I don't want like the dry fit.

Like I don't want the moisture wicking.

Yes.

Like cozy ones.

Yeah.

Quarter zips.

North phase.

I don't want.

Well, I mean, are scrub pants professional wear?

No.

I don't think so.

I had it for a while, but I don't think it's four.

Huh?

It's pretty good.

They're new.

They're like Land's End or LL Bean.

Yeah.

I think that's where we got our like shell jacket for the eye.

Which I like to a zip-up jacket with on the back would be not everyone.

We could do a zip-up jacket with the logo on the back.

Oh yeah.

But this is the place as a design.

Yeah.

Okay.

Cool.

Go pick it up while I when I see my dad.

I still like to do that.

Do they have like a fancy um do they have a seasonal pizzuki at BJ's?

What are they?

Do you know what they are?

What's going on?

Is it like a peppermint one?

It's not even worth it.

I'm junior to you guys see the did you see the thing that the state's doing?

You can bring your infant up to six months old to work with you now.

I think it's just to give people take a vlog of alternative.

So what's getting a multiple?

Did all of our people go over there?

Great.

We left them alone.

Oh.

What the messed up?

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, well.

Yeah, that'd be good for that.

Where?

So thank you.

What the heck?

Who's breaking things?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I'm telling you.

With a bang.

And then we'll pass these around during the presentation.

I'm gonna go see if he's actually well, I mean.

All right, the meeting is called to order.

Um December 3rd, 2025.

The Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission.

Uh we have no minutes to approve tonight.

Um we have one old business item.

2025 COA 399B, Old North Side, 1508 Broadway Street.

David Smith was the applicant.

Meg, do you have anything or do staff have anything to add?

No, it's just asked for in a recommendation to approve the negative findings of act.

Anyone on the commission have a question about the uh findings?

Then do I hear a motion?

Um thank you, Anson.

And second by anything, second by Mike.

We have uh for new business.

What's that?

Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't vote.

I'll get into the swing here.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

It passes.

Uh so for new business, we have the approval of 2026 uh work program.

Meg, do you have anything to uh uh no just some of you made some corrections to me, I will note those in the revisions on you just ask for your approval for the work program for 2026 anyone on the commission have any questions?

Do I hear a motion?

Thank you, Susan.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you, Annie.

Um those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

It passes.

Thank you.

Okay, now we go into the public hearing.

And I'll start by introducing the uh commission.

I am David Baker, the vice president.

Susan Williams is our secretary.

Um other commission members are Deesa Watson Summers, Michael Bivens, and Jeanette Sivlich, Anson Keller, Kristen Wig, and Annie Lear.

And the staff with us tonight.

Meg Bush is the administrator, Chris Chris Steinmetz is our legal counsel, Emily Jarzen, Principal Architectural Reviewer, Shelby Long, Senior Architectural Reviewer, Grace Godecker, Preservation Planner, and Recorder.

Morgan Marmolet Marmoleo.

Perfect.

Architectural reviewer.

And Carolyn Emenecker.

I apologize for my pronunciations.

The Commission has copies of IC 367-11.1, the Marion County Zoning Ordinances, the Historic Preservation Zoning Ordinance, and all Historic Area Plans for Marion County on file, and 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 into the record of this proceeding.

Anyone wanting to get notice that a decision made by this commission has been appealed, 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 material 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 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 IHBC 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 related to a matter before the commission outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

So the procedure tonight is that the uh applicant will have 20 minutes to present uh their case, including comments of support.

Then there'll be 20 minutes for any remonstrate remonstrators.

We'll ask for staff comments, questions from the commissioners, and then the applicant can have a last word of 10 minutes.

We'll then ask Meg for the staff recommendation and vote.

All right, Meg, we have one expedited.

No, I jumped ahead.

We have one request for uh continuance.

Could you lead us through it?

Sure.

2025 COA 301 Chatham Arch Massachusetts Avenue.

The address is 656 East Arch Street.

The applicant's Abbey Robertson, and that request is to continue to the January 7th hearing.

Okay.

Do I hear a motion to approve?

Thank you, Mike.

Um second.

Oh and Jeanette.

Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

It is approved.

Uh Meg, we have one expedited case.

2024 COA 459 Lockerby Square.

The address is 316 North College Avenue, and the applicant is Jeremy Portillo.

And that request is to alter the existing single story rear edition, add a second story rear edition, and construct an attached rear edition with garage.

All right.

Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to this?

Commission members, any questions or comments?

May I have a motion to approve.

