All right.

Good evening.

I'll call the January 2026 Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission meeting to order.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Thank you for hope everybody had a nice holiday and thank you for joining us this evening.

We'll start with approval of the minutes from November and December that were in the packet.

Any corrections, comments for the minutes?

And just for the record, I did get a couple of uh comments from the commissioners, and those changes will be made.

Okay.

All right.

Any comments this evening then?

All right.

If not, I'll take a motion for the approval of the two sets of minutes, please.

Thank you, Kristen.

Thank you, David.

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

Uh any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We have no old business this evening.

Uh we do have a couple of items on new business.

So, Meg, do you want to take us through those two items, please?

Sure.

Um, just like as every January, uh, we ask for a new election of officers.

And right now we have the same slate.

So President Brown, uh, Vice President David Bicker and Secretary Susan Williams.

So we just need to vote for that slate unless there are some other nominations.

All right, thank you.

Thank you all, agreeing to serve again.

And uh I'll take a motion for the slate as presented.

Annie, thank you, and get a second.

Thanks, Shannon Jeanette.

Any final comments?

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

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

And we've got 621 Lockerbie Street.

Meg, you want to jump into that?

Sure.

Um so for those of you not familiar, the uh IHBC's state law does have some language in it that gives you the authority to enforce maintenance on structures.

And so I have asked the property owner of 621 Lockerbie to come before you this evening uh just to give an update on where they're at with making repairs to the property.

It is currently under enforcement with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

Um, but it has been a rat relatively lengthy process, and so we're trying to hope to see some movement on making repairs.

Um the property owner has been very responsive to us, and I'll let them provide some testimony this evening.

I do think that um their attorney is here to also speak.

So if you would like to give them a chance to speak and give an update, and then um Emily also has some updates on the COA application that we recently received.

Okay.

All right.

Is uh Rhonda K.

Duval or their representative here?

Yeah, please come forward.

Um and we'll need to swear you in.

Uh and then Grace, if you could do that.

Raise your right hand for me, please.

Both of you.

Thank you.

Do you swear to tell the truth and not nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Just name and address when you speak, and then just present your case.

Uh 621 Lockerby Street, Rhonda Duvall.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

And my name is Ari Lipinski, I represent Ms.

Ronda Duval.

Okay.

And you can move the microphone if you need to, so you don't have to lean over.

We aren't here to dispute that the property needs uh work.

Uh Ms.

Duval is aware that there are significant repairs that sorry.

We're not here to dispute that the property needs some work.

Miss Duvall is aware that there are significant repairs that need to be made to the property to bring it into compliance.

She's taken steps to complete that work.

Um she has completed a COA.

She's been in contact with Emily Jarzen.

Uh she's hired a contractor.

Um Mr.

Toms.

Um Mr.

Thoms has been in contact with Ms.

Jarzan about the COA and they're trying to, I believe they're trying to.

Well, I won't speak to that because it's sounds like we're going to hear from her, but I I can say that Ms.

Duval is is doing everything she can now to try to bring the property into compliance.

And uh the only thing standing between preventing the property from being into compliant bringing brought into compliance right now is the contractor completing the work.

And uh unfortunately she can't complete the work on her own.

She she has to rely on contractors to do that.

And so we are just respectfully requesting the commission to withhold authorizing the administrator to pursue civil enforcement action uh to give her some more time to to complete the the repairs and bring the property into compliance.

Can can you speak to the timing of the repairs of how long it would take or anticipated to take, let's put it that way.

I cannot.

I I don't know how long it will take the contractor to complete the work.

I know that there's a meeting scheduled uh with Ms.

Okay.

Yeah, that's all I can say on that.

Okay.

All right.

And any comment from yourself?

Um it's just that um I'm I'm I'm not happy with the situation with the property.

Um I will make the repairs.

And as far as I know, um weather permitting, um, as soon as they can start, we're gonna start from you know the chimney to the roof and the outside.

So start as soon as I can.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Emily, why don't you give us an update from your perspective, please?

Yes, so the uh owner has applied for a variety of work at the property, including a re-roof, gutters, porch root, porch work, um, and siding.

And so um I did have a discussion with the contractor.

Um we're still trying to work out some details on the scope of the project, and part of that is that I need to go see the property to better understand uh conditions of some of the materials so that we can solidify a full scope of work and we have that set up for next week.

Okay, all right, that's fine.

Meg, do you have any place?

So, and just for clarification, we don't normally use this language in the statute because the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services unsafe buildings program is you know the ones that primarily enforce maintenance.

However, because of the time frame that this has gone uh on for several years now, and because of the number of complaints that we've gotten and the condition of the property, there is concern that we are going to be in a situation where somebody is here asking for demolition of the property and we're trying to get ahead of that.

Uh fortunately, Ms.

Duvall has been very responsive, and so we're hoping to have her come back next month and then the following month before you to give you an update.

Um, hopefully we'll have all good news for you, and so that we can monitor this moving forward, and if for some reason that doesn't work out, then we can look at other enforcement action, but we would obviously prefer that she focus putting money into the property to get that into compliance.

Um we are working with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services on the list of uh enforcement action that's on the property, so they will continue to do their rule, and um and for just for clarification, they are a separate entity, they will enforce as they normally do, but this is just in tandem with that, and we're partnering with them to help her um make some progress on the property.

So we're just asking for your permission tonight to move forward with that and for her to come back next week, so we can hopefully see some progress.

Or sorry, next month, not next week.

Thanks, Meg.

Questions, comments from the commission?

David, please go ahead.

Excuse me.

Have you signed actually signed a contract with your contractor?

Um, I have estimates and um he needs to uh meet with Ms.

Jarson, she wants more details, and he's gonna write that up.

And when we agree upon the materials and specifics.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Susan, please.

Yes, it's my understanding that the property is vacant, and yet you gave it as your address.

And so if that's your address on record, are you receiving the mailings and the notices and everything you're supposed to receive?

I have received the latest ones at at my current address, yes.

And does the staff have your current address?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, and and that's a great question because I think a lot of the time that has taken for us to get to this point is because the recorded address of notice is the vacant property.

And so we actually had to reach out to um some other uh departments within local government to try to identify uh uh address where she's actually living at to serve her properly, and we were able to do that, and and she was very responsive once she got the letter, so that seemed to do the trick.

So for the record tonight, we probably actually need your red address that you are living at, not the address of the property.

So if you could just state that, so Grace can put that in the record.

It's 225 East North Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Thank you.

Okay, any other comments from the commission?

Uh are we yeah, David, go ahead, please.

The action that you're asking us to approve for you.

Um I would remember and understand it correctly.

It's uh you can uh what you call it?

Um you could uh reverse that action at any time if there's if things are going well, right?

And there'd be no penalty on the owner at all.

That's right.

Yeah, and in the report, we mentioned that if if for some reason she comes into compliance and everything is handled, we're not going to send this to the prosecutor.

That's not our our goal.

We don't want to do that.

So if after next month and the month after that, everything is good and she's no longer um out of compliance with BNS.

Um then we'll we'll just move forward with that.

So I don't see this as necessarily an adversarial thing.

Um insurance policy in case things don't go as well as I it sounds tonight like I I actually have some hope from hearing from you that things will go well and that you'd be able to pull out of that.

Um but I, for one, given the history of this property, uh wouldn't be opposed to allowing the staff to move forward with that action myself.

That's just me.

Yeah, I guess I guess I'd like to hear from Meg if we think we want to move forward or whether it's better to just sit tight for another month and see how this goes.

Right.

It was not my plan to forward this to the prosecutor just yet.

So if we do not see progress, then we can revisit that.

But for now, I think Ms.

Duvall is doing exactly what we've been asking, and um we would like for her to continue to do that and make some progress.

Okay.

Are you okay with that?

Okay, all right.

So do we do you need a motion or do you just need acclamation that we're okay with this?

If you can just affirm that we're okay to move forward with that, and we'll see her next month.

Okay, yeah, I think we're we're agreed to that.

So that will be fine.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And she'll come back under old business.

Yes, if if you're able to come back at the next meeting, we will put this under old business just for progress update.

Okay, perfect.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh uh.

All right, we'll now move to the public hearing portion of the uh of the meeting, and let me read the rules of procedure and introduce the commission members and staff.

Uh to my right is Anson Keller, Commissioner, uh, myself, Bill Brown, President, uh, David Baker, uh, Vice President, uh, Susan Williams, Secretary, Deesa Watson uh Summers in the front here, uh, Commissioner and Jeanette Silvilich, uh Commissioner, uh Kristen Wiggs, Commissioner, and Annie Lear, uh, 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.

Margaret Marleho, our architectural reviewer, and Caroline Anna Maker, uh, our architectural reviewer.

Uh the the Commission has copies of IC 36-7-11.1, the Marion County zoning ordinances, the historic preservation zoning ordinance, and all historic area plans for Marion County on file, in 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's 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 believe 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 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.

Both of those steps will be allowed up to a maximum of 20 minutes.

Then we'll ask for objections or remonstrations to the application.

That will be allowed up to a maximum of an additional 20 minutes.

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

Before calling the first case, I'd like to swear everyone in who's going to speak to any of the cases this evening, and Grace will uh will swear you in if you would please stand up and do so.

Please raise your hand for me.

I do.

Thank you.

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

Say I do.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Grace.

We have one expedited case this evening.

Uh Meg, do you want to take us uh through that expedited case, please?

For 40 excuse me, 2025 COA 477 New Augusta and 2025 ZON 21.

The address is 4630 West 71st Street.

Uh the applicant is Cassandra Thomas, and the request is to rezone from C1 to D3, or yes, D3.

And um Caroline just mentioned that in in a staff report, it just needs to be corrected that it's um uh the D C1 to D3 instead of the C S to D9 that's in the recommendation.

So we just make note of that.

All right.

Uh we'll take two votes on this.

Yeah, okay.

