to keep paying for it, I suggest they sell it with contingencies on the occupancies and use that take place.

As you guys have heard, there are plenty of precedents to do that.

Uh pretty much, yeah, all that to say this parish should not perish.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Jesse Brown, 2022 North Riley Avenue.

Um proud to be the City County Council representing Holy Cross.

And we'll we'll suspend the time while you speak.

So appreciate that very much.

Yep.

And thank you all for the opportunity to weigh in about the heart and soul of the neighborhood that I represent, which is of course the church and rectory that we're discussing here tonight.

Last spring, I don't think I need to remind you all that I wrote a letter of support and came to testify in front of you in favor of the historic preservation of the buildings, and I'm here tonight to reiterate and double down upon that support.

I'll tell you what happened immediately after I testified so stridently in favor of preserving the buildings.

I immediately walked across the street, across market to Whole Foods to pick up a few groceries before heading home.

While I was there, a former choir director from the church and three former parishioners of the church saw me.

Each of them wanted to thank me and shake my hands for my comments and encouraged me to stand strong on my convictions.

Since then, I've spoken to hundreds more people with a family or personal connection to the church or to Holy Cross neighborhood.

Literally all of them stood with me in one of the church and rectory buildings to be preserved.

To date, with respect to the constituent who we did hear from a few moments ago, I don't recall a single other person who has spoken to me in favor of demolition other than those employed by the church.

Neighborhood leaders like Tim O'Sullivan and legal scholars like Kevin Murray have both made the following point far more eloquently than I could hope to, but I want to say I deeply disagree that canon law universally requires these kind of structures to be demolished rather than reused.

As they mentioned, there's substantial documentation for the Vatican itself that suggests it's not only permissible but actually desirable to reuse buildings for cultural or charitable purposes.

It really hurts me that it feels that the church is creating contention and disagreement here where there should not be any.

I believe everyone in this room shares many of the same values.

We all value our neighborhoods and the people who live in them.

We all love our neighbors.

We all want more culture, more reverence, and more fellowship in our society.

Though not everyone in this room might call themselves Christians, I can say for myself that these values are at the very core of my Christianity.

And it's so deeply disappointing that the Catholic Church is resorting to repeated unilateral actions to attempt to defy the supermajority will of the neighbors' families and community members who love and want to protect the buildings.

I just want to end my comments today, uh, the risk of sounding egotistical by repeating verbatim my comments from last spring.

The etymology of the word church has nothing to do with a building.

It has everything to do with the community.

Disregarding the needs of the community and instead treating the building as the most important consideration flies in the face of my understanding of Christianity.

In a neighborhood as in a democracy, we can never guarantee total unanimity about how to govern.

But I would challenge anyone here to find a local issue with so many different community partners all on one side and a single landowner standing alone on the other.

Please listen to the community tonight and stop the destruction of the buildings of the Holy Cross.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

William Selm of 401 East 41st Street, Indianapolis.

Well, I just wanted and by the way, I am the second and the last historian to serve the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission.

I thought I state my credentials.

This has been an ongoing issue for me as a Catholic, and I practicing Catholic at that.

And a proud practicing Catholic, that's PPC then.

Right.

So is that I've seen this wanton destruction of interiors, and then grand buildings, such as the Franciscan Friary in Oldenburg in the 1980s, demolished.

Roof didn't leak, not a broken window.

It's a grassy lot now.

But when I think about also the nickels and dimes that my grandparents and great-grandparents saved to build these church buildings and the friary, and how these second immigrants second generation Irish in Holy Cross got their own parish, and they they're the ones that built the church.

It took their money.

Now, it's interesting to see, and I understand.

I'm I'm very sympathetic to the other side's argument.

I am.

What do regular people do?

They sell it.

And they let someone else pay the money to fix it.

And I know that there's people who want to just think about any family squabbling over the inheritance of that house that they don't know what to do with.

Well, you you sell it instead of letting it just deteriorate.

So and there's also that issue of demolition by neglect, which we're all aware of.

So I just and I got my cheat sheet here.

I learned that from my students.

Okay.

In Indianapolis alone, we have one, two, three, four churches, to my knowledge, that have been sold and reused.

St.

Old St.

Vincent Hospital had its chapel.

Now that part's gone now.

But that was public housing before that.

St.

Agnes Apartments.

Right across the street from the uh St.

Speeder Paul Cathedral.

That had its own chapel for the sisters of Providence.

And then old St.

Joseph Church on College, where my first cousins, once removed, were all baptized.

And I'm happy that building's there, and the church reused it for a number of decades, and then sat empty, and then finally it was rescued for a glorious use.

I think it is.

The buildings there, the glorious church architecture is still there.

Then there's St.

Francis de Sales.

The bishop closed the parish, and it sat empty until someone had, and I'll I'll say it was uh Archbishop O'Mara.

I'll give him credit for that.

Otherwise, I call him Edward the Destroyer.

What he did was brilliant.

He gave the parish, I think it was a gift to the struggling Saint or not so it's Saint Martin College, now Martin University.

Their campus is the church, rectory, school, convent, and then plus they build other buildings.

Hmm.

That's a brilliant idea.

Reuse the buildings.

Our very own TC Steele.