Thank you, Anginette.

Thank you, Disa, for a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed.

It passes.

Okay.

Oh, we have no continued applications to hear tonight.

We have one new application to be heard.

2024 COA 226, Amendment 1, wholesale district.

And 2025 VHP-011.

230 South Pennsylvania Street.

Jennifer Milken is the applicant.

Oh, with the applicant, please come forward.

Or actually before.

Yeah, yeah.

If uh you're planning on speaking to this case, or you might speak to this case tonight, um, could you just stand and raise your right hand for me to be for me, please, to be sworn in.

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

Say I do.

I do, I do.

Thank you.

Well, Jeff Duty passing out.

Uh good evening.

Uh my name's Tim Oakes.

I'm an attorney Ice Miller representing the owner of this project, Boxcar Development LLC.

With me this evening is Melanie Park, the owner's representative, along with uh Jeff and Jake Plummer of Ratio Architects.

Um, as the commission will probably remember, and certainly it's referenced in the staff report.

Um, a certificate of appropriateness and variance for this project was approved by the commission back in September of 2024.

Um, as the owner and its architects proceeded towards completion of the construction drawings for this project, um, as is not surprising given something of this scope and scale of complexity.

It became apparent that certain uh I think in the grand scheme of things, somewhat minor changes were desirable to remedy a couple of issues.

One uh certain constructibility issues that Rachel will get into in just a moment, and two, and probably most importantly to increase the guest experience for people that are using not only the hotel but the amenities, restaurant, etc.

that are part of this larger project.

Um that's why these changes have been made.

Um as an amendment, uh it's natural to look at what's changed and compare it to what was originally approved.

I get that that makes complete sense and it's efficient to do it that way.

Um, but I'm gonna start on the other side of this, which is to say what hasn't changed.

If you look at this project as a whole, the scope, the scale, the orientation on the site, it really is the same project.

Okay, it really is.

What's what's changed?

Um are really three things, and I'll get into those in just a minute, and Rachel will get into those in a little bit more detail.

Um, for the sake of efficiency, though, instead of going through the whole project, I we well, like staff did in the report, we'll focus on just the changes, but it's important remember that this is a an entire project.

Um it's important remember that because the standard that you apply is not a comparison to the original plans, but the historic plans recommendations and guidelines.

Do the plans being considered in their entirety meet the historic area plan recommendations, and that's the standard that applies regardless if someone thinks the plans are better or someone thinks the plans are worse than what was originally approved.

So that's not the standard, it's do they meet the requirements of the historic district plan.

We actually think they're better.

Um, and critically, and perhaps most importantly, uh we certainly think that they meet the requirements and recommendations of the historic plan.

So, real quickly, the three changes.

One increase the building by two stories.

We're going up to 197 feet.

I think it's worth noting that almost to the exact foot.

This building will now be the exact same height as the high place directly across the street to the north of the building.

Um that building, I believe, is 17 stories.

This one's only 15.

The reason being is there's certain floors where we want a much higher ceiling height.

We added fours because part of increasing the guest experience was to increase the size of some of the hotel rooms.

And to keep the same footprint, which we have done.

The only way to do that and keep the number of rooms is to make it a little taller, add the two stories.

The change in color.

Certainly not a cost issue.

And as a facade component, we want with all brick.

It's a darker color, including the pigmented mortar, and Ratha will get more into this in a moment, but it's entirely consistent with the wholesale district.

And quite honestly, we think the color more closely matches the brick color that was on the old CSX building that was at this site.

Finally, there are changes in detailing.

This building has details that are significant, certainly consistent with the rest of the buildings in the wholesale district.

And again, Rachel will get into those discussions.

Finally, the original approval back in September 24 included a development standards variants to go above the sky plane.

And so we have to renew or increase that development standard variance.

We're popping the building up two stories.

That variance, like all variances, are limited to just as much as you need.

And so by increasing the height of the building two stories, we need to go up two stories in terms of penetrating this, you know, the sky exposure plane.

The findings of fact and the criteria that apply to that are identical to the first hearing.

So with that, I will turn it over to Ratio and they'll go through a little bit more detail the changes.

Tim, could you uh state your address for the record, please?

Sure.

Um it's one American Square Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282.

Thanks.

Hi, uh Jeff Millican uh 101 South Pennsylvania Street in uh Indiana 462 or 2.

Um you can see a nice uh comparison side to side.

Uh there are some other slides that I'd like to show.

Could we um maybe go back to presentation and then uh come back to this?

That'd be all right.