Uh could I uh any comments first of all from the public on the expedited case?

Anyone in the commission, any comments on the expedited case?

Okay, if not, I'll take a motion for the approval of the expedited case as presented by staff, please.

Thank you, Anjanette.

Get a second, please.

Hansen, thank you.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

And we'll take a motion for the zoning to switch from C to D8.

Is that what it is?

C1 to D1 to D to D3.

Sorry.

I didn't correct it on my screen here.

Uh get a motion for that zoning uh change, please.

Thanks, uh Kristen.

Thanks, Anneette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Uh any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh we're now ready to move to applications to be heard, which are continued.

Uh, the first case this evening I need to recuse myself from.

So David will be chairing that, then I will step away.

Case uh 2024 COA 226, amendment 1b wholesale district, 230 South Pennsylvania Street.

Jennifer Milliken is the applicant.

Um you please state your name and address uh and give you a presentation.

Uh good evening, members of the commission.

For the record, Tim Oaks, attorney and Ice Miller with offices at one American Square, suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200, representing the uh property owner in the petitioner in this case, boxcar development LLC.

Um this was heard last month, as everybody will recall.

Um at that time, uh, interestingly enough, I used on a number of occasions that changes were being made that were being prompted by uh I think I used the phrase enhanced customer experience.

Um that was a bit cryptic at the time, I'm sure you might have thought.

Um, what that was really getting after is what everyone now knows if you've read any of the media outlets today, which is um the hotel will be flagged or branded as a Ritz-Carlton, um, which is uh interestingly enough, the brand name in and of itself is an historic brand, um, which I find interesting, but um it is an enhanced customer experience that really was driving some of the design changes uh for the building, which in particular uh created um larger room spaces in a in a different ordering of some of the support columns.

Um now having said that uh we heard a number of issues that the commission uh uh raised uh when looking at the revised plans.

We we listened.

Uh we took the time to go back and try to adjust and address those concerns.

Um we believe we have.

Um, and I'm gonna turn this over to Jeff from Ratio, who's gonna go through the specific design changes.

Thank you, Tim.

Uh Jeff Jeff Milliken, 101, South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Um Tim mentioned we uh we studied this quite a bit, uh looking at the elevations as far as the proportions.

Um and what where we landed was increasing the width of the windows by 16 inches, and thus thusly decreasing the width of the piers by 16 inches, and we think that really increases the verticality, and uh from a proportion standpoint is much nicer building.

So very pleased with that change.

Uh it was pointed out that the uh vertical detail at the building corners had gone missing, so we brought that back.

Um so there's uh at all four corners of the building, uh new roadlock in a vertical stripe going up.

Um we think that helps.

The uh another set of comments we got was the band above the glass at the third floor uh previously had more detail to it, and so we came back to uh that similar detail again.

So we've got uh two bands of protruding brick that are uh um accentuated by terracotta melons that line up with each of the piers.

Uh so it's similar to the second floor band repeating itself at the third floor.

Um that gives the tower sort of a nice way to land transitioning down into the glass meeting rooms.

The uh the projection of the brick at the windows was another comment we got.

Um it had been three-quarters of an inch, and we working with the masons were able to pull that out so that it is now one and a quarter inches, so almost double the projection.

So the shadow line around the window gets greater, but also the distance from the face of the brick to the window itself increased as well.

Um finally the uh canopies uh not knowing the full extent of uh the tenant mix on the ground floor.

We really don't know where the entrance doors are gonna go.

We um intend to have a canopy at an entrance door.

However, uh for this mission, we pulled most of the retail canopies off.

You can see the image up on the screen now is the main hotel entrance.

Um the canopies flanking it were slightly uh simplified from the last version you've seen.

Um very happy with the uh recessed entrance and how that's presented itself.

I so I'm just gonna leave it at the changes that were made.

Um any other questions, um, I'd be glad to help clarify, but uh we believe those six items are helping with the quality of the architecture and um living up to the the luxury blank brand that uh that we have now I I just want to take a minute to uh expand a little bit on what Jeff indicated.

So um when he said that we made the piers on all four sides, the brick piers on all four sides more narrow by 16 inches and the windows wider by 16 inches.

I I'm not sure that captures what the can it that you know yes it addresses we think the concerns of the commission raised, but I I think we can put that in a in a little bit different terms to kind of reinforce what why we think that addresses the concern.

So on the very original plans that were approved back in September of 24, the difference between the width of the windows and the width of the piers, the windows were two feet four inches wider.

And what we heard at the last hearing was you know the windows are now too close to the same width as the piers.

It doesn't look as good.

And you that was correct.

The difference in the width on the north and south side of the building was had been reduced to one foot, and on the uh east and west, it was six inches.

And so you so when we swap these around and we say, okay, we're gonna change these by 16 inches, we're we're doing that for each window in each column.

We're we're doing that for each window in each column.

What what that ends up meaning is that the width difference now between a the window and a pier on the north and south side is three feet ten inches.

That's actually uh one foot and six inches more than the original design.

Um and then on the east and west side, we went from six inches, you know, all the way up to um over three feet, and again, that's over a foot more width than on the original design.

And so I wanted to point that out because I think it illustrates a little bit better than simply saying we move things 16 inches.

Uh what we heard was change the proportions of the building back to what it originally was because we like that better, and I think that that's what we've done.

Um finally uh two other comments.

One, we we doubled the depth of uh the how far out the the row lock protrudes on the building.

Those are the vertical bricks uh that are on the side of the building.

Not only did we add them to all four corners to mimic what was originally approved, but we doubled their depth.

Um we've taken them out to an inch and a quarter, which is um as absolutely as far as the brick masons.

We've we've actually went and talked to them and said how how far can we go?

And they said don't go beyond an inch and a quarter, you will run into troubles.

You run into troubles with maintenance, uh, and it's a nightmare for a building of this size that keep it.

So we went so that the the relief, the difference, that depth we went as far as the brick masons are telling us.

Um so we think we addressed all of the concerns, and the one that we haven't mentioned because it wasn't changed was the brick color.

Um we understand that some members felt that the new brick uh was too dark, and um uh that feature, quite frankly, is um a lot you can say a lot of things are aesthetic, but certainly brick color more probably more than anything else is purely aesthetics, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Um it would be one thing if the color was something that you would not have seen a hundred years ago back in the heyday of the wholesale district.

But the truth of the matter is this was a wholesale district of warehouses, and uh suggest that some of the warehouses didn't have dark brick, I think would be unfair.

Um the task of the commission is to um give a certificate of appropriateness because what's being presented is appropriate in the context of the historic plan.

And um we looked uh and considered different brick colors, and um frankly, ownership uh just didn't like those colors as much.

And so we've stuck with that, but we did understand all of the other issues and concerns, uh, and we think we've addressed those.

So with that, uh we thank you for your time, and we'd certainly be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this project?

Anyone who wishes to speak in support of it.

Okay.

Staff, do you have so I don't have any additional comments this evening other than what was in the report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right, commissioners.

Um anyone have questions, comments?

Yes.

Um can you go to page 86 of the PDF?

I'm just wondering what the big black box is above the garage entrance.

The the garage elevator entrance.

Uh that is the elevator overrun for the um garage.

The there's two stories of parking underneath the project, and the elevators will come up uh to serve the retail and the hotel and that top level deck, the amenity deck.

The amenity deck that's on the roof.

Okay.

So I don't know if you might want to look at doing something a little bit different with that.

And I understand your desire for the dark brick color.

But to me, it's still black.

You're using black brick with black mortar.

And that's nothing that you see anywhere in the hotel district.

That I think would probably be a better fit for the district.

Because you're gonna have a dark shadow on black.

And then also it once we get this building up in the district.

If we do decide to go with black, that's kind of a bit more permanent than paint.

So I think we need to take a higher level of conscientiousness when we're looking at the color of the building.

And that's all I have to say.

Anybody anybody else?

Sorry.

We do have the sample if anybody wants to see it again.

May I address the the comments?

Would that be acceptable?

Yes, please.

Sure.

So a couple things.

One try is the graphic artist and computer software might um shadow lines never show up as well on paper and ink as they do in real life.

Um it's 2D instead of 3D.

And you know, we believe that the shadow lines will certainly be noticeable out.

I'll say in real life.

Um we appreciate the relief and the shadow lines that are created.

We don't want them to be invisible, but the truth is we don't expect them to be invisible.

Are they going to be as noticeable as if the building were lighter?

Well, probably not.

That's not a fair statement either, but will they be visible?

Yet, yes, we we believe they will.

And then with respect to the um elevator uh column, that is we have to have that.

It's you know, we can't do it without it.

Um it it it is it'll be offset about 10 feet back from the edge of the building, just so you know.

Uh, and that is a metal, a metal paneling over the top of that, but certainly um we'd be happy.

I think I think that's a minor enough detail.

I would hope we certainly willing to continue discussions with the material that's facing on the side of the top of that with staff.

We will be coming back for approval on the actual construction drawings.

Uh, and hopefully uh certainly by that time, I think we'll we'll we can have that the materiality of that elevator shaft nailed down a little better.

Anson.

Thanks, David.

Um we've used this dark iron spot brick uh quite a bit on projects in historic districts as well, and the the specularity of it is um something that I encourage you to consider that uh the sheen of that brick uh makes it lighten up when you see it uh even in adjacent and not even direct sunlight conditions.

So me personally, I don't find that that color problematic, and I find the iron spot actually to be um compatible with a historic uh use.

So just I would consider that in your um tempering your your uh opposition.

Um I appreciate the widening of the window uh that the windows that have been um incorporated that uh I think while subtle does um help with its integration into the district.

Uh and while I wish that the projection could be more, I think that um an effort has been made and and I would acknowledge that.

Um the one thing that uh I commented on the last time that I um I just can't get past is the and and I'm sure this is probably not your priority in this meeting, but the union of the venue to the south and this project I think is um particularly weak, uh weakened from its original um iteration.