When he studied in Munich, where did he live?

In a former monastery.

Probably closed by Napoleon.

But don't tear the building down.

It's a good building, use it.

Now I'm gonna conclude with something I thought was funny, or at least ironic.

In the 1980s, I was hoping to save the Franciscan friary in Oldenburg, Indiana.

My high mot.

My mother was born there.

And so I called the director of uh I I don't know what a real estate, Mr.

Deering at the time, and I then he said to me, the church isn't in the monument business.

I said, really?

Have you ever been to St.

Peter's in Rome?

I don't think he got the irony.

Uh anyway.

There are people who want to save the building and keep St.

Philip and Neri from wasting its money.

And the good Lord has given us attorneys with billable hours to figure out how to put restrictions on the use of the building.

And and I'm sensitive to that as well.

How the building's going to be used.

There's an answer out there.

If we're willing to work together on that, and I'm sure your staff here can be part of that, as well as Historic Landmarks Foundation, to work with the Archdiocese, because and I've been to other cities where the buildings are reused.

These buildings are monuments, monuments of the faith, monuments of those poor people who saved their nickels and dimes, struggled, and then they had the pride that they had their own religious home, spiritual home.

And it was something of pride that that beautiful tower you can see from a distance.

So that's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

About two minutes.

Thank you.

I'll keep it short.

Alice Elm 1201 Shannon Avenue.

My connection to the property is that I served as the last school librarian for Holy Cross Central School before it closed.

So while I'm kind of a newcomer in the grand timeline of Holy Cross and the immense community, it became immediately apparent apparent that it was a special place.

Um it's interesting.

Father Dufrain brought up dignity, and the speaker before me also brought up the poor immigrants who gave their money to build the church.

In my opinion, um dignity for those those folks and the people who have done really hard work and important work on this property, would be to give these buildings a new life.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have uh one minute.

Then I will be brief.

My name is Tom Mobile.

I live at 781 uh Wood Replace Middle Drive 46201.

I'm currently president of historic urban neighborhoods of Indianapolis, better known by its acronym HUNY.

Um, I would just add that there's been quite a list of churches uh mentioned here by previous speaker, and there are actually a few more that I just like to mention.

The former Holiness Church at 718 719 East Claire's East St.

Clair Street, now home to the IF Theater, the former Fletcher Place United Methodist Church, a grand brick Gothic revival built in 1874, the former Trinity Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church.

That's a mouthful, a once anchor and partial namesake for the Holy Rosary Danish Church Historic District built in 1872.

Uh and you've already mentioned the old centrum, which now houses Indiana landmarks.

I would also add 749 North Park Avenue.

Which used to be the home of the um Phoenix Theater.

So there is tremendous precedent for reuse of church buildings all across town and within close proximity of Holy Cross Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we're we're out of time.

Uh so we will now move to uh staff comments.

So I'm gonna look for Emily, please uh offer your thoughts.

Yes, thank you.

Um, as the commission knows, multiple remonstrance letters did come in since the staff reports went out.

So you received some yesterday and you received some today, including that letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation opposing the demolition and encouraging the applicant to look at alternatives and resources available to them.

Staff does believe that it is important to highlight some of the documentation that was submitted by the applicant.

The applicant submitted engineering report indicates in multiple places that the building is repairable.

The property appraisal from February 25 to February 2025 states demolition was considered for the church.

However, the estimated costs do not make this a feasible option.

There is no data to suggest that the value of the subject land supports demolition of the improvements.

It is the appraiser's opinion that the highest and best use of the subject as improved is its current and existing use with the renovations made to the church and parsonage to fully maximize their value and appeal.

The demolition quote submitted is from 2023.

It is for 251,000 with an additional $35,000 to retain the rectory.

Staff believes that there is a conversation to be had about other Catholic church reuses, as many other parishes locally and around the world have sold church buildings, including the St.

Mary Church, sold by the Archdiocese in 2022.

It has also come to staff's attention that multiple interested parties have approached the parish about purchase.

The application to demolish the church building and the rectory do not comply with the criterion in the historic area plan, or for the authorization of authorization.

For a certificate of the authorization, which is what Mr.

Carroll outlaid, there are three conditions, one of which would nice to be to meet would need to be met.

Denial would result in substantial hardship.

The submittals repeatedly indicate that the buildings are repaira, that demolition would incur a high cost, and that the property is valued higher with the buildings retained.

Denial would deprive the owner of all reasonable use and benefit of the subject property.

The applicant states they have no use for the property and desire to sell it.

Denial does not preclude the applicant from not using the property to sell the property or for another user to reuse the property, similar to many other Catholic churches.

The effect of approval upon the historic area would be insubstantial.

The church is the centerpiece of the district and the namesake of the surrounding neighborhood.

Demolition of the buildings erases the history and architecture of the site, the neighborhood, and the city, and in no way can be deemed insubstantial.

In terms of the criterion from the preservation plan, though demolition does not comply with criterion A, removal of the buildings from the site in no way is appropriate to the property's historic and architectural values and significance.

Removal of the buildings from the site in no way is appropriate to the property's historic and architectural values and significance.

Demolition of the buildings does not comply with criterion B, as it is not visually compatible and appropriate in function, general design, arrangement, color, texture, and materials to the design and character of the historic area.