And some of these I'll skip over as you've seen them before and they're included in your packet.

Uh, if you have any questions, uh please uh just ask.

Um skip through the next couple to this one.

Yeah, so uh what we did here is to take a collection of some of the other buildings in the wholesale district.

Um you can see there's quite a variety of penetration patterns and different levels of brick detailing, uh different colors of brick, so there's quite a variety within the district, and so um as I get into the details more, uh, we wanted to come back and reference this as we we think we fit nicely into this sort of context here.

You go ahead and move ahead.

Site plan hasn't changed.

Uh the entrance has shifted one day to the north, the main entrance, and you'll see that how architecturally that becomes important.

So this is the new tower.

You can see the uh the more of a slender profile, adding the two floors and the extra floor floor height next to the taller slender building.

Uh, but proportionally it's very similar to the previous version.

Um to mention the brick color.

Uh we passed around some samples.

Uh the dirty uh single brick that was actually brick from the CSX building.

Um so you can compare that to the dark iron spot.

Um we also have a sample of the mortar color.

Um, so we've selected very dark mortar.

We think it'll give the building a nice uh monolithic appearance.

Um you'll see as we get into the details where we had a teracata previously, we've developed special shape bricks, and I think the mortar being dark will help that read together.

So you read the form and less about the joints.

Um move ahead, please.

Uh, one more.

Um you can see here uh the entrance from Pennsylvania has begun to uh be enhanced.

You can see here the entrance from Pennsylvania has begun to be enhanced.

We've added flags across the Pennsylvania facade.

The canopy itself, we've uh you recall previously it was a simple metal canopy that spanned all three days.

So we've redesigned the canopy to be more of a in line with the luxury product.

We're trying to get a little away from the industrial and become more of a luxury product.

We can move forward.

One more.

We've taken that three-bed simple canopy and split it in the middle and recessed the entrance so that the architecture itself becomes the feature.

The brick will return back into the entrance, and we've got oversized wooden doors and a terracotta medallion above as sort of a grand central entrance.

We also moved the bridge slightly so it lines up on this bay, whereas it was slightly off before when the entrance was on the other bay.

The canopies themselves we've introduced a scalloped terracotta to the top half of the canopy.

It's believed to be a dark color to match the brick.

We do still have medallions of the terracotta at the top of each pier, which we think is a kind of a nice detail.

Back to the canopy, so we've got the terracotta at the top half, the bottom half we've introduced glass, similar to the historic canopies that had the glass scallops, but done in a little bit more of a modern way here.

And then the bottom side of the canopy, we've introduced a coffered ceiling that we can have some nice lighting effects in there.

Last time we were here, we were about schematic design, so there were quite a few questions about detailing that we just hadn't gotten to yet.

Now we can show you some of the details we're working on.

The one on the far left is the very top of the building, and you can see we've uh we've got brick corbelling.

Uh we've maintained the height of cornice and been working with the IMI engineers on uh how to get that core bling up that high.

So we've introduced shelf angles and uh really got that the depth of the cornice and the the height of the corners working there.

Um as you sort of move down into that detail, you can see uh some of the banding we're able to achieve.

We're using uh state-of-the-art uh anchoring system that's got stainless steel brackets that actually hold the shelf angle out from the building.

Uh, when you're trying to get depth in your brick, it's important to be able to get that brick out away from the wall.

The wall wants to align with the curtain wall, the stud wall and the concrete wall wants to align with the curtain wall, so you have a weather plane that's consistent, and then to pull the brick away, we've used these brackets to hold the shelf angle out from the wall.

Uh that also enables us to uh hang the brick through by uh running uh rods through the openings in the brick.

So that gives us the ability to have deeper returns.

So the uh you can see on the detail on the left that the arches at the top are a full uh brick return by hanging that brick, and then we get a soldier course above that uh using the same hanging system, so that soldier course can come across and down and form the masonry arch.

The uh detail in the middle shows the top of the ground floor arches.

Uh so that actually I'd be the second floor there.

Um in this instance, we've actually come out two full bricks.

So that arch that comes up across and down will be two full bricks there, and then beginning to introduce some special shapes.

As I said, the form remains the same as when we had it as terracotta.

We've developed a way to do that same form with special shaped bricks.

And you can see that on the right there.

There's an X on view with the granite base.

And then the brick going up from there.

And then you can see how those special shapes in plain view begin to uh give us those curves.

We uh think we're gonna log easy off to the building.

Uh we'll be doing a mock-up of some sort.

