Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - November 5, 2025

The Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission convened for its November 2025 meeting to review several historic preservation applications, approve negative findings of fact, and address work conducted without prior approval. The meeting featured presentations on major construction projects, staff recommendations regarding setbacks and design proportions, and public testimony supporting property owners' rehabilitation efforts.

Consent Calendar

• The October minutes were deferred to the December meeting, with no formal motion required for approval of prior minutes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant Matthew Payton (922 N. College Ave): Argued that a modern design is appropriate for the neighborhood context given the irregular corner site, proposed to keep construction costs low by avoiding full masonry siding, and expressed that the neighborhood association is verbally supportive and happy to see development on the vacant corner. The applicant acknowledged the lack of a formal letter of support due to the association's schedule but emphasized that they are supportive of "anything happening" on the corner.
• Applicant David Smith / Homeowners (1508 Broadway St): Stated that the homeowners are investing significant resources to restore the carriage house's structural integrity and historic nature. They expressed a strong desire for livability and natural light, arguing that the proposed double doors and Juliet balcony would make the space functional and mirror the main house's grand entrances. The homeowners noted the hayloft door must remain accessible for furniture moving.
• Applicant Don Smith (373 Burgess Ave): Expressed that the violations were unintentional due to the renovation occurring 12 years ago when the owners were uninformed about specific preservation requirements. The applicant argued that the work significantly improved the property's condition compared to its state 13 years ago, that they are long-term stewards, and that requiring full re-remediation of all items (such as siding and porch details) is wasteful given the current viability of the work. They requested "forgiveness" and noted that neighbors are grateful for their efforts.
• Counselor Andy Nielsen (District 14): Expressed strong support for the property owners at 373 Burgess Ave, urging the commission to use its authority to keep the project moving forward. They stated that denial could have an adverse impact on the property and emphasized matching the Historic District Plan's intent with the reality of the situation.

Discussion Items

• 2025 COA 351 (Holy Cross): Staff presented negative findings of fact regarding a previously denied application. The Commission discussed the procedural necessity of adopting the denial reasons for the record.
• 2025 RHP-03 (Old North Side Plan Update): Staff explained the hiring of consultant Building Ethos LLC (led by former planner Elizabeth Nowak) to update preservation plans for 17 neighborhoods. Staff noted this is the first update, with Woodruff Place likely next in 2026.
• 2025 COA 322 & 402 (Fletcher Place & Cottage Home): Two expedited cases for single-family homes and carriage houses were reviewed with no public testimony. All four expedited cases were approved without opposition.
• 2025 COA 345 (922 N. College Ave / Chathamarch):
  • Applicant's Position: The applicant proposed a modern design to address a unique corner site, noting the need to move the house 5 feet closer to the street to align with neighbors and utilizing an overhang to maintain clear sight triangles. They proposed alternative materials (panel siding and nickel gap) to reduce costs while maintaining durability.
  • Commissioner David Baker: Expressed strong support for the modernist design, stating that a traditional fit is impossible on this site and that the new design is "very different and very much better" than the previous iteration.
  • Commissioner Susan Williams: Expressed appreciation for the design creativity but noted concerns about the random placement of windows on the north elevation and the low window on the main house, suggesting they should be aligned vertically. She also commented on the clear sight triangle, suggesting the traffic patterns might allow for more flexibility regarding landscaping, though she would not move the house.
  • Staff Position: Recommended approval but noted lingering concerns regarding the reduced setback and narrow width. Staff suggested the commission discuss if further changes were needed or if the proposal was acceptable.
• 2025 COA 399 (1508 Broadway St / Bartoletti Carriage House):
  • Staff Position: Recommended a split decision: Approval for the west facade hayloft conversion to a Juliet balcony (Part A) and Denial for altering the primary east facade openings to a double door/window configuration (Part B). Staff argued the east facade is the most decorative and primary elevation, and widening the openings would drastically alter the historic proportionality.
  • Commissioner David Baker: Expressed concern that the project has already compromised the north and south facades significantly to meet new uses. Regarding the east facade, the Commissioner stated they were "not sold" on the double doors, arguing the change would "dramatically alter that proportion" and is a "non-starter" for the historic character.
  • Commissioner Susan Williams: Agreed with the staff, noting the verticality of the original openings is a hallmark of the style and a horizontal change would be detrimental. She suggested skylights as an alternative for light.
  • Commissioner Mike Bivens: Noted the east elevation is a "pretty pure proportion" and that altering it would be detrimental. He suggested adding smaller, existing-style windows around the perimeter or using skylights to achieve the light goals without changing the primary elevation.
• 2025 COA 385 (373 Burgess Ave / Irvington):
  • Applicant's Position: Acknowledged the work was done 12 years ago without full oversight. The applicant argued that most changes improved the property, that stucco removal was not known to be required under the 2013 COA, and that requiring full undoing of work is wasteful. They requested approval of exceptions for the siding, windows, and porch details, with only the diamond window location as a major issue.
  • Commissioner Mike Bivens: Expressed concern only over the diamond window placement, suggesting it should match the other gables. They were "not too bothered" by the painted brick or the porch alterations, noting the owners are long-term residents.
  • Commissioner David Baker: Stated the diamond window is the most obvious issue and needs to be moved to its historic location, but other items (porch, chimney, siding) are acceptable given the context and the age of the work. The Commissioner noted that the 2013 COA was worded to "repair and replace wood siding" rather than explicitly requiring stucco restoration after vinyl removal.
  • Staff Position: Recommended approval of a Certificate of Authorization for the existing work (soffits, chimney, windows, corbels, siding, porch) contingent on returning the diamond window to its historic location.

Key Outcomes

• 2025 COA 351 (Holy Cross): Motion approved to adopt the negative findings of fact. (Vote: Unanimous)
• 2025 RHP-03 (Professional Services): Motion approved to hire Building Ethos LLC for the Old North Side plan update. (Vote: Unanimous)
• 2025 COA 322 (Fletcher Place) & 402 (Cottage Home): Motion approved for both expedited cases. (Vote: Unanimous)
• 2025 COA 345 (922 N. College Ave):
  • Motion approved to approve Certificate of Appropriateness for the single-family dwelling and carriage house with 8 stipulations and 1 note. (Vote: Unanimous)
  • Motion approved to approve Variance for construction in the clear sight triangle and reduced corner side setback. (Vote: Unanimous)
• 2025 COA 399 (1508 Broadway St):
  • Part A (West Facade/Variance): Motion approved to approve CA for west side hayloft door replacement and Juliet balcony creation, and variance for square footage. (Vote: Unanimous)
  • Part B (East Facade): Motion approved to deny Certificate of Appropriateness to alter openings on the east facade. (Vote: Unanimous)
• 2025 COA 385 (373 Burgess Ave): Motion approved to issue a Certificate of Authorization to retain existing work (soffits, chimney, porch, windows, corbels, siding) subject to the stipulation to return the front diamond window to its historic location. (Vote: Unanimous)
• Continuance: Motion approved to continue 2025 COA 301 (656 E. Arsh St) to December 3rd. (Vote: Unanimous)
• Next Steps: Commission will vote on the 2026 Work Program at the December hearing.