The application to demolish the church and the rectory are not in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, which include that a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment, and that the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.

Based upon the submitted documentation and the applicants, applications non-compliance with the Holy Cross preservation plan, staff recommends denial of the application for demolition.

Okay, thank you.

Emily, uh ready for comments from the commission, please.

David, please.

I have one question of the applicant.

Um I think I've gleaned from the testimony the answer to my question, but for the record, I want to make sure I have the answer from you.

What specific, could you please let us know?

Any specific efforts the church has undertaken to find a buyer or an appropriate and/or an appropriate reuse.

Okay.

Since the historic designation, due to the religious freedom issues uh with our situation, we've been unable to enter into conversation with prospective buyers or about potential reuse until those religious freedom concerns are resolved.

Thank you.

That was what I understood, yeah.

Other uh questions, comments from the commission, please.

Chris, please.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um just I wasn't here the last time this all came before us.

Um, but it seems nothing has really changed as far as movement from the church's side.

So um the demolition by neglect is something that is concerning to me to just let it keep going and going and no agreement.

So in residential situations when something falls into disrepair and neglect, department business of neighborhood, sorry, BNS will cite the owner.

Your roof is falling down.

It's a danger to everyone.

Um does that happen?

Is it an option here?

Um I'm just out of curiosity.

Sure.

Um Meg, you may want to address our yeah, I'll get to your Disa in a moment.

Go ahead, Meg.

I have a couple questions.

Lisa, just a minute.

Let me uh Meg is going to answer the question, and I'll get to you, please.

Yes, the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services can cite the property owner for any repair work that needs to be done that is uh necessary in order to come into compliance with the code.

And that can happen on this property just like any other.

All right, Disa, please go ahead.

You'll be all right, it'll it'll hear you fine.

Yeah, go ahead.

I have a couple questions uh for the archdiocese.

The first one being do you currently have an actual person or entity that says they will purchase the property if the church is demolished?

No, we do not.

So you don't have any.

No, we don't have any entity that has made an offer to purchase the property once the structure has been demolished.

Second question.

Um the church closed 10 years ago.

Uh 2015, it was joined with and so you stated in your statement giving financial um data, what has been spent to maintain the property.

Maintaining it, are you speaking of cutting the grass, putting the fence around, boarding necessary windows?

Is that the type of maintenance that you're talking about?

So I can't, I know you directed your question to the archdiocese.

I can't speak for the archdiocese, and right now neither does Paul.

So we're speaking for St.

Philip Neary Parish.

I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

Um, as I mentioned, since the historic designation, we've been unable to enter into conversations with any entity that would be interested in purchasing the property uh with or without the church removed uh to answer your previous question.

So costs that costs were with the maintenance and upkeep of the building.

We've we've been working very hard to keep the school and the gymnasium in a condition that they could be uh they could be reused very easily as as you all might be aware.

Buildings can deteriorate if uh certain systems are shut down.

So those extraordinary costs are associated with maintaining those systems operational.

Uh and with other costs, of course, it's uh it's not cheap for us to be here either.

So we're we're spending some some money to have people here to support us.

So these are all costs associated with the historic designation.

Okay, so you've done upkeep other than cut grass with the fence and boarding necessary when those are yes.

So give me an example of what you've done because the gentleman that prepared the report for you guys concerning the brick and what's going on with that was that never addressed during this 10-year period to maybe we should start fixing the brick.

You know, I don't know if the the roof on the church has any leaks.

Was any of that ever looked at to actually maintain the property?

I've been pastor since 2019, so I can't speak to the work that was done around the uh 2015 collapse of the front portico.

Uh that might be uh that's something that uh I could look up information on, but uh we don't have a use for the building, so we have not done uh we have not done anything aside from what is necessary to maintain it while we await.

So you've basically just done what needed to be done, and that's where that 80,000 figure came.

We've done what's what needed to be done for the whole campus, and that's what the basically what that over 80,000 dollars well that that's uh okay.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Annie, please.

Go ahead.

I have to say I in some ways I honestly don't know where to begin.

So I will try to be respectful and brief.

And I have no different feeling than I did a year and a half ago when this came to us.

That the just the sadness of the missed opportunity for the church that you're speaking about to serve the community that it's it's at the heart of.

It's not that I don't respect the cost and all of those things that are involved, but church like the church is the people, these people.

So I think what I find so frustrating is the lack of desire.

Um I understand the argument around canon law and all of that, but what I don't understand is the desire to work with the people in the neighborhood and Indiana landmarks and those people to have a use of it that would serve your faith.

I mean, I guess that's what I don't really understand.

And so it's just I feel like it's just a missed opportunity here, and just the stalemate of oh no, we're not we're gonna hold the line on this because we don't want to do this when there is many examples tonight where it has been done and been done wonderfully, it's reflected well on your faith, and it served the community.

So that's what I I guess I don't really understand here, is just the missed opportunity.

Um, and then and I guess back to Father Dufrain statement.

This isn't a matter of whether you can be objective, whether you're Catholic or not.

That has nothing to do with this.

And we as a historic preservation organization shouldn't be shamed or put down because we are prioritizing the history of a building when we all stand on the backs of everyone that has come before us.