This uh we're probably gonna break it into several smaller mock-ups rather than one large one, but um you can see here uh some of the additional uh detail in the line form uh you can go through that's just for reference.

That's the adjacent venue, and then uh keep going.

Uh yeah, on this slide you can see the materials have been passed around all sort of on the same slide.

You got the terracotta, the brick, the mortar, um, the CSX brick, and then the bottom was the previous uh orange brick, and then these are just you know the reference.

So in summary, we we believe it's a very luxurious look.

The darker brick, we believe it's distinctive uh rather than have another orange brick building surrounded by other orange brick buildings, it'll stand out as a key property in the in the district.

Um questions is there anybody else who wishes to speak in support anyone who wishes to speak in remonstrance we have staff comments.

Um so staff did note in the report um a couple concerns we had about some of the loss of detailing from the original design and the use of the darker brick, um, but we are deferring to the commission this evening on if you find the changes as well as that additional variance to be appropriate.

I can answer any questions all right, commissioners.

Any comments, questions?

Yes, Susan.

Before we start, can we know what we were looking at?

I think I have an idea.

Um with these two things, but uh I the brick, the single brick.

Yeah, that was uh a brick from the original CSX building.

And our thought was that the dark iron spot brick was a nice way to give homage using the building that had been on that side.

So you have the stone base, yeah, and then this is the tear.

I think this is limited to the canopy.

Is that what correct?

Um here will have a medallion at the top, then but it's not on the walls anymore, right?

So the walls are screening, and then brick color above.

This is the original bit that they're here, too.

All right, I think I'll um a couple of things.

I I pulled up a photograph of the CX CSX building, and it really shows itself to be more of the orangey color than this super dark color here.

And so um that's just one thing that I observed because I didn't think I remembered it being pretty much a black and gray.

Um two things it's I was disappointed in uh the new look of the north facade.

Um it you lose the dramatic verticality that you have in the front, and it does in my mind doesn't really relate to the front, so I struggled with that a little bit, and the um the fenestration losing that sort of takes away it flattens the building more, and it has kind of a negative impact on what I called elegance in terms of just the way the building looked.

And as the brick gets darker, I think the loss of that is gonna be lots more noticeable because of shadowing and so forth that you would get with the lighter brick.

So I'm I'm kind of disappointed in in what I saw the impact of the changes.

So I've got issues with the color, I've got issues with the uh sort of dumbing down the fenestration and then changing dramatically the look of the north side of the hotel.

Anybody else?

Yes, and Jeanette.

I'm kind of of the same mind too.

Um, and also I don't know if it was if it's part of your if it's an issue with your Revit model and how it's coming across, but it looks like the window reveals on the north side on the north elevation are more shallow compared to the east and west elevations.

Um, or it just might be how the whole building is sitting in shadow.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, it's just the rendering.

Um the the depth is still two full bricks on the north at the first two floors and then full brick on the north side.

But it's greatly reduced from the original proposal.

It is reduced.

Um once we got into the constructibility of supporting that brick out that far with um you know working with uh the actual brick mixes uh and the uh company that makes the support brackets uh we as we got into the decal now that we had to pull back.

I mean the the original drawing of schematic now or much more advanced.

Um also I noticed above, I think it's the second floor where your conference rooms are, you've lost the banding at the base of that section.

Um so now that whole upper section kind of looks like it's floating above everything else because of that, because of the glass band at the second floor.

Um that lower banding kind of provided a visual termination of that upper section, and then when it's paired with the banding for the street level, it kind of provided a bookend on that glass conference level.

Um in looking at the east and west elevations, I also noticed that your corner pilasters on the east and west elevations have gotten narrower and you've lost that um vertical detailing on the pilasters.

Um so I don't know if that was just something that how how that happened.

Um but as you turn that corner from the east or west to the north, it's not a consistent um pilaster design.

Um I'm also Susan, I'm not a fan of the dark brick and the dark mortar.

Um if you look around at the other buildings downtown, they are still they're still red in them, and even if you look at if you're trying to relate back to the CSX, yes, it is a darker brick, but if you really take a look at it, it's a red brick that has brown modeling in it.

Um I would I would like to see a maybe a slighter, slightly lighter shade on the brick.

Um that also kind of goes with the fact that due to constructibility, you've had to pull those reveals back.

Now it's much smaller, and you're gonna get a you're not gonna notice the reveals and projections nearly as much with that dark brick with the shadow and the shadowing that it brings along with the changing of the light.