So this the original design was more cohesive and read more as a single uh development.

Whether that was purposeful or not to change that, I'm I don't know, or whether it was purposeful at all for it to be that cohesive, I don't know.

Um, but the original design of the venue had a flourish that made it a uh capstone on the design to the south, and it it really um mitigated the the weight of the development to the north.

So it held its own against that massive uh tower by comparison.

This design, current design, and this is not to say that this is a bad design, it's to say that it does not have it's diminutive by comparison and in both aesthetics and in scale.

And so while the entirety of it is not in our purview, the connection of these two developments is in our purview, and I don't find it to be appropriate uh in the way that they connect together and that that it continues to the south.

So those that continues to to be something that I just can't quite get on board with and I find problematic and and not appropriate for this district.

Yeah, we are appreciate those comments, and um frankly, what we're comfortable with this evening would be to ask for approval of the amended um coa for everything starting we we call it the lump, the middle part that has the retail space that extends all the way to where you you have the the entrance into the garage.

And I if I understand your comments, it's it's right at the entrance to the garage and what happens south of that where you have the problem.

And I and I think um there's a story to be told there.

Um I don't uh I think it it hasn't been submitted appropriately to the commission, and we'd like an opportunity to come back.

So if you uh are so inclined to approve the project, what we would ask would it be an amendment for the lump, the retail space and the tower, and then we'll leave the portion of the event venue um for another day when um the changes can be explained and maybe uh tweaked, but I I do appreciate your comments.

I'm comfortable with that if staff is okay with separating it that way.

Yeah, I think that's why the commission felt comfortable having them come back under old business for the final construction drawings because so many of these details still need to be fleshed out.

So if you're all comfortable with those changes happening on those set of drawings, then we can work with them to get to that point and bring those back to you later.

I think I'm okay with that.

Um I would like to clarify is that that retail portion that you mentioned that's just to the north of the venue.

Uh is that brick the same as the hotel brick because it renders differently.

The intent is that it is the it's the same brick because it is definitely a different brick in the it looks like it again that the uh slight inaccuracies of ink and printing.

Um it's supposed to be the same brick.

Okay.

I think that's my comments.

Annie, I guess I would be in agreement as well.

I guess the only thing I would say is kind of being supportive of Anson.

It's one thing to come back with a story, like I know you want to explain maybe why those changes happen from the beginning.

I think maybe what hopefully you're hearing us say it needs to be more than a story, I feel like.

I mean, I know you're working with you know a different group on that building.

Um I guess I just want to be in supportive of support of saying like the original part of it I loved in the beginning, like the first rendering of that venue.

I mean, I love the hotel, I'm okay with the brick color and all of that, and I'm super excited about the project.

I think you might just reconsider if you can, because I think it's one thing to have a story, but if it's not like the story is one thing, the design is another.

Um so I think being broken up isn't a bad idea.

I just would consider it being more than a story, and really considering that you had a lot of support for the be that initial um rendering of the venue.

So it's just food for thought.

Thank you, though.

Excited about the project.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um I just have this is just my opinion.

The color of the brick, the change in that color, I don't really have an issue with most high-end hotels do use a darker brick.

And since we know it is going to be a Ritz carton, I don't think you can get much higher than that unless you're looking at a specialized boutique hotel.

Um I think when you get into a lot of colored bricks, you're dealing with a different type of hotel.

Because you're really trying that that brand wants to shout out to everyone.

Uh the darker brick, um, when you go to Chicago, um Michigan Avenue, all of those high-end hotels, they have the darker brick.

Um I was just there in November staying at the Swiss Hotel.

It's a dark brick.

And to me, it it adds more class than all these lighter color bricks.

Um like I say, that's my personal opinion.

Um, but I don't have an issue with the brick.

Uh changing color.

Okay.

David, if I could just add real quick.

Shelby just reminded me that there is a stipulation in the recommendation to do material mock-ups.

So the commission will have an opportunity to look at those probably around the same time as they'll come back with the final construction drawing.

So if it's darker than everybody envisioned, or there's some other brown version of it that we want that that would be a good time to be able to see the real material and what it will look like in real life and comment after they see after you all see that.

Anyone else?

Okay, I have a few comments.

Um I think that the changes that you've made to it uh have really improved it.

It's kind of interesting how small and subtle changes actually make sometimes a big difference.

Uh I was one of them that was not entirely comfortable with the brick color.

Um, but I've a couple things.

First, the proportion of glass to brick now having changed.

First thing I noticed in the elevation draw or in the uh perspective drawings is how that changes the impact of the dark brick.

Somehow it seems it just helps to have more glass in relationship to the brick, which made me when I saw that more comfortable with the brick color.

Um I also noticed as we were looking at it that there is something of a sheen to it, which is going to uh change the way it looks out in the real world.

I also know that the way you look at those things, because it drives has always driven me crazy to look at those brick sample things.

The real what once it's up, it never looks like the same thing.

I sort of think that I'm gonna be surprised, and it's not going to uh look as dark and foreboding because of the uh the sheen to it and some of the uh you know it's not just a plain black.

Because of the uh the sheen to it and some of the uh, you know, it's not just a plain black.

So I'm comfortable with the color the way it's presently done.

Uh then lastly, I just want to make a comment about the entertainment venue because I did agree with Anson about it last time.

Um it's not horrible, but it's just not as interesting as it was.

I also understand and appreciate that you were dealing with a different agency and you've got two different viewpoints and that sort of thing.

So I guess I would just ask the staff, because I know the staff works right along with the regional center people and everything.

Uh this may be one of those cases where there need to be some conversations about what the two different staffs were looking for.

I mean, and after all, we we are the experts in that wholesale district.

Um maybe applicant and the staff working on all that can get that turned around a little bit to get some of the interestingness that has been lost.

Um, do you have any more final comments?

No, uh then again to thank the commission for their time and and thoughtful consideration.

So thank you.

Meg, do you want to read the emotion?

I do.

Um just for one correction I wanted to point out in the recommendation.

If you remember last month we split this into an A and B.

So I'm gonna read this and I'm gonna say part B because it doesn't say that in there.

Um and then at the bottom, you'll see that the variance recommendation was inadvertently left in there.

So I'm not gonna read that because we already proved that.

For COA 2024 COI226, Amendment 1B, wholesale district.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to amend the previously approved plans to include increasing the height of the tower section of the building by two floors, changes to the fenestration, detailing and the brick color, and I'm gonna have you the record uh strike the last sentence, which is about the variance, um, and then per submitted documentation and subject to the seven stipulations and two notes in the staff's written report.

All right.

Do I hear a motion?

Uh Anson, thank you.

And uh Annie seconded.

Thank you.

Um all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Thank you.

Annie needs to recuse herself from this case.

Uh the next case is 2025 COA 301, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, address 656 East Arch Street.

Abby Robertson is the applicant.

Looks like she's at the podium.

Please uh state your name and address, please, and present your case to us.

Yes.

Um Abby Robertson, uh representing ANOVO and Parker and Julie, the owners of this project.

Address 9663 Elm Drive, that's Kermel, Indiana.

Okay.

So I know it's been a few months since we last presented um here at the to you all.

Uh so I wanted to just um, you know, it's taken a little time to kind of thread the needle between uh the feedback that we have from you all, the last hearing, um, trying to find that in-between solution, um, working with staff feedback and um the requests that they were making as well, as well as really just um those changes brought along a few concessions that Parker and Julie had to make on the design.

And so was it that it took um some extensive work to move the addition further back on the existing home and really figure out how we were going to utilize the new space or the reappropriated space um in a way that was still functional and and made sense for Parker and Julie to move forward with the project.

So on this, as we did the last time we presented, the neighborhood still is giving overwhelming support to this project.

Parker and Julie have been long-term members of this neighborhood and community, been there for 10 years plus, really put down roots.

They want to continue, they love the neighborhood, they want to continue to grow their family there.

And just reminding this this project is a long-term home for them.

So it's not something that they're desiring to live in for a couple of years and move out.

They really want to grow their family, and with that, then that's leading to some of the considerations in the the size, the scale.

This is including the main living or the existing structure plus the addition is just a little over 2,000 square feet, 2015 square feet.

The overview of some of the high level changes, and I could talk for quite a bit about all of the changes in the process that we went through to land where we are.

But I'll spare you from that right now.

And we'll just hit some of the high levels.

So high level, we work to move that addition where the addition line started.

We moved that nine feet further back.

And so what that did is it allowed us to uh keep two of those existing openings on the east side of that porch of the side porch.

And so there's an existing door and an existing window, and that was one of the comments that we heard from you all.

There's a way that we can salvage that, and uh the intent is then you know, some of those the beautiful uh trim and architraved detail that you see on those doors and windows, we would restore that to the best of our ability or replace with matching profiles, materials very much like a light for like uh kind of replacement for whatever is beyond repair, and to restore that also to the front windows, so maintain that character and bring it onto the front as well, maintaining uh rafter details of the existing structure and trying to carry that on into the new addition as well.

We so we moved the addition nine feet further back.

Um the actual addition portion of the house, we decreased by five feet.

Um by moving that addition nine feet further back, it was really working through, we're losing that backyard space.

So then we had to think through how are we gonna divide and take some, you know.

We lost a little backyard space.

That was one of the concessions that I know Parker and Julie had to kind of wrestle with.

Um, and then we also lost some of our interior footprint.

So we lost about five feet of what we had previously planned on the addition.

You'll notice that if you see a square footage, you know, staying the same slash increasing a little bit.

Um, it's really increasing square footage of the second floor of that main structure or the existing structure, which is not highly usable because of the headroom uh limitations that are there.

So it's really that second floor area of that particular space is more utilized just for a bedroom space.

It's uh really challenging, difficult to work anything else in there without adding dormers or something that would impact the character of the existing structure.