If you'd like to respond to that or not.

I I don't think there was a lot of people.

Okay, that's fine.

Any other comments from yeah, and Jeanette, please.

Um please bear with me.

I had a lot of thoughts on this.

Um fully for the um freedom of religion.

And I was trying to understand your point of view as a Catholic and how that fits in as the world Catholic view.

Current canon law, please bear with me since I need to read this, was enacted nearly 42 years ago.

Thoughts, ideals, and goals can easily change in the span of time, especially in the modern age.

One of the secondary goals of preservation is to preserve world resources and to be a good steward to our planet.

The preservation of a structure, even if it is in fair to poor condition, has a significant amount of embodied energy.

This energy that would otherwise need to be used to demolish an existing structure, source and ship new products, and build new structures.

This is a key point when trying to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, and ever expanding landfills.

In his June 2005, Pope Francis stated that the encyclical is for everyone, not just Catholics.

In this message, it's stated that Pope Francis has added the voice of the global Catholic Church to the calls for agreement on the legally binding framework to decarbonize our societies as a matter of urgency.

The science science on climate change is already clear.

Pope Francis has now clearly outlined the moral and spiritual arguments for taking action.

Pope Francis makes clear that everything is interconnected.

We are custodians of this planet, and we have a clear moral obligation to ensure that everyone has access to its abundant resources and that we hand it to future generations in a condition that is compatible with life.

In November of 2018, the Pontifical Council for Culture, along with the Italian Episcopal Conference and Pontifical Gregorian University, held an international conference that discussed for two days the issue at hand in this case.

The resultant document guidelines, decommissioning, and ecclesial reuse of churches is quite clear regarding the Vatican's position of profane use of alienated and movable goods.

The document states that the church authorities and community are to dialogue and work with the local community and civic authorities to find a new use for that asset rather than destroying a valuable cultural heritage site.

Planning for the reuse should account for at least a medium-term timeline.

There is nothing specifically stated regarding what this length is.

They do state that efforts should be made with the inclusion of the local community to find a realistic and appropriate solution.

Also, efforts should be made to include in the documents of alienation a clause in defense of the sacred buildings in relation to future sales.

The civil civil authorities should also be involved to guarantee the dignity of the area.

This can be done through zoning and protective covenants.

There are ways to put vehicles in place that dictate or limit use and fully vet the initial buyers regarding their intent for the use of the property and structures.

As far as compatible uses, several examples have already been provided.

Being initiated by the religious community and carried out in collaboration with conservationists, appropriate local authorities such as IHPC, Hooney, and Indiana Landmarks, and other interested parties such as the Holy Cross, Heron Morton, and Lockerby Square neighborhoods.

The thoughts, ideals, and goals from the 2018 conference document were reiterated in Pope Francis's 2022 message at the conference charism and creativity when he stated there is a need to focus on the reuse of disused real estate.

This disuse is due not least to the economic burdens of ordinary and extraordinary maintenance and upkeep.

The problem should not be tackled through hasty or impromptu decisions, but as part of the overall division and far-sighted planning, and possibly through the use of proven professional expertise.

From the evidence provided in the structural and appraisal reports, the existing damage does not appear to be extensive to the point of requiring demolition.

I've seen worse structures restored and brought back to use.

Therefore, the argument that the building needs to be demolished because it's irreparable doesn't apply in my mind.

Looking at the numbers provided, the as is appraisal is one million dollars.

If the building is sold as is the cost of asbestos removal remediation, would be would fall to the developer.

Secondly, the appraisal for the vacated property was only 865,000.

And this does not subtract the demolition cost of 286,000 or the unstated cost of asbestos remediation required to vacate the project property.

This solution creates a net value of less than 579,000 for the property.

It appears to be that the diocese's best financial interest to work with the community to find a developer that will put an appropriate profane use into the structure that will benefit the community and sell the property as is.

If I may, to the last comments.

You said that one developer's letter that this was a non starter was not enough.

What would be enough?

Yeah, I but I don't know.

I could jump in here because I've done a ton of projects that have are similarly afflicted that have been in worse condition than this that have used taken advantage of many funding instruments to bring them back and restore them to use every day.

And so the fact that they didn't even mention any of those funding mechanisms, even the trust for sacred spaces, uh, wasn't even mentioned as a possibility to for funding.

So the fact that they didn't explore that um tells me that they didn't really look at it, that they just uh kind of took a cursory look and quickly issued a letter.

And also the contradiction between the construction costs and the facade repair costs and the conflation of those terms and and numbers uh led me to believe that the letter was uh fairly incredible.

Yeah, no, it's fine.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, just go ahead.

That's fine.

I have some questions as well.

Because I just want to get down to some of the foundational issues that you included in your petition and understand um both where we're coming from and where you're coming from.

So I want to establish some a couple of things.

Um first, the owner is listed as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis.

Has the Archdiocese or its property only company uh owned Holy Cross Church Rectory School, gym, and grounds since uh their respective establishments?

It's the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis Properties Inc.

as trustee for the parish here.

It's trustee for St.

Philip Mary.

So but it has that been the entity that has been owner of the property since the establishment of the various elements prior to the merger, it would have been Roman Catholic Archdiocese Properties Inc.

as trustee for the Holy Cross Catholic Church Inc.