So I think if you go with a lighter brick, it those shadows and reveals and projections will read a lot better.

Annie on my initial thing, I did like the darker brick, but I do think you bring up a good point that maybe there's some middle ground in between.

I mean, I don't love the orange brick as much, so maybe somewhere in between the two colors where to your point where it has some red undertones but brown modeling.

Um I don't mind the dark as much, but I think like from her point of view, I think that all makes sense.

Um, but I think when it's all said and done after the architects kind of speak to some of these things in more detail, um, it's gonna be a great project.

So my my comment is some brick is some brick color in the middle.

Anyone else?

Because you mentioned the venue, but which has changed greatly, but you were not approving, you're not asking for approval for that tonight, correct?

Oh correct.

It's gone through regional center.

But where does the line stop to where you are asking for approval?

Well, on the elevations, it's that red uh vertical line there.

Um if you go back to the side plan, it's on there as well.

So partially through the venue.

Yeah, the venue is gonna retain the orange barrack.

Uh so you can see where it where it stops and the darker start is the retail.

Well that the change in the design of the venue and its relationship to the overall uh presentation is uh it's problematic for me.

I just don't think that that those two designs work together in the way that they did previously.

No, I'm all for eclecticism and especially in a long facade like that, but um the changes that are made are not for the better on on the venue, and I I don't see that being something that I could get on board with the way it's displayed right now, especially with the way the garage crashes into it.

So I just think that that's kind of a an odd and kind of hastily, seemingly hastily put together facade.

Um to refocus on the thing have to be approved for on the structure itself.

Um I'm I also focused on the fenestration, the articulation of of that.

Those that was one of the things that led me to vote for this as appropriate in the first uh round was the fact that that depth was created in alignment with the historic structures around it, the particularly the century building, which you used as context.

Um I felt that that was a an excellent design decision, and I feel like the the watering down of that detail has is much to the detriment of the overall design.

I also feel that the reduction in fenestration on the north facade, uh, and I assume uh I assume the south facade, um it's subtle when you see it in a foreshortened angle like that when you look at the elevations, the ratio of not to you know, no pun intended, of course, of solid brick to fenestration on the north and south facades are way larger.

The the brick portion is way larger, seemingly than the previous version.

Is there a reason why the fenestr the number of windows was reduced so greatly uh yeah, I can speak to that.

Um mentioned the um luxury product that we're trying to develop have bigger rooms, so the actual grid had to change in order to accommodate the bigger rooms.

So that meant the uh brick and glass have to be respaced to fit to the new grid.

Do you know what the pilaster uh width was on the original design versus what it is now?

Uh it is eight feet now.

Um, six feet before.

What is the window dimension now?

Uh we still have uh 30 30 feet.

So that's uh for a 11 feet windows.

Just the you know, most of the even in the examples that you showed, the pilaster is far more diminutive than the the glass expanse.

And it it just feels um uh you know non-contextual to have such a much larger pilister than the the um glazed area.

Uh it just it starts to feel a little more like a modern uh sort of vertical high-rise building rather than a historical reference uh that that it seemed to be previously.

I if that was what you were going for, then I would say that's one thing, but I don't think that's what you were going for, and it doesn't seem to be successful uh as far as at least from my standpoint.

I I think the windows should be significantly larger than the the pylaster or the pilister.

Um that and then the like I said, the depth are are two things that again led me to vote for this as appropriate originally that are really tough for me to get past on this version.

The the fact that that uh surround on the window has reduced in depth as well.

I mean three-quarters of an inch on the north side, you're not even gonna perceive that against the the brick background.

It's or it's probably half an inch, right?

Because you're you really can't project those bricks any further than that.

Um understand the the surround on the brick, the the projected brick on the the window openings that that only projects about a half an inch from the the rest of the brick surface, is that correct?

Okay, yeah.

So I mean, at that scale at that height, I mean on the north facade, which gets little sun, you know, except for maybe in the extremes of the summer, it just seems like that's gonna be completely illegible and the the facade will read is significantly flatter than the surrounding context, which again one of the reasons that I felt so strongly that this was appropriate on on the original was that there was some significant articulation that was perceptible even in a shadowed elevation, and I think that this current elevation is going to be completely flattened out without with the sun not hitting it most of the day.

So and I think that just to get the shadow line that you did on the east facade, you had to have a pretty grazing uh sun position.

So it's I'm disappointed to see that that uh detail was lost, and and I'm not sure that I can say that this rises to the level of appropriate for me.