So through these changes, again, uh decided to go ahead and decrease how uh how much we moved it back into the backyard, that decreased the size of the actual addition, um the the length of the addition.

And in that we had to rework where the layout, the living room, uh we moved to the front, and we lost that home office.

So that was another thing that you know, again, just those decisions and kind of working through those concessions and trying to come to a middle ground, which I think is something that you had requested at our last hearing was just finding an in-between solution.

So we really feel like we we've worked uh very hard to really try and show that and present that to you all tonight.

The next thing was we removed the wraparound front porch.

Um at the last hearing, it seemed that we heard some openness towards the proposal of the front the wraparound porch.

Uh the neighbors are in full support of that.

Canna is in full support of that.

We have a letter from Canna supporting uh the proposed, the original proposed design, letters of support from the neighbors.

Um I know people uh spoke at the last hearing in support of it as well.

So that is still a strong desire to have that.

You'll see that was removed from the plans, and that was really removed off of trying to work with staff and comments that they were making and really trying to find something and in-between solution that they would fully support.

Um, but that is a really strong desire, and something we would love to at least have as a topic of discussion and the ability of adding that back on.

And I I think on that note, the openness from the commission was because it's historic historically been seen that these houses have had porches added, removed, added, and there's been some changes that have happened over the years on these.

So it's noted in a couple uh places that we are requesting to demolish 90% or the majority of the existing structure that we're trying to demolish more than what we had presented last time.

Um we feel we believe we're demolishing less because we are moving that addition nine feet further back on the house, and so we're actually saving closer to 70 over 70 percent of that existing gable structure with the side porch on the front.

Um it was noted that we were removing the existing home's roof structure and all of the exterior sidings and siding and basically taking it down to studs and um removing of all of the interior spaces, removing more of the west wall.

So I just wanted to give some responses to those.

We again reduced, we believe by everything that we're our measurements and and truly we just we reduced the level of demolition by moving that addition nine feet further back on the house.

Um we did line up.

So on the previous proposal, our addition actually had a jaunt in it.

So part of it started further up, the part on the wet, the part on the east side started further up, the part on the west side started a little further back.

Um we decided after further investigation on construction methods, how we're gonna shore up between this existing structure and the structure to the west.

There's literally only three feet between this home and the house to the west of it.

And so it's just it's a bit of cause concern on how we're going to just be very mindful in that and securing this structure during the construction process, making sure we um properly shore it up and then create a clean construction uh break and and how those two uh structures join.

So that was the reasoning for that.

Ultimately, that west wall that we're that's saying that we're demolishing is relatively a small portion.

Um, and again, that's really just to line those up.

That would all start at the same point, and again, we moved that addition point nine feet further back on the existing structure.

The in terms of siding and materials and the roof construction, um, those are anything that is ahead of where the addition start would start, we would maintain and restore to the best of our ability anything that has deteriorated beyond repair.

Um, our intent is to find a like for like material, uh, a matching profile, matching scale to replace it with, and again capturing those arch trave detail and the beautiful trim work on those existing openings on the east side, mimicking that then on the front of the house to carry that character around.

Uh we've worked on numerous land uh Indiana landmarks projects and we've done very similar things on those and found it very successful in working through that.

And again, just want to make it clear our proposal is not to completely take this house down to studs and remove all exterior materials.

We want to salvage those existing rafter details and um maintain as much of the character of the existing home as possible.

In terms of the interior spaces, um, based on what we're seeing in the CAMA plan, I I think that's being counted against us towards demolition.

Um it's our understanding based on what we're reading in there that that shouldn't apply.

So just wanted to point that out as well.

So tonight, and I know um we have some more people speaking on this, so I'll keep my section here short, but we're seeking approval of the design that we've proposed.

We really feel we've massaged this as much as we can to still make it a livable space for Parker and Julie and some a place that's gonna help them grow and stay in this neighborhood long term and be a wise investment for the time and energy that they need to put in this.

Um so we're seeking approval on the proposed design tonight, and then a consideration of adding that wraparound porch back on the front.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Name and address, please.

Uh Julie Hale, 660 each East Arch Street.

Um, the house here.

Uh I just want to start by saying that I realize that we benefited a lot from the historic uh commission.

That's one of the reasons that Chathamarch is so beloved.

It's a beautiful neighborhood.

But as Abby mentioned, this is really only a project we can move forward with.

It just requires so much commitment, big financial impact if there's enough room to make it feasible.

Uh it's it's noted that the scaling of the house is historic, but a lot of these smaller reservations that perfectly preserve that small scale of the house are are really little limited by the financials and livability of the house.

Um I think it's worth saying that the economics can be hard in Chattamarch.

Uh, there's been a lot of houses built or bought.

Um we counted up that the number of Airbnbs are continuing to grow.

There's around 25 in just the four blocks around our home.

And the most recent, so whole most recent home that was sold has actually already been turned into an Airbnb within two months of sale on 9th and park.

So just to reiterate, we've worked a lot um on this design to create something that we think blends the look of the neighborhood, the feel of the neighborhood.

I know that a lot of the neighbors are happy with what we are presenting with something that we can live in long term, continue to contribute to the neighborhood, and just hope that you consider those nuances that Abby walked through.

So, Marker, thank you, Dad.

Just want to say if you guys want us to keep the vinyl siding, we might not be on the same page.

So okay.

Hopefully, there's something salvageable under there.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Abby.

You can get some others.

Yeah.

Yeah, go ahead and come forward, please.

Yeah.

Name and address, please.

Lucas Mendel, 652 East Art Street.

I'm here because I care deeply about the outcome of this decision.

I'm the house three feet west of their new build.

Um I'm honestly scared of the outcome.

I'm scared because I think what you're gonna do is wrong.

Um it's not complicated to me in my mind, it's not nuanced, it's just wrong.

As a reminder, we're talking about a home that's been abandoned for over 20 years.

For two decades, it's been rotting and an unlivable eye sword that stands in direct contrast to the beauty of our neighborhood.

We have a couple, a very brave couple that's willing to invest their money and their time in their future to bring it back to life.

Um, and they're not trying to do anything over the top extreme.

They're not building a mansion.

Um, this seems very reasonable to me.

Um, so I have a simple question that I want to pose to you guys.

What is the downside to each decision?

And which one do you actually care about?

If the vote is no, you've cost them a fortune, you've crushed their dreams, and you've guaranteed that this house stays abandoned for who knows how much longer.

Those are real consequences.

If you say yes, I want you to ask what's the downside.

The roof line changes slightly.

We were we were talking about shadows earlier.

Maybe because it's a little bit bigger, a castle 5% larger shadow, snow doesn't melt quite as quickly in the winter.

That's a downside.

I honestly can't think of of anything else.

And so I think by voting no, you're not protecting history, you're protecting neglect.

You're choosing decay over common sense, and you're punishing the people that are willing to fix it.

Um if tonight ends and the house is still abandoned, again, like the company that spoke before us it's with the Ritz Carlton.

They can probably play this game for a long time and you know, this color brick, that color brick, and fight over nuances of it's a black box, and I want it to be white.

This is a single couple that can't play that game quite as long as the Ritz Carlton.

And so if tonight ends with a house still abandoned, then congrats.

You got your way.

And I think you've shown us the true side of like what this committee is.

And I hope for the sake of our neighborhood you reconsider.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

Seeing none, we're ready for staff comment.

Morgan.

Um I'm gonna quickly run through the items in my staff report.

So staff uh does not believe that this request is compliant with the plan or the commission's feedback from the October 1st, 2025 hearing.

Um in my report, I outline the seven or not seventh, excuse me, five reasons for this.

Um I can go through them, but it we've kind of discussed it.

Um then Meg and I have decided to not discuss um just the detailing of demolition.

We just know that it's the majority of the existing structure.

Today staff is asking for commission comment and feedback on the report or on the proposal.

And then I also outline seven reasons for why a continuance is probably the favorable outcome for tonight.

I do want to note that a wraparound front porch was not a part of this request and is not part of the proposed design for this hearing tonight.

Just to make note of that.

And staff also has not received updated neighborhood support in regards to the updated request.

Otherwise, I can answer any comments.

All right, thanks, Morgan.

Uh questions, comments from the commission, please.

Susan, please.

Yes, as I look at the new streetscape for the new design, um, I finally see the cottage that's supposed to be part of the history of this street, and I really appreciate that.

Um I'm having a hard time in my mind understanding what percentage of demolition is really happening.

Obviously, we want this the side porch enclosure demolished, and that shouldn't count toward this.

Um but the one thing I want to remind the commission about is the only house that I can recall that had demolition, significant demolition, was the house on Broadway.

And we the only thing they we allowed them to demolish on the house on Broadway was a nine, a non-historic, non-original uh piece, which I I see in the back of this house, and so I don't know where we are in terms of that and and what else is to be demolished.

And it it seems to me that that was a precedent.

I think that I was out of the room, so I couldn't really hear what the whole discussion was, but I think that was a precedent that we were comfortable with.

And we'll, you know, and then we have to ask ourselves about this precedent and and if we go here.

Um the wraparound front porch is a non-starter for me.

I think what we're seeing here in the streetscape is much improved.

I think moving back nine feet, I'd like to sort of know where that is in relationship to the to the shed roof thing in the back.

Uh I have no problems with the garage what whatsoever.

It's really non-contributing and their carriage house is very attractive, and um I think that's fine.

So I guess my stumbling point is what we're allowing to be demolished in the back of that house.

Right.

Um, I can speak to that.

So if you guys look at the oh goodness, I don't know why it does not like that page.

Um the shed roof portion of the original home is original.

Um that was always there, but with the nuance of rear additions, we're expecting for portions of that to go, and that was part of our discussion with the applicant.

Um the portion of the original home in that front porch that the commission asked to see remain is about seven feet still.

Um that is still to be demolished if I can if my estimate on measurements is correct.