So a similar ownership?

Yes, and the ownership is always held by the name of the holding company as trustee for the parish.

It is the parish's obligation and asset.

Okay.

I guess what I'm getting at there is is that so the parish has the sole ownership and stewardship of the property.

Is that correct?

Correct, yes.

St.

Philip and Area currently has the ownership of the property.

So wouldn't its current state of deterioration be the sole responsibility of the parish?

That's correct.

So you're asking us to believe that it is hardship.

It is a self-inflicted wound that you're asking us to look view as a hardship, and we just can't do that because then it's an auriboris, it's it's uh snake eating itself.

It's you know this mate lack of maintenance can lead to uh demolition by neglect, and if we allow that uh to be uh used as an argument for demolition, then we'll have no historic structures left.

Well, I I think it's worth pointing out that this was not a historically designated structure until last year.

Does that relieve you of the obligation to maintain it?

When the church has the option and its only option is to demolish it, and it's fully allowed to demolish it 10 years ago when the portico falls into the street and it's taking offers and considering offers.

This wasn't designated historic 50 years ago, 20 years ago.

It had no obligation beyond considering the future of the the project or demolition, and there was no restriction on that.

Well, I would say that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You're you're saying that this is a sacred space that has inherent dignity because as a place of worship, but then you've fallen it to let it allowed it to fall into a state of disrepair that is not that is beneath its dignity.

So which is it?

Is it a dignified space that that needs to be saved from a sorted use, or is it a structure that needs to be demolished because it's fallen into such disrepair?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

The parish can maintain its properties as well as the parish is doing.

There was a reason that Holy Cross was closed.

Its attendance had dwindled to 156 families in 2014.

It's a hundred-year-old building.

It can only it can only expend what it has to maintain its buildings.

Well, and and that's understandable.

Uh what I'm saying though is that we can't necessarily uh find that to be a hardship because it's it's not uh necessarily it is your property, sure, but uh if you don't maintain it, then you you are actually uh slowly demolishing it in in its state.

It allowing it to fall into the state um excuse me, I'm got a little uh uh rattled there.

I got out of place.

Um the deferred maintenance uh is not something that we can consider as a hardship, and and that is something that you have uh a problem that you've created, and it is something that uh will eventually, if unchecked, will destroy the building.

And it uh that is from lack of care of the masonry joints, the uh the roof, the flashing, you know, the anything that controls water.

Um there there's a lot of uh problems with that has been created by the lack of stewardship.

And so I just feel like that arguing that that's a hardship when it is self-created is uh a bit of a specious argument, and and that we can't really accept that as a hardship.

Um I I wanted to address the additionally the uh the financial estimates, as I I stated, um I just wanted to go back over this.

The you you um went to a reputable developer, Flarian Collins.

Um they obviously have done many projects, they know what they're doing.

Um but I don't think that they looked at this very closely because uh I know they have done projects that that are um extensively uh extensive renovations.

Uh you know, we all must many of us up here have done those extensive renovations, and we know for a fact there are funding mechanisms that if you enter into a partnership with one of them, you can control both the end result of the use of the property and also um how what where those funding sources come from.

And and so that argument that um there's there's no control once you sell it.

I I just don't I don't think that's necessarily true because you can contract with a uh a developer however you like, but um and then you know if they did not uh um explore those funding options, like we mentioned even city incentives, historic tax credits, um, which you could do if you're partnered with a private developer.

If they there if no such analysis was conducted, how can the commission conclude that rehabilitation is financially infeasible?

Admittedly, I'm not a developer.

St.

Philip Nary is not a developer.

We reached out to Flarity and Collins as a developer and asked them for their opinion.

We provided the RC engineering report and asked them what their thought.

They base their opinion on numbers that were just over half of what the current repairs are.

I can't speak for Flair and Collins today.

Yeah, and I've I've worked on buildings that RC has done reports on, then some of them they actually said should just be torn down, and they still stand today.

So I mean that that report isn't the end all be all.

They well they do excellent work.

I'm not trying to disparage that at all.

Um I'm just saying that that that's not the full uh story.

I I think what I'd like to get into next is is the justification for demolition, which uh you cite repeatedly the risk of this falling this property falling into sorted use.

Um there's no real definition of sorted use, at least that that I've been able to find.

Can you the the fact that you believe it's such an imminent risk?

Can you cite an example uh in the archdiocese catchment of a property that has fallen into sorted use?

I am not a canonist, so I I I can't say that this would be a sorted use.

But there have been uses at St.

Joseph's Tavern, for example, was mentioned that is valuable.

The brewery?

Correct.

Somebody should notify the trappists.

I am comp I'm able, as the pastor of St.

Philip Neary to act in this case to work in this case.

Um we're not the owners of other churches within the archdiocese, nor have we sold any.

So I can't speak for the archdiocese on what the archdiocesan definition of sorted use would be.

I'm also not a canon lawyer by trade, I'm a pastor.

Um but I can say that I I think the fact that we're discussing the Catholic church's criteria for sorted use or for profane use uh is an illustration of exactly what our concerns are about these proceedings that they've wandered into uh church matters and wandered out of the realm of uh the IHPC's mandate.