But um those are my comments, and I can defer to everybody else for those I was not um as bothered about the color because I was into of the darker brick rather, excuse me, because if I was inferring correctly, it was to uh mimic the darker terracotta.

Is that the intent?

Yeah, the intent is to uh the teracata and the brick color uh cohesive.

And the um the the thing that that bothered me, and Jeanette picked up on one of the items, uh the cornice, the corners and the band around the horizontal band around the uh above the glass at the third floor, I think.

First of all, on the uh the cornice item, what the old version had like a nice coved uh kind of a radius top, and the new cornice has like the the hard angular chamfer uh uh angle at the top.

What was the reason for that?

Was it a taste issue or was it a cost issue?

Um the original uh version uh was uh terracotta um the uh seconded version is a horrible brick.

So those are each brick steps out three-quarters of an inch to create the overall curve.

Okay, so and there's no way to get it radius because of the you might have to get like a special shape or a or just really articulate it in increments.

Okay, yeah, I really liked the cove.

Um I'm not saying that that's inappropriate in my book, but uh that's just my personal taste.

On the corners, though, the uh you know the loss of the um the vertical strip of articulation on the corners.

Why was that remote um once again sir, sir?

I'm afraid the mic won't pick up pick you up from your chair, so yeah, that's okay.

No, we just want to make sure we have it all recorded.

Um yeah, once again, that was just as we developed the brick detailing.

Um we can look at and back in this.

I think it's it looks visually awkward without it, and again, just my eyes, but you know, if there were some compelling reason, you know, I'm all ears, but um I I do think that was a really nice touch on the original design.

And then finally, uh what um I think I know the answer, but the horizontal band around the uh the top of the third floor that aligns with the pedestrian bridge, was the articulation at that level lost for a reason?

Was it a cost or a didn't make sense, or what was the what was your thought?

Oh it was not cost, uh I'll tell you this this new version cost much more than the old version.

But but when things cost more, sometimes you have to scrape as much as you can, just in my experience.

But but that I agree with Anjanette, it does look like a masonry building is being supported by a pane of glass without any kind of visually visual structural element.

I mean, even if it's not really the thing that's holding it up, at least you would have a a reinforced horizontal band that kind of acted as a transition to the glass.

I think that's a really that might be my biggest scripe.

Um I did like the the uh the entrance the way it kind of is set back.

I thought that was a nice touch.

Um I didn't think I I cared about the loss of the terracotta at first, but now I'm I don't know, I'm still ambivalent about it.

The uh it's just the the loss of the detail and the the loss of the depth of the the the masonry detailing.

I understand what you're saying with how you would need to add all kinds of bracing to get it to project that far from the face, but uh at least the horizontal detailing at that third level and the corners I think are really important on the original design, and I I think it's uh I think their loss is a detriment on the current design.

Hand it over.

Anyone else have comments, questions let me just add a few thoughts.

Yes, go ahead.

I I don't see the band that you guys are talking about.

Is it are you talking about like a detailed band or are you talking about yeah, see where the uh the top of the pedestrian bridge hits the building at the sun?

Excuse me.

If you draw a horizontal line around the building, it's that detail.

Okay, so I I thought you were referring to maybe like a color change or something that I wasn't seeing.

Oh, I see what you're doing.

Okay, I see it.

Okay.

That's it.

Um I think a lot of the things Anjanette said I would say verbalized some of my thoughts about it.

Um the the original big brick color in some ways I thought maybe it was just a little too light.

Um I can't I I like the dark brick, but there's something about it that is seems very, very dark on this very very large building.

But what when Anginette pointed out what that's gonna do to the um lack of shadow lines, particularly when the detail is being sort of uh flattened out uh I think it is a is a problem.

I also uh I will restate because it's already been explained, but the I guess third floor or whatever, the glass strip, uh just really seemed bothersome, and uh my fellow commissioners have verbalized what the problem was very well.

Uh it somehow before it looked interesting and uh seemed to work or something.

I but and now it just looks like something's missing.

I don't know.

Um I will also agree with Anson about your change to the facility at the very back, although we don't approve it except I suppose if we wanted to be real picky about the corner of it, but uh just as a comment, I think it's uh was quite interesting before, and now it's rather not anyway.

Uh I think any other comments would you like to have uh I want to I didn't quite understand your last comment.

If you could what part of the building were we you referring to?

The part that we're not approving portion of the venue that is is in the IHPC district.

I I liked it much better before, but that's neither here nor there for the most part.

Would you all like to address uh I do want to say something?

Comments uh need to swear and do I can swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, say I do.