Um so the shed roof portion portion is original to the home.

Um, but we were expecting that that would need to go for the growth of it.

And so where is their starting point in relationship to that portion?

Their starting portion is seven feet farther forward.

Can we than the shed roof?

Can we zoom into that a little bit more because you can see between the gray dotted lines right there, and then the dark gray.

So this wall lines.

This is the portion of the original structure that's not the shed roof that is still being demolished in this request.

This is the shed roof portion of the home.

The commission had asked that everything forward of where this blue box is stay at the October 1st commission hearing.

Well, I would point out that that what is that?

The western wall is a little bit further back.

They're maintaining the window.

On this wall here, the what, yeah.

No, that is going now.

So everything from this point back will go.

Okay.

One quick Susan on your point with the house on Broadway.

You know, those lots are quite a bit bigger.

I I mean, this room is bigger than the lot that our house is sitting on, and I know that house had room to kind of I mean it's it's probably double the width of the house if I had to guess.

Right, but the issue for us being historic preservation is the historic house.

Yeah.

And that's what that's our first.

Wanted to give some context on the stuff.

No, I understand what you're saying.

That they are much deeper lots.

And that's a lot, a lot of extra house they put in there too, by the way, plus a basement living space and all that.

But the the cottage was retained.

Okay.

Other comments, please, questions?

Yeah.

Go ahead, Kristen, please.

Um, I I mean, I removing that wraparound front porch to me was like, oh now it's it's just what Susan said that the cottage is there.

That's what everything looks like on the street or most of them, and it just feels like the character is there as opposed to the last time you were here.

So I really appreciate that change.

I'm sorry you want to come back, but um I think it looks really good without it.

Um and then I just maybe like it's a little confusing that architect and our staffers are disagreeing on demolition percentage, and I think it's hard to ask us to make a decision on that when like is there a discrepancy?

What really is it?

So that's just a confusing point for me to like make a decision on.

That was something I was asking for clarity from staff on how they were calculating that percentage of 90 percent, because by our calculations with us moving that addition back 90 or 9 feet, we are demolishing less of the existing structure than more.

So everything that we're looking at shows that we're saving about 70 percent of that existing home.

Whereas before, um, I think it was less than 60, or right around that, and so um we've yet to have that uh broken out for us and how they're calculating 90 percent demolition.

Um, we're still waiting on that.

I'd like if I could just offer a couple comments about that.

So kind of going back to what Susan commented on, you know, the the mission of the commission is for the preservation of the structure.

We can debate the percentage if we want to.

Um, but from what we are looking at on the drawings, the expectation is for the envelope of the original structure to remain intact.

And we understand that there's going to be framing inside of the structure that is going to get removed, but at the end of the day, we want to make sure that the original envelope of this building and hopefully as much of the interior as possible can be retained.

Um we heard at the last meeting that the desire was for all of the activity for construction to occur on the back wall of the two one and a half story portion of the home.

We're not there yet.

We still have a couple more feet to go back in order to achieve that goal.

Being that this structure is as small as you've been hearing, retaining as much of it as possible would be our desire and what we feel would be the most consistent with what the recommendations are in the plan.

So, you know, again, we we know that there's a large majority of that west wall that's coming out, some of it's getting actually pushed in, some and you know, there's just there's a lot of removal of the structure still.

And so what we heard is for them to go revisit, try to figure out how to retain as much of this as they possibly can, and we s we think that they can still do that.

It just needs some more work.

Okay, thanks, Meg.

Other comments?

Yeah, and some of the patient on on this.

Um, because you know in the drawing that I see here on 36, and uh it's not showing up highlighted in yellow as it is on ours.

But on that west wall, it shows the window being maintained, that everything to up to that the the south well, north side of that window, sorry, north side of that window being retained.

That is a drawing error.

I apologize.

It is not staying.

Okay.

Um that is the limitations of a word document for me.

Okay, all right.

May I make a comment?

Yeah, sure.

Go ahead.

So in terms of um what we heard at the last commission, we heard very much let's try and find an in-between solution.

And so and save those the openings on the west side.

And so we worked extremely hard to move this full addition back another nine feet.

And so um, and I I know I touched on this at the last hearing, but this the lot that this home sits on is only three thirty-two 3200 square feet, a little over 3200 square feet.

Um, and so our it is massively limiting us on how far back we can go into that backyard.

And so, as much as we would love to save the entirety of that front structure, the further we move back, we're eliminating yard or we're starting to eat into a bedroom space.

feet and so um and i i know i touched on this at the last hearing but this the lot that this home sits on is only three thirty two thirty two hundred square feet a little over thirty two hundred square feet um and so our it is massively limiting us on how far back we can go into that backyard and so as much as we would love to save the entirety of that front structure the further we move back we're eliminating yard or we're starting to eat into a bedroom space there's we'll have to eliminate one of the bedrooms on the second floor um we'll have to eliminate something that makes it uh reduces the functionality for them um you know Parker and Julie if they're wanting to grow a family and then they want to have space for uh family or friends coming in from out of town it's kind of a requirement to have at least three bedrooms uh for that and so that is what we're fighting to maintain we only have 13 feet nine inches between the house and the garage uh the garage size is just because we need to uh uh be able to give enough uh storage space this house again main and opera is only uh two thousand square feet and fifteen two thousand fifteen square feet um and so this is not a it's not a massive home even with this addition and so um you know it really is just working extremely hard to come back with an in-between solution and and understanding that we do need to salvage as much of the existing structure as possible and I think with trying to thread that needle of what is being given up we already gave up backyard space Parker and Julie did already gave up a home office um already repurposed and relay things out and uh truthfully you know I think I think we just we hit that limit of we don't see it being feasible to push this back any further without again giving up a a critical key space um and or giving up a a backyard the backyard space which is again critical as well so I guess I had a couple questions um uh is there any chance you can push the garage further towards Mary Street so it's that is for alleyway access um feasibility so I believe we are already only 10 feet off that alley so for the turning radius pulling in pulling out that would make it extremely difficult if we push that closer to the alley.

Yeah there I'm just seeing other garages that are a little further back.

Part of that alley has a brick wall along it from the house behind us.

So you like there's and it actually juts out.

Just to the north?

Uh yeah it makes it pretty tight.

Okay other comments question yeah David please um I understand your explanation that this is not a massive house when you compare it to other houses it is fairly massive for this lot I mean it's just it's it's the struggle that you've been dealing with is to get everything that your client wants into this lot this very small shoebox in a sense and I do want to say something about it one thing that makes this a bit painful is that you all seem like very nice people and uh I heard it was particularly at the last meeting uh very wonderful things about you from a lot of people that I've known for years and respect clearly the neighborhood would like to have you as neighbors they lot they like it now but we can't not take that into account uh we have to just look at the house itself the architecture and the uh effect on the district um I also understand this house it's it's getting down to where there aren't that many houses unrestored in Chathamarch this is one of the last it's been a frustration for the neighborhood for a long time I know that um given all that I'm myself on one level willing to accept a larger amount of loss of original house than maybe normal but I can't get past this and that is that when you sacrifice a good bit of a building like that to me it increases the obligation that you stay true to its front facade the face it has to the to the world um and so I need to I think that that build I mean this is a lot of houses like that don't have even as much left as this one does and this one does the front and the side along one under the porch all the way back is

Um so I need to I think that that build, I mean, this is a lot of houses like that don't have even as much left as this one does, and this one does the front and the side along one under the porch all the way back, is original.

And I'm willing to accept quite a lot of other stuff going on there.

If that part of it can be kept, and I can't get past that.

Um I'm sorry about that, but I can't.

Uh I think that the entirety of that original front porch needs to be retained with its original openings.

And then I'm willing to talk about a lot of other stuff.

Let me ask you one thing about you.

I played around with the floor plans, and it's tough.

And the stairs are the big problem.

Yeah, the stairs, the issue.

Right.

Um had and I realize that what I'm gonna suggest would would mean a com having to relook at the floor plan entirely, but did you have you given any thought to having the stairs in the back part of a house where everything's new and tall and you don't have any problems, and allowing you then to leave that front.

So by implying that the stairs would go in the back of the house, this would be under the construct that the addition would start at the back of where the side park porch is, correct?

Yes, I'm talking about retaining the entire thing.

So the challenge with that is we are now reducing the size of the addition by another seven feet.

So um, although yes, we could work it back there, the usable space of our addition has now, which is the most usable space for the second floor, because the existing structure, it's only viable for a bedroom with the ceiling heights that we have.

So what um when plane did look at that, and truly we're looking at almost every option out there.

The thing we were running into is we can't fit three bedrooms upstairs at that point.

Um we'd have to sacrifice a bedroom by reducing the addition to that size.

Um we also would need to configure where our hallway is gonna go.

So by putting it towards the back, um the the house is also not that wide.

So when we move the stairs towards the back, now it's a line where it's trying to figure out what that leaves space for on the other side.

Is that the living room?

And then it's moving the kitchen around to an area that's not conducive, maybe in the front of the house where it's not next to the living and dining space, or vice versa.

And so it really is just running into those usability and functionality of how is somebody going to live in this space, how is it going to flow?

Um, and the really big thing would be all of those things are actually uh considerable considerations for uh Parker and Julian.

I would argue anybody looking to invest this amount in restoring a home.

Um I know it's a small home and um you know one of the the last ones there, but it's I guess the question I would have is the amount that it takes to do a project like this to make it viable to turn it from one of the little worker cottages uh that you know people all lived in one bedroom of the house, basically, and it's just not viable for today's families and living standards that we all live by.

Um, and so uh the ability to do that while keeping this addition on the back is just massively constraining.

Um we're looking at reducing necessary livable spaces at that point.

I hope that answered your question.

Oh, yeah.

I just want to say, like, from a for I think for anybody's gonna run into like the the entire second floor of the original structures, it's just not very usable.