We we aren't trying to define what is sorted, we're asking you to define or or some one of your representatives to give us a single example, a single citation of sorted use, and it it if it's such an imminent risk, you should be able to rattle a few off.

And you cited one that seems like maybe it could be, but probably not because you know what what's the sorted uh behavior?

It's a for-profit business.

A for-profit business is defined by the Vatican as a potentially sorted use.

Potentially.

Yes.

But what's the potential?

I mean, what where's where is it moved from potential to actual?

Well, there's no once ownership is left control of St.

Philip Nary, there's no control that we have over what goes on there.

It could be I don't know, firework stand, for example, would be inconsistent with the dignity of the church.

Uh I could rattle off another of the well I again again, you'll forgive us if we if the the term dignity uh is is given a little less weight because again, letting it fall into a state of disrepair is uh you know some people and in I'm not a canon lawyer either, but I do believe that some people would uh recognize that as desecration of a sacred space.

So you want us to respect your religious freedom to uh honor the risk of the sorted use, but are unable to cite any sorted uses.

Uh it just doesn't feel like the risk that you're trying to make it out to be.

And so you know, I just don't think that we can consider the the things that you presented because they just don't seem to be as you presented them.

Okay, other comments from the commission.

Mike, please.

I don't want to speak for Anson, but I think what I understood this question to mean was could you give us an example of of what could happen?

I don't think he was trying to judge uh the validity of the church's definition of sorted, as I I might have understood Father Bufrain to to say or suggest.

Um we're trying to help.

I mean, I'm proud to be part of this body that's been over backwards trying to help so many congregations over the decades, uh solve problems that they have in uh protected districts, and uh it seems like applicant has come in here looking for a fight where none exists.

We're not a political body, we we have guidelines.

We're not going to opine on constitutional law or canonical law.

We're going to look at our guidelines, what what's our mandate?

Uh make an educative decision based on the evidence, and uh wish everybody well.

That's that's what we do.

So uh instead of uh coming in here uh looking for confrontation or debate, maybe we just tell us what you need to help get you where you want to be, and we can find a way.

We we have resources we can direct you.

Um I don't think uh anyone wants to make social commentary or some kind of ideological debate on why a church wants to demolish its structures.

That's we have our guidelines.

If you tell us that it's against your religion to uh let anybody else use your church for any reason, we'll have to take that as the truth.

But that is not a fight that we fight.

We we can only look at our rules.

I think you understand what I'm saying.

Uh with that said, and sorry if I spoke out of place, Hansen, but I had a few questions separately.

Um what would be wrong with the church selling the property uh with some kind of covenant that prevents the uh use that uh that concerns the church so much.

But I mean this this happens all over the country.

I don't see why this one structure is different.

So with respect to covenants, restrictive covenants uh our research has found if you own adjacent property, they are far more enforceable.

Uh, here we do not own adjacent property.

Uh we would be tasked with having to potentially enforce those covenants uh in gross from a remote location.

And I I cannot tell the archdiocese that they're absolutely going to be enforceable in that case.

Well, I mean, covenants have uh in the event a covenant is violated, there are next steps.

So there is a way to um to handle that if it were to occur, which is outside the scope here, but I guess I guess I'm trying to figure out why a tool that has been used by other churches all over the country, all over the world, why it's not applicable here.

And it's not a rhetorical question.

We really want to know because uh we don't know everything there is that's going on behind the organization.

Maybe there's a perfectly good reason we just don't know it, we haven't heard it yet.

Understood.

So it would depend on the enforceability of whatever covenants you place on a structure.

Um covenants are very enforceable if you own adjacent property.

Um if you're if you have a reversionary interest, uh, which I don't believe is even possible in this case.

The only hundred percent you know guarantee that I could give Father Dufresne and St.

Philip Nary is they continue to own the property and find a donor, I suppose, to rehab this property.

Uh aside from that, I I can't tell them with with absolute confidence that all uh covenants and restrictions would be enforceable in the future.

So something like a 99-year lease or a ground lease would not be you can't guarantee it would be enforceable.

No, a 99-year lease with reversionary provisions would be enforceable.

Depending on the terms, of course, but in general.

Right, right.

Next question, I saw a comment, right?

I heard a comment and I read it in the report or somewhere I I can't remember now, but there was uh a comment about staff andor the commission rushing to designate the church.

And I was this might be for staff.

Could maybe staff remind us why they're uh if that were the case, why was there a rush to designate the building when it was designated?

Um I can say that the first designation effort for this church in this neighborhood was started by staff in 2014, which if you recall um 2015 was when the um I cannot think of the name, but the first part of the building collapsed.

Um it was originally staff's intention to work with the archdiocese for a designation, um, and conversations were um spotty from the records that we have, but I can ask Meg to speak more to that.

She's been here longer.

I think you're talking within the last year and a half uh when we did the designation in 2024.

The commission has the ability to do what we kind of casually call an emergency designation.

It's it's really a process similar to every other designation effort.

We insert the word emergency when we learn of an imminent threat to the building, such as demolition.

In this case, the archdiocese published in the criterion that there was a suggestion that the next step was to move forward with demolition of the structure.