I do thank you.

Hi, my name is Melody Clark.

I represent the box car development as an owner's rep.

I wanted to say that addresses sorry.

Oh, address is gonna be 125 South Pennsylvania Street, Delaware.

I mean, sorry, 125 South Pennsylvania 46204.

So one of the things that I wanted to mention about the uh venue music venue, one of the considerations that we did after we submitted that plan was talk with the regional center and work with them to historically create a context that is not as modern on the outside, and they asked for that uh windows and others, like the four windows to match up with better architecturally between the hotel and what we call the lump area, the transitional area.

So, one of the things that if you go to those four windows right there, the large four windows, they like the 1950 style of that uh music venue with the old hearkening of old theaters better than the modern facility.

So that is something that the ownership kind of wanted to go towards on the music venue was the old style of the 1950s, 60s, and then as for the brick or the color and the use of material, we really wanted to hearken back to that CSX and use the material that is close related to the what was on the old buildings, and then try to stay within the really the high-end experience, guest experience, as well as the overarching uh you know, venue and also the hotel flanking the city's premier street.

So that's what we were going for is the context of really making it look high-end, and we did not make a decision any decision lightly as a cost issue.

It was to make it look high-end and really leave a legacy behind the city that we'd be proud of.

Thank you.

Seems like there's uh lots of opinions about different details that we need to uh look at, and maybe if we can advance um, you know, the comment about the band makes a lot of sense.

Um, there's things we can work on.

Um maybe find a birthday slightly lighter.

Um so I would ask if we could get the variance approval for the taller building, and give the COA contention upon working with staff to get the details to a place.

Um, and if we can't, then we come back.

Um but to delay construction a whole other month is uh Mr.

Chairman as much as I love the staff and trust the staff, this is way too big, I think to to put on them, and our concerns I think are substantial.

So I don't I I would disagree with just making it a staff review, and I'm sure they would be happier if we would would be working on it with them.

So the other comment I wanted to make um is it's it's interesting to me, and this probably doesn't have anything to do with anything except just a reaction, and uh to me when I look at a building, architectural detail says high end, and so take you know so I guess whoever thinks taking the detail away makes it look more high end.

I'd have to hear a little bit more about that because this to again all the detail that we were looking at the last time was just so elegant and um and well thought through.

So I I guess it's a matter of opinion, but it in my opinion we we lost the high-end elegant look when we lost that architectural detail.

I I agree with you that I I still as I sit here, don't understand the rationale of making changes to make it look more high end or be more high end.

Uh it that it's an odd way to define why I think you made the kind of changes you did.

It just doesn't I don't understand it.

Could perhaps you explain, somebody explain why it was low end before and now it's high end.

I I don't think it's fair to say it was low end before and high end now, or vice versa.

But um when you design the hotel, we in this meeting have a tendency to necessarily focus on the the skin, if you will.

And for the owner, it's a holistic approach, which is we we have to take into consideration the inside, go inside and outside, and as was mentioned before, um really taking a different approach on the inside in terms of the size of the rooms, uh, and you start with that and start working outward in terms of what that necessitates in terms of design changes, and a lot of that was driven by that.

And so when we say we're pushing towards the higher end, it's not just the skin, it's the building as a whole, including the inside.

Um so I I hope that it answers your question.

Um and again, I I think there's a concern that somehow this building got value engineered to save costs, and um gosh, I wish that was the case because we'd have money to play around with we do not.

Um now we can go back and look at at some things, but this is not a function of um uh you know cost savings.

Um this a lot of this was born out of of need, one and two constructibility.

Uh I wish we could go back to the original approval and have some of the information we have now in terms of some of the depth of some of the relief that was shown originally.

It is I think when we went back to the engineers and the the masonry people, they kind of looked at us like we were crazy.

Um so the constructibility issue pushed a lot of this as well.

Um those two things really are what's driving the changes that you you see tonight.

Well, just to rebut one thing there, I I mean I understand constructibility uh being an issue, but I think traditionally, if you were going to try and put the brick out uh a little further and create that depth, you'd have a uh a spandrel panel below the windows.

And I mean, I think that that's a pretty common element, especially even in the uh the buildings that you referenced as your um precedents.

So I I think there's a it's possible to get those.

I think that you don't you don't want to interrupt your glass, and I understand that that's um, but that's a more modern element, and I think that something's gotta give you gotta you gotta create that depth in order to make it look like it belongs in in this district because could you go to the Georgia Street um rendering looking what is that west on Georgia Street from ground level?