You can't put a hallway in there, it's too narrow, the sides you know are too low.

Um so basically, as we move the structure back, you just make that front bedroom bigger essentially.

I mean it that's that's all we do.

It just doesn't really like accomplish anything for our floor plan.

And that just makes us push the addition further back, which which to your point as far as lot coverage, like we're trying to reduce lot coverage.

Like I I you guys are the experts, but from what I read, I think we're allowed up to 60% lot coverage based on our lot size and the zoning and everything, and we don't we don't want to do that.

I think that the massing would look just honestly just not as good as what we think we've proposed here.

Other comments.

Oh I'll offer some thoughts.

I you know, I'm just sitting here trying to solve the problem.

Um I guess is there is there any way that you could find a few feet with the garage moving back and then move the front of the house forward because obviously there's some porches adjacent to you, and before you had the wraparound porch out, lining up with the porches, and we have plenty of streets where nothing is perfectly aligned.

We just try to get close to setbacks.

And then I guess the other thing I was thinking about, and this may be a crazy idea, but um, you know, if you if you mirrored the the plan, um, and I don't know exactly how that would work, you could potentially keep more of the porch and put like the powder room within that porch enclosure and still sort of keep it.

Um, and you could push this back and push this forward a little bit, and maybe maybe you don't have to flip it even, maybe you can just do it by you know maneuvering the the building a little bit each each direction and get you a little bit more.

What I was trying to get to is if you flip the plan, you might be able to keep more of the covered porch wall because the stair is the problem.

If the stair was on the other side and everything was just on the other side, the powder room and those kind of things could start to fit into the rest of the covered porch.

I know that's not an easy thing to talk about tonight, but just trying to think through if there's a strategy at all of being able to save save more of the existing building.

I you know, from my perspective, if you could get to saving as much as possible of the east and west walls and the porch wall, I'd I'm less concerned about the uh I guess the north wall, you know, staying.

And so I don't know how many feet that is.

I don't know if it's five feet to get back there or six feet, or I don't know, I don't know exactly what, or ten feet, I don't even know what it is.

Um I'm just trying to see if there's a way, and I don't know if if you've looked at this already or not.

So looked at flipping the configuration, what we continue to run into is the usability of the second floor.

So by squeezing this addition down, yes, in theory, we could save the um cover porch, we could reconfigure that.

We would flip the stairs, but those stairs need somewhere to go to on the second floor.

Sure.

And so then again, we're squeezing this second floor down significantly uh just by squeezing it down five feet, that turns one of the bedrooms into uh it's just not a functional space.

We're already dealing with you know ten foot bedrooms that are you go much smaller smaller than that, and you can hardly walk around in it by the time you have furniture in there.

So um I mean, I don't I don't mean to sound uh prideful, but I feel like we have we have um put many, many, many hours into trying to compress this and figure out how to lay it out and still have adequate room space um in you know each bedroom and everything.

And again, by moving it back, that front, the only thing we're gaining is more space in that front bedroom.

Uh it's about eight feet at the peak, and then it goes down to three and a half feet at the knee walls.

You basically we have to also figure configure our hallway to meet right at the peak of that room.

Right, otherwise that room becomes unusable.

So that's another challenge that we're working through.

Right.

Yeah, I guess I guess the question is even if the bedroom in the front gets bigger, I don't know that and if everything else stayed the same, if you could push this back.

I don't know that that's an issue.

If we can if you could move the front forward a couple of feet, and you could push the the whole addition back, and you could move the garage back, let's say two feet, three feet.

I don't know.

I mean, you're dealing with you know incorporate small increments here.

You know, can you then say how much more of the existing building?

Can you say five more feet of the existing building and five more feet of the porch or you know, those kinds of things, I guess, is what I'm thinking about.

You could consider offsetting the cross gable as well rather than it's to the west, it's further up.

So you're um demolishing more of the second floor, but less of the first floor, that would give you more usable space.

That would raise the ceiling height if you've created a cross cable that was moved up on the just on the second floor.

And then you could move the cross gable back to where on on the the eastern side to where the original uh building line is, and that could actually solve a few problems with head space as far as uh the usability of the second floor.

That could be something to consider.

There's a a house in in my neighborhood on 1318 Pleasant Street that's done uh a fairly good job of adding a pretty large addition to the back, uh similar size lot has a has a a gable at at the back side, but a cross gable that masks the most of that construction looks very appropriate, save for the metal roof that they put on their wraparound porch.

Um but other than that, they they that building has done a pretty good job of of trying to do what you're you're doing or doing what you're trying to do, excuse me.

So just to make sure I'm hearing correctly, the commission would be open to bringing a cross gable further up on the existing structure on the second floor if we then kept at least the side porch and those openings.

I think the more of the existing building you can keep, the better chance we've got of getting our head around uh you know, agreeing is what we're trying to.

We're trying to help you here.

We're not trying to not help you.

Uh we just, you know, we have, as Susan said, we have a responsibility to the historic resources of these neighborhoods.

That's why they are as desirable as they are for your clients and many others, and we just want to continue to protect that.

As David said, we know you're good people, you're trying to solve this.

We're trying to help this solve this with you guys as well.

So you know, certainly take our comments in a positive way.

We're trying to get to a place where we can be comfortable with this because what happens for us, just so you understand it's not your problem, these become precedent issues for other projects.

And then people start citing your example to us that we have ruled on, and every case is a de novo case, but at the same time, we we have a certain responsibility to try to be as consistent as possible with our with our rulings.

So that's that's what we're trying to ultimately get to here.

Well, and definitely understand that that's totally understand that.

Um I guess in that context, then can we look at the context of this site and how compact it is?

Sure.

So that may not apply.

This president may not apply to another case.

Yeah, we understand that.

Yeah, again, each case is is unique, but we also know how this works.

We've been doing this a while, so we so as much as anything, we're just trying to get to a place that can work for you, ultimately it needs to work for us as well.

Just one thing.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah.

A lot of this has been focused on the amount of the original structure remaining and not necessarily the design uh overall.

One thing that I wanted to make sure uh I mentioned was that the roof line of the previous proposal was far more appropriate than the current roof line.

The current and I understand that that's because of all the difficulties that we we've had here.

But I would say you need to move more towards that more appropriate roof line.

I I couldn't I couldn't see myself voting for something that looks the way the cross gable does now.

That with the the Eve line that's so elevated above you can see uh the other projects or the other houses in the neighborhood if they have a cross gable, that roof line is consistent across there.

That's something that that it can't be that much higher than that.

It's it's really um for me it was really jarring to see that elevation.

So on that, the reason for that is I I understand why.

I'm just saying that that as we work on it to move move it forward, I think that needs to be kept in mind.

Okay, okay.

I would say something that would drastically help with that is if we can move the cross gable on the second floor up and create some way of keeping the side porch open underneath, but we actually above it has maybe a structure or something.

Um that would just allow us with that headroom we'd be losing with carrying that roof line down.

So yeah, okay.

Uh Susan, you had a comment, please.

Yeah, it's similar to what you said, Bill.

The thing that we're trying to do is get to yes.

And so I I feel like we've strayed from our normal format and this back and forth, but this back and forth has felt to me more like a debate than a constructive conversation.

And so I would hope that you would take our comments in the fashion that they were intended and take this back and think about can we lose a few feet of the garage, can we move the garage?

You've gotten a lot of free architectural advice up here from some very experienced people.

Um we want to help you make this happen, but we have our statutory obligations that we have to look at too.

And we're willing to compromise so far.

I think what David said is consistent with how I feel and probably others to try and help you get where you want to go.

But we're not quite there yet.

And I think the staff probably has taken more copious notes than you have, and can probably help you get some of these ideas down on paper.

And the one thing, like I said, I wanted to point out was we really haven't talked very much about the garage, and maybe you can spare a foot or two on the garage.

You guys have a lot of stuff, I know, but um, you know, that might be worth it to you to get beyond where we are.

So you need to think about that.

So you do you have spent a lot of time, we've spent a lot of time, and I think we need to spend a little bit more time, but I I have very confident that we're gonna be able to get this resolved.

Okay.

Any final comments from the commission?

Any final comments from the applicant?

We're headed towards a continuance if you didn't figure that out.

I was picking up on that.

Can I add something very quickly?

With the comments from the commission, again, the main goal is to maintain the character of the original cottage.

We've gotten closer, we don't want to lose it.

Just with the coming forward on that second floor.

I just wanted to make sure we're not gonna lose characters.

Yeah, again, I think as Susan said, I mean, we're looking at being, you know, you know, we want to be true to the the historic resource at the same time.

We're willing to make some compromise.

There's gonna be a point where the line is crossed.

We're trying to get to the place where the line isn't crossed.

Okay.

So any final comments?

Go ahead.

I was just gonna say just ask for clarity.

So I'm hearing, I think when we left the last commission, we heard an in-between solution, and we really worked hard.

We thought we were close.

In between solution, so I guess how much more in between are I think what we want you to do is is.

Yeah, Abby, if you can work with staff, they're really good at this stuff.

They've they've heard our comments over the years, so they know where where we are.

So I think the key is just trying to.

I think you're needing to tweak this thing a little bit each kind of way and just kind of work it.

Not that you haven't, I'm not suggesting you haven't, but I think we just need to work it a little bit more so that we can try to accomplish some of the comments you've heard tonight and see if you can get there.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Well, uh, I'll take a motion for a continuance to the February 4th uh meeting.

Thank you, Susan.

Thank you, David.

Any final uh questions, comments?

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

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

We'll see you next month.

Thank you.

Thank you for your feedback.

Uh-huh.

All right.

Excuse me.

Uh applications of here, which are new this evening.

We have one case, uh, case 2025 COA 489 Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, and variants 2025 VHP 013, address 409 Massachusetts Avenue, Justin King is here.

Uh Justin, state your name and address and uh present your case to us.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Uh huh.