In doing that, we consider you know how much time there is to react to that.

A designation effort is uh a relatively quick process in reaction to that.

It is the only process that exists to legally protect a structure in which we know of an imminent threat like demolition.

So that is how we moved forward with that.

Um I think you've heard this evening prior to that, there were many attempts to sit down at the table to consider alternatives uh or the future of the structure.

Uh I was not part of those conversations, but I can tell you that when this was released in the criterion, we we would have loved to have been able to do that.

Um that was not an option to us at that time in the short period of time that we had to react to it.

Um so that is procedurally how we wound up making that decision to move forward with that.

Um and I think you heard other comments this evening about um the conversations that happened within the last decade that were similar to can we can we sit down and talk through this?

Thank you.

Um so it sounds like there was a timing issue where there was an urgency uh for fear that something might happen uh that would permanently and irreversibly uh impact the neighborhood.

Um more question uh to the applicant.

You mentioned some financial hardships earlier.

Um is there any is there any reason that would not be obvious outside of the church that why demolition would make more sense than trying to sell it uh provided that you could be assured that no sorted use were to take place through covenants or some other reasons.

Is there some reason that uh that's not obvious where it makes more sense to tear it down?

No, I hear rely on the the parish pastor and his church leadership to determine what needs to happen with a church property.

Uh I I can't weigh in on that.

Uh I won't weigh in on that.

Um I will say placing heavy restrictions, 99-year terminable leases restricts considerably the financing or use or interest in a property.

Um but beyond that I I can't weigh in on what Father Dufresne and his church leadership uh how they got to their decision.

Right, and just to clarify, I'm not asking for state secrets.

I just want to know why it's not more obvious because it seems like the obvious choice for your client, but it's just hard for maybe everyone else to to see why that would make more sense.

And if you were to tell me, well, there's a you know, there's a church doctrine, and it doesn't matter what it's called or why, but if this were to happen, then XYZ, and that's the part that that you commission are not understanding, and then that would help us understand and and color our or inform our uh opinions and votes ultimately.

Yeah, it's it's I believe fairly straightforward, but um we've come here to request a certificate of authorization to demolish uh and to request the lifting of the historic district um not to discuss uh church doctrine or invite comment on church doctrine.

Um so I'd be grateful for a vote on our request.

I think we're in agreement, but uh if I'll assume there is not a reason that's not obvious to us, unless I hear otherwise.

I I apologize.

The first part of that answer is the reasons the one you cited that it's a church.

That's that's the reason we're here is because the structure is a church and we want to protect it from any sorted use in the future.

Other comments from the commit go ahead, Mike.

That's okay, that's fine.

Any other comments from the commission?

I guess I have a yeah, Disa, please go right ahead.

Thank you.

Okay, um I have just two more items.

Um you had both of you address freedoms that you felt having historic preservation coverage stopped the Archdiocese from having the freedom to do what it wanted to do with his property.

My question is when Holy Cross was closed.

Did the priest at Holy Cost tell his parishioners you have a choice of where which church you're going to attend, or did he tell them you will be going to St.

Philip Neary, and that's where all of your records will be sent to.

Oh, okay.

Um so when there is a what's called an extinctive union where you close a church, uh there's an appeal process uh within the church where parishioners can appeal that all the way up to Rome if they'd like to.

Um in terms of the merger of parishes and parish property, uh I think that's a different question what you're asking.

I I don't believe anybody tells anyone where they have to go to church.

If the parishioners were told by their priest that the church is closing, and when it closes, you're to go to St.

Philip Neary.

That's why all of your records, if that was the statement that took away a freedom of choice from those parishioners.

So I mean, you the archdiocese can't say that we we are being our freedom is being taken to do what we want to do with our property when you closed the church, you took away those parishioners because good Catholics, you're going to follow what your priest says.

And so when he said we're going to St.

Philip's Nary, that's why your information was that's where they went.

And you let us know, and we send your records there, and that's that's a freedom that if that wasn't handled that way, that they didn't have which you're stating as one of your objections for the historical preservation coverage that your freedom, the archdiocese freedom, is being stifled because they can't just tear down a piece of property because they want to.

When you close that, you took that.

So now the next step, you want to take the building and tear it down.

So that wipes away.

And you bring in canon law.

Could you tell me which canon law you were speaking of that says you know, a secret place?

But you also talked about when you walk in that place that you can feel the prayers that have been prayed over years and years.

What better place would that be to reestablish another entity?

Could you imagine whether it be apartments?

The apartments on the church that was is on meridian, and I think St.

Clair that was turned into apartments to be in a building where all of these prayers had been prayed over and over, whether uh make it into you know a youth center.

Can you imagine the feel of that?

And how you're actually putting something positive into the community in the atmosphere.

I mean, these are conversations, and and you brought them about covenants, landmarks is here.

Mark, do you guys have issues when you place covenants on properties?

No, we have about you've got people that if the archdiocese truly wants to listen to its people, its parishioners, and be a force in the community.

You got people you can connect with that will guide you, just as he was saying.

We decide we want to tear it down, it gets torn.

So some discussion, whether on your level, Father on your level needs to be had because that's the trouble, and it will, if you start having that conversation, it will make such an impact with the community because your parishioners know you are actually listening to us, you're hearing us, and all of those prayers that feel holy cross through all of those years, that impact can be felt by others who may not be Catholic, as she mentioned, but it will impact them.

It's nothing like prayers and that feeling.

I'm done now.

Thank you, Disa.

Annie, go ahead and just come a quick circle around back.

Um how we got here, I think, is if any entity anywhere let something decay, made the choice of by inaction, I guess.

Um, for what you know, for whatever reason, financial, like in this case, because of the cost of managing the property once it had been closed, they would still be, they would still have some level of responsibility.

So I think that's kind of the bottom line of when you let things go into decay, you willfully choose, as Anson said, by the absence of action, then I think it's hard.

Like then you in some ways lose the benefit of the doubt, and why entities like this get involved because there are always ramifications of inaction.

So that's all.

Okay.

Thanks, Annie.

All right.

I uh I'll I'll finish up with uh just a few comments.

I'm not gonna try to repeat a lot that's already been said here uh this evening.

Obviously, you've heard a lot of uh comments and questions from the commission.

You know, I uh it's obvious that this historic neighborhood takes its name, you know, from Holy Cross Church.

That's how the place got its name.

And so that's you know, obviously very important to this neighborhood and to the community, so it's understandable that there is this, you know, strong feeling of wanting to keep this asset.

You know, going to what Mike said, you know, we our responsibility is dealing with historic resources.

You heard me say this in an earlier case this evening.

Our job is to take care of historic buildings and historic architecture.

That's what we're charged with.

We're not actually charged with determining canon law or anything about religious freedom or anything else.

We're up here trying to deal with historic resources like a historic church.

And so we're going to be looking at this very pragmatically as to why this should be saved or why this should be demolished.

That's obviously what our job is.

I don't believe the case has been made strong enough to suggest that any one of the three requirements for demolition have in fact been met by this commission.

I can't imagine, I've not heard anything that suggests that we're convinced of that.

And I and when I hear the testimony of other churches that have been reused within this same archdiocese in the time during the designation of this building, it it really begs the question: how is this different than that church in the same archdiocese?

It's just a different parish and a different priest who is making the decision.

But can you cite why this is different than the other church that was sold during this time since the designation, and it was allowed to be sold.

What's unique about this situation that makes this such that it needs to be handled differently?

Yeah, and I I think, unless I misheard, I think that was the uh the parish in Brownstown, which was relegated to uh profane but not sorted use and the authorized the sale.

Right.

At that point, the pastor of that church will work with his leadership to determine whether or not there is a reuse that is acceptable to that parish.

Um I don't believe that property has been sold at this point.

I think it's at the point where that pastor and his leadership will make a decision.

Uh and here that decision has been made by Father Dufrain that there is not an acceptable use that's been presented to St.

Philip Nary.

And I and I guess you know, from from our standpoint, we obviously look at precedent with a fair amount of frequency relative to buildings that are taken care of and how they're reused and and saved and whatnot.

And in you know, hearing that, seeing these other examples, it just shows us that there are other ways to do this.

You know, obviously one person's opinion has control over this situation, but obviously we have a body here that's also looking to take care of an asset that will likely, you know, have a different opinion about this one individual.

It doesn't seem you know realistic to have an entire neighborhood who is supporting this facility, wanting to take care of it, you know, in a very proper way, being respectful of it, and yet one individual is not giving a good enough reason other than we just want to demolish it because that's what I want to do.

And that did that really isn't gonna hold a lot of water with me personally.

It's not gonna likely hold much water with this with this commission.

So I I think it's it's it's unfortunate that we've gotten to this place this evening.

Obviously, you will have your 10 minutes of rebuttal for all you've heard this evening, and then we will take a recommendation from staff and and vote on this this evening.

So please take your 10 minutes and offer your comments to what you've heard this evening.

Given the the comments of the commission, I don't think a very long rebuttal is necessary at this point.

Um I will point out that of all the people here that are supporting not demolishing the structure, the only party here that's burdened is St.

Philip Neri.

Uh it's an extremely modest parish, and what is anticipated tonight from this vote, it will continue to be burdened uh in the future.

And with that, I'll I'll close and let you all take a vote.

Okay.

All right, yeah, thank you.

I I would just also close by saying there are other options than just you know putting your head in the sand and walking away.

I think there's clarity that people who've testified this evening, we have reached out to the Archdiocese numerous times before the uh designation and even after the designation, and there just continues to be stonewalling to have any kind of conversation.

And I I really don't understand why there isn't a cooperation because the neighborhood is looking for that, Indiana Landmarks is looking for that, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is looking for that.

We as the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission are looking for it, and we just continue to get stonewalled, and it just doesn't seem reasonable when there are paths forward.

So I would just say to you, I think that you need to really reflect on that.

So uh Meg, we're ready for a staff recommendation, then please.

Staff recommends to deny a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of authorization to demolish the church building and the rectory.

All right, thank you.

Uh uh could I get a motion for the staff recommendation is read, please.

Annie, thank you.

Mike, thank you for the second.

Any final comments from the commission?

All those in favor of the motion to don uh to deny demolition, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, Meg, we have no other business this evening?

No, sir.

Okay, thank you.

We stand adjourned.