This one.

Uh the the look in the the west, that one.

Uh the the look in the the west, that one could you zoom in on the upper portion of the north facade there, just really kind of zoom in there.

I mean, that looks very flat.

There is that half-inch projection does not read at all.

So it just looks like a flat brick building with flat windows that are somewhat recessed.

And it that to me does not read like any of the precedent that you showed, and it doesn't read like the district.

It's not a wholesale building.

So that for me is is the problem.

Uh it just lacks the articulation that these beautiful buildings that were built, you know, uh in the 19th century created, and and that's the district that we're in.

That but you know, I I think that generally, I don't think any of us have any problem with the sky plane, and I feel like that's something that we could approve today and separate that out, but I wouldn't support, I don't think I could support approval with these the the massive change in detailing that has been presented.

Yes, engine.

Can you go to the comparison of the East Pennsylvania?

Page 45.

Yep.

Um I the want the whole elevation, the whole flat elevations.

Um I noticed on the section that's just south of the hotel, you added a it looks like you added a third floor, but it's kind of hard to tell because in the street views, that third floor is not showing up, so I don't know where that's sitting.

Um I know before that whole third floor was an outside roof garden kind of space.

So and but you didn't provide any new third floor plans, so I have no idea what's there.

Can you press that?

Yeah, um, part of what you're seeing is a mechanical penthouse that we move from the tall roof down to the low roof.

Um, and then below that is the ballroom uh where you see the windows there.

Okay, so there's no longer a roof garden up there.

Uh there is um uh connection between the venue and the hotel at that second level.

Um that will have pavers, um, the exact configuration of the rest.

We don't know yet.

Okay, so that the third floor is set back, I take it from okay.

It was just I wasn't sure if it was just an earlier rendering, and then that ballroom section got added or because even in that rendering, you can't see it.

Yeah, push back.

Yep, sure.

Meg to your question.

I to a point, yes.

I just I need more information as to what's going up on that third floor now to really understand where that wall sits for the ballroom.

I I I saw that, but I wasn't sure if that was like the bit the very end of the venue, or if it was supposed to be a section cut through that southern section, it wasn't clear to me what I was looking at there.

Meg, you have a comment?

Yeah, I so from what I'm hearing this evening, it's sounding like you're heading towards a continuance, but I think one of the biggest changes that you made on the new drawings is the additional two stories.

So I wanted to get some clarification from the commission.

If you come back, are there any concerns about that?

Because I didn't hear that, so I just want to confirm that because that's also tied to your variance.

So if the commission could offer some comments on that.

I don't think anybody has any problems with that.

Yeah.

Oh my uh is it possible to approve the variants and not the yeah?

Chris and I talked about that just a moment ago.

I don't know if that's even advantageous to you in any way.

I don't see how that would be but if that's something you would want.

Well they can plan around having the extra two stories having the those rooms if they can't plan around that right that's why I asked Chris that question.

So if that would give you a comfort level to continue with the design to know that you at least have the variance to do that we can ask the commission to vote on that.

It it it it would okay it would it would be helpful from that regard okay because we can split this into an A and B and just approve the variance this evening if that's what the commission desires and then bring back part B which would be for the design if that's what you would like to do.

Yeah that would that would be appreciated.

Okay.

And let me add I I think we really want to approve this so you need to just address some of these things so that we can just get over the edge I and I think that's also why I'm comfortable with the approval of the variance because we really want this project to go forward.

So Meg do you uh want to sure I could make a recomm uh staff recommendation yeah staff recording okay so staff would recommend to split the application into a part A and B with part A for the variance only and that the certificate of appropriateness applications of appropriateness recommendation would be to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a variance of development standards for the encroachment into the required sky exposure plan and then I'll ask for a second vote for the variance.

Okay do I hear a motion for that?

Thank you Annie Second Susan all those in favor say aye aye opposed no it that proves okay and for the variance staff recommends to approve a variance of development standards for the encroachment into the required sky exposure plan per submitted drawings and the finding a fact in the December 3rd 2025 IHBC hearing staff report okay do I hear a motion Chris Kristen thank you and and Jeanette oh all those in favor aye aye opposed all right it's and then I'll make a recommendation for the continuance to continue part B to the January 7th IHBC hearing 2026.

All right do I hear a motion Annie do I hear a second answer thank you all those in favor say aye.

Aye any opposed it's approved we look forward to seeing it and really are hopeful that we can approve it I think thank you okay we're done is there any additional business any meeting