Uh Justin Kingan, address 2722 Manker Street.

Um, here before you this evening on behalf of Dusk Lounge, which is at 409 Massachusetts Avenue.

Um, this property has been developed in 1902 with a three-story brick and limestone structure known as the Oxford.

Uh the Oxford is a historic apartment building with two street frontages, 409 Mass F and 316 East Vermont Street.

Uh the focus of this proposal in this hearing this evening is going to be on the east uh Vermont Street uh facade.

What we are proposing is the installation of a sidewalk cafe that includes an enclosed pergola along with uh planners that surround the cafe.

I think it's important to note that the ground floor of this East Vermont Street facade um no longer is historic in nature.

Uh while the structure itself is over 120 years old, there have been modern improvements to the storefront entryway and entry door over the years.

The installation of the proposed pergola will not be affixed to the building.

Uh nothing alters the masonry windows or character defining features.

This is not a building addition.

Uh this is a freestanding sidewalk structure that can be removed without any damage being done or left behind.

Um we anticipate some comments uh this evening regarding the trash uh placement and environment of the sidewalk in this area.

We are actively exploring solutions to rectify the trash collection of the area.

Uh we've reached out to needlers across the street, uh, have yet to hear back from them, but I did have a phone conversation earlier this week with a property manager from Buckingham Properties who own the apartment complex on the northwest corner of uh New Jersey and Vermont Street.

Uh have yet to hear back from them, but I did have a phone conversation earlier this week with a property manager from Buckingham Properties who own the apartment complex on the northwest corner of uh New Jersey and Vermont Street.

Uh unfortunately they're at full capacity with their commercial dumpster, but she did let me know that they would let us know if there was any uh opening for us to be able to use their dumpster.

Uh so we we understand we uh that this is an issue uh for the area for the neighborhood, and we're working to address that.

Um this proposal has received seven letters of support from various stakeholders in the downtown area.

Uh we've met with Massav Merchants Association on two separate occasions, and we'll continue discussions with them.

Uh our focus is on a design that works for the streetscape, and we believe that this proposed addition to uh the East East Vermont Street facade is an improvement to the existing condition.

Uh with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Joseph Lesey with Progress Studios.

He's gonna kind of walk you through the uh design details of the project.

All right, thank you.

Name and address, please.

Uh Joseph Lisi, Progress Studio addresses 220 North College Avenue.

Uh so as Justin was saying, uh the pergoless structure that is proposed is not physically attached to the structure of the historic building itself.

Uh we're um pulled away from that, and so the gap that would be around that would be finished off in break metal that would match the pergola.

Uh, but it would not impact uh anything physical with the structure itself.

We're leaving the historic masonry arch opening completely alone.

Uh so we're only working within the confines of the existing uh non-historic storefront as Justin uh mentioned.

Um I think there's a couple differentiators in the description of the recommendation in the staff report versus the renderings that are um above the findings of fact on the on the last page that I would like to just point out.

Umriginally the uh first approach on the west side of the pergola had more of like a a screen wall effect on that left side of the pergola, and that was to help screen it from the uh trash that is kind of floating out on the sidewalk currently.

Um after some conversation with staff, we had uh remove that solid uh screen wall, if you will, and replace that with um the clear vinyl inserts, which I'll get to in a second.

Uh we replaced what was um that vertical surface with at the uh time of filing was a fence around the uh trash that is currently out there.

Um that is where the variance application portion of this came into play, and we have since removed that so that we are only kind of creating this uh semi-permanent corral, if you will, for the trash that's currently there until a solution can be uh provided with uh surrounding uh folks that have uh larger dumpsters.

So in the rendering you'll see some taller plants and planters around the trash that's currently out there.

The intent of the clear vinyl on um inserts for what would effectively be the windows of the peregola would be during inclement weather, such as winter time and and such, so that dust can operate their sidewalk cafe uh twelve months out of the year.

Uh if those uh on nice days and things like that, those entrance can be removed so that they're not permanent and they're clear on purpose, so it provides the transparency.

Uh so we felt that that was important to uh notate um as well as uh being in line with the pergolus structure just to its west at Tavern at the point.

So you'll see that in the um uh renderings that are up the uh last page.

So uh I'll be happy to answer any further questions that any of you may have.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Is this support?

Uh in support, yeah.

Yeah, okay, go ahead, please.

Uh my name is Naskal Angelov.

I'm actually the operating partner of Dusk.

Uh, I just wanted to first say thank you all for having us here.

We're really really excited to be a part of the community.

Um I obviously I'm speaking to it because we you know we want to provide an additional dining experience for all of our guests where they can enjoy the exterior space.

Additionally, the rear portion of the building is not really pleasant for just passerbys, and we just kind of want to elevate and and just bring something positive to the area without imp impacting obviously the historic elements of it.

Um it's not a very large space, but uh because of the shape of our interior and a lot of the existing brick walls, we have very uh very little seating inside.

And so this is right around a 400,000 dollar uh incremental revenue impact for us, which obviously to us that's a very big deal, may not be as big of a deal for everyone else, but uh I think it it is it should be noted what what the impact would be there for us as well.

So that's really everything for me.

Thank you all for having us and looking forward to hearing your comments.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Okay, anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance, please uh name and address, please.

My name is Meg Starrow.

I'm at 576 East Vermont Street.

I'm president of the Massav Cultural Arts District and the Mass Have Merchants Association.

Don't really have a remonstrance statement per se, but I think that overall it would be great to improve Vermont Street from being a backdoor kind of condition for all of the businesses there.

Um but I'm not sure that this solution has solved that problem yet.

And I really think the um the previous patio that was there that was not enclosed was not a good solution either.

So I'm hopeful that with your help uh the applicant can uh find a solution for trash that's better than a fence that respects the historic nature of the bay, uh the rhythms of the bay, and that wonderful door that is the primary entrance of Vermont.

But it I think it's going to have to be a solution that partners with all the other businesses on Vermont Street, and that's a big ask, but the trash issue there is substantial.

And I think the parking and the street itself could be looked at to improve the um opportunities for a better streetscape and turning it away from a backdoor condition to a more of a front door.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Meg.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Please come forward, name and address.

Hello.

I'm Patty Perrin.

The address is 1211 North Alabama Street, Indianapolis.

Um I certainly understand that these folks want to get as much income producing square footage on their new patio.

But my husband and I own the building next door, 401 Massachusetts Avenue, and we do not want their trash in front of our building.

I think that they need to figure out where they can put the trash behind their own building.

So that's okay.

All right, thank you.

Yep.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we're ready for a staff comment.

Uh Shelby, please.

So, as has been mentioned a couple of times this evening, from an interior perspective, this elevation does function as a rear.

However, it is the front facade of what is the historic Oxford building.

Um per the district plan, awnings and canopies should be traditional in style.

Um, canvas materials are noted as being preferred, um, and that fixed metal as well as the vinyl materials can detract from the visual quality of the building.

They should not overpower a building, cover architectural details, or be so obtrusive that they detract from the streetscape as a whole.

Since the pergola would be enclosed and heated, it would essentially be a metal vinyl addition on the front of a historic building.

Um per the plan, additions to historic structures should be located at the rear, away from a front facade, as well as not obstruct any architectural detailing.

Um we're not aware of any sidewalk cafes and enclosures of this nature over historic um or over a storefront on a historic structure on the front.

Um so we do believe that granting this request would be precedent setting for the district as well as all of the districts that are of the commercial setting.

Um lastly, we do not believe that the variance petition request meets the test of the findings.

Um and for clarification with some of the comments from this evening um regarding the need for the variance, the variance is required for the vinyl inserts themselves as a sidewalk cafe barrier is limited to three to four feet in height.

So because those would go all the way to the top of the pergola, that is required.

Um and so for those reasons, we are recommending denial of this request this evening.

Um in closing, I did want to note that the commission has reviewed at least one request similar to this as far as having an awning with enclosure walls that was on the front of a historic facade.

Um, and if the commission has any interest in more details on that, I can provide that.

Okay, thanks, Shelby.

Ready for comments, questions from the commission, please.

David, do you have your answer?

Oh no, sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry.

I thought you had your hand up.

Um, so I I understand I I was gonna ask the staff, and I think you've already answered it whether or not we've ever approved anything even remotely like this on public right-of-way public sidewalk.

Whether or not we've ever approved anything even remotely like this on public right-of-way public sidewalk.

Because that is different than adding something on private property or something else.

So the only one that seemed as close to apples as apples that we could find was in the wholesale district.

It is 36 South South Pennsylvania.

It's the old Riley's Irish pub.

They did request to have more of a traditional styled awning in that it was the shed with the more fabric type material with full enclosures.

That the awning itself got approved, but the walls did not.

So as far as in the public right-of-way on the front of a structure, that was the closest we had that did not end up getting approved from the wall perspective.

Okay.

And hold on.

Certainly I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Doesn't Tavern on Point have exactly they just think they have vinyl that is a little bit more.

Yeah, so that one is not, it's on a blank wall.

I mean the door behind it was added for the pergola.

So that's for staff that was a differentiating element.

This going on in the front.

Yeah, but but as far as the enclosure, they have an enclosure.

On this on the same side.

They do.

It's yeah, first, like I said, for staff, the differentiation was the facade behind it itself.

Being a story.

So yes, where is it?

Yeah, it's the building next door.

They have a a vinyl system that they put up in the winter time on their on their enclosure today.

It's there.

Yeah.

You can see that if you scroll down one more page, it's the image to the right.

If you zoom in on that, you'll be able to see that.

Yeah.

Yeah, there's a there's a vinyl enclosure to that, and then they take it up or get rid of it in the summertime.

It's also taller than what we're proposing.

Yeah.

It's the same thing.

Correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is in the right-of-way, just you know, just like the one next door.

The only difference is what Shelby's pointing out is the facade.

It's still a primary facade of that building, though.

I would argue that it's not a back.

The point doesn't have a back.

The Oxford doesn't have a back.

The building that the will from our building doesn't have a back.

I mean, that's that's the challenge with this location is all these buildings don't have backs, they have two fronts.

And did we approve that one next door?

Yes.

I assume we did.

So it came in in two parts.

Um the first part there was a request for the pergola with the enclosure.

The applicant ultimately withdrew that.

Um, I think mostly based on staff's concerns, um, and then came back basically the next season and asked for that um and ultimately did get approval from the commission.

Um there wasn't a ton of discussion at that time regarding the screens.

Um, a lot of it was due to the there a lot of discussion was on the trash screening, and then the one comment that did come up about the vinyl screens was a concern about um these types of installations becoming more like permanent additions.

But it was ultimately approved by the commission.

Other questions, comments from the commission?

Susan, well, I was one of the people that complained about the garbage for many, many years back there.

And it really is a huge problem.

Right.

And I think to Meg's comment, the more people activity that we can get on Vermont Street, the less of a back door it's gonna look like.

And I never understood why they couldn't have a dumpster sort of pushed into the building up there and have it enclosed and do like everybody else does, instead of and so they tried all sorts of things.

There were vines and planters and all that stuff, they just failed to water them.

So um that was problematic.

Right.

The the thing for me is I don't have really have a problem with this per se.

It would be nice if it sort of coordinated a little bit better from a height standpoint to what the old point has there, just for a little consistency.

And um you'll notice that their planters are lower there, and it it gives it a little bit of a lighter feel than these heavy planters, but having said that it's not that big a deal.

The garbage is a bigger deal, and that's not what they're here to talk about tonight.

I don't think.

But we you know, we need to support the businesses and um I I don't know how that all happened, but all the there were just more garbage cans there about every week for a whole summer.

Right.

Other comments from the commission.

Yeah, I I too have a huge problem with the trash.

I you know, this is I drive by this every single day.

So I know I know exactly what's going on here.

And it's the kind of thing that there has got to be a solution for this trash in it, and and I know you're obviously working on that, you've said that.

I think that's for me that's much more of an issue than this than the pergola and the vinyl.

I agree with Susan that the planners ought to be a little bit lower, and if you could raise this and have some consistency in the streetscape, I think that would be a positive thing.

Uh you know, to Meg's point, I don't know about the haven't focused on the rhythm of the columns and those sort of things, but obviously responding to the existing building in that way would be would certainly be helpful.

But I think there's got to be a solution for the trash.

I and you're you're not here, you know, proposing unless you are proposing a screen for the trash as a part of this.

I don't know if that's part of the application, Shelby.

Yeah, I think that we've got to find a different answer.

I don't think a screen on the sidewalk is the answer.

And I know you're working on that, but I think that that if we want to sort of break this into two parts and deal with the trash, continue the trash, and then you know, solve the pergola.

Uh I think that would be my approach, because I I'm very concerned about how we're dealing with trash in this in this street where there isn't an alley.

So other comments, David, please.

So I want to make sure I understand this.

Um I drove by there on the way here tonight.

The storefront facade on the first floor there that this nothing original about that, is that correct?

That's that's correct.

Yeah.

I would have a real hard time with this in front of a historic facade, you know.

Sure.

Um see them popping up all up and down Mass Avenue, you know.

Because everybody wants to get more space that they can make money with.

And that's a real difference.

This right-of-way is huge.

Yeah, this rightway is much, much bigger than Massachusetts.

Yeah.

That's the difference.

And uh So I think I mean, I guess I'm willing to consider it because of what's next door.

And also because of the facade that it's in front of.

But I what I think if we approved it the way it's written, we would be approving some something uh some screening for that trash.

That's why I'm saying I think we would separate the trash is.

I just couldn't believe how awful it looked.

Yeah, it's really bad.

Yeah, it's very and I don't want to approve anything tonight to screen it.

Not because I don't want it screened, but because I don't want to encourage it being there.

Right.

Right.

Yeah, and that's why that's why my suggestion is we deal with the trash separately and then deal with this as a as uh as an issue tonight.

And I I don't think we can answer the trash.

They can't answer the trash issue tonight.

No.

And so I think we end up continuing that, and then I think we just need to talk about how we how we feel about this uh outdoor cafe space.

That would be my suggestion anyway.

Yeah.

Uh you need to come up.

If right now the way that the um exterior that you guys are proposing, you don't have any space behind your building for for your trash.

That's right.

Like you're you've you know what I mean?

You you've developed like from border to border, right?

And instead put the trash behind our building, which believe me, we do our best to make sure that we're gonna have to do that.

Yeah, we don't we don't like your trash behind your building either.

Right.

And we're which we try we do our best to try to make sure that's in order.

So we don't we don't want double trash behind the building.

Yeah, we we would like to have no trash on the sidewalk and have you solve the problem just like they need to solve the problem.

Well, but there's no place I mean if if a business has to do business, they're gonna have trash.

Yeah, the reality is there's all sorts of options.

You can build a trash room inside your property and have your trash come out, and you can do it in the basement and have a sidewalk elevator come up the other buildings do.

So there are solutions to this problem in an urban environment when you don't have an alley.

Yes, but also you have to be conscious of rodents and really want that inside your building.

You can create a separate room that is only accessed from the outside and deal with rodents.

There's there are ways to do this.

You're not the first time.

Go to New York City, go to Chicago, go to any large city.

There's all sorts of buildings that don't have an alley and a back to them.

Yeah, I understand that.

So anyway, you're not the applicant this evening, but nonetheless.

Okay.

So I guess from our standpoint, I think we want to approve the enclosure, or not the enclosure, the uh pergola with the vibe with the use of the vinyl in the winter time.

And I think that if they can work with the staff to get it tweaked a little bit relative to maybe its height and the planters and those kind of things, I think we can let you guys solve that.

And then I think we want to continue the trash, make it a part B.

And then we need to we need to figure out an answer so that the applicant can solve the trash.

Okay.

We conveniently have a backup recommendation.

Okay.

If you would like for me to read that.

Please.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead, Meg, sure.

Yeah.

Going out of protocol here, but that's all right.

Um the other thing to remember is Buckingham is residential.

Right.

And um there's a lot of tension between residences and businesses that have outdoor patios.

So I think there should be a stipulation that they do need to have security and they do need to honor the noise ordinance.

And that's just a neighborhood stipulation that gives us a way to keep it enforced.

Right.

Because that's an important friction point.

And I think I I've been to the restaurant.

I think they have security.

We do, but I think it would be good to uh reinforce the need for it.

Okay.

Go ahead, please.

Just a couple of quick comments.

I know this is kind of you know dragging along.

Firstly, the trash situation is something that we are taking very seriously because nobody wants to build an enclosure outside where guests are sitting right next to the trash.

So this is a communal issue that we're all looking to solve.

I know that one of the reasons that Buckingham could be an option is because what we may be able to do is increase the frequency at which their dumpsters are picked up, right?

Therefore, allowing for more space.

There's the options of needlers.

There's the potential of collaborating, and I know that this is a concern for Patty and them, and I just them seconding seconding it, not opposing it.

Uh and in regards to comments on noise ordinance, we already do have security there.

We don't have any anybody exiting the building during business hours.

And that would be used just for restaurant seating, and and therefore I don't imagine it would be any more noise than tavern or anyone else.

I just want to assure everybody that these are considerations that are also important to us, and they're not opposing to anything that we're looking to build out there.

So thank you guys.

Okay, thank you.

Meg, go ahead and read your second recommendation, please.

Um yes, and if the applicant could pay very close attention to what I'm going to read because you haven't actually seen it yet.

So I'll go ahead and read that.

Um I'll read the stipulations too.

For COA 2025, COA 489, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts, Part A.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to install a sidewalk cafe with pergola and vinyl enclosure walls, and for a variance of development standards per the submitted documentation is subject to the following five stipulations and two notes with stipulation number one uh being for final construction drawings to showing any changes required by the commission this evening, uh be submitted to IHBC staff for approval prior to pulling permits.

Number two, the cafe must be located within the boundaries reviewed at the time of the sidewalk cafe's approval and is subject to all the requirements of the city right-of-way inspectors.

Number three, cafe space is for food slash beverage sales only.

Entertainment is not permitted.

Number four, no extraneous signage in the sidewalk cafe shall be installed without further IHPC approval, such as railing signs, umbrella signage, advertising, etc.

And number five, no changes to the proposed design dimensions, materials placement lighting or approach are permitted without prior consultation with staff.

And the two notes um are for you to obtain a sidewalk cafe license and for the and for complying with all applicable codes.

Is the applicant okay with that?

Yes, yes.

Okay, all right, good.

And then um after you vote, I'll read the variance.

I'll take a motion for the staff recommendation read for part A, please.

Thank you, Kristen.

Get a second.

Thanks, Anson.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

All right, thank you.

And then we'll uh take a motion to continue part B to February 4th, we think.

Okay.

Uh could I get a motion to continue to February 4th for part B.

Thank you, Susan.

Get a second.

Thank you, Annie.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

And then ready for the uh variants.

And just for the record, part B is for the trash screening.

So just for the record.

Yeah, thank you.

For variance 2025 VHP 013.

Staff recommends to approve a variance of development standards to exceed the maximum permitted height of a sidewalk cafe barrier for the plans and findings of fact in the January 7th, 2026 IHBC staff report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Uh get a motion for the staff recommendation read for the variance, please.

Thank you, Kristen.

Get a second, Annie.

Thank you.

Any final comments on the variants?

Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

We'll uh hear from you on the trash.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh we'll we have no preliminary reviews this evening.

We have one application heard uh to be heard this evening.

Work started without approval.

Uh that case is 2025 COA 039 amended uh Lockerbie Square uh address 711 East Vermont Street, Brian Bueller is the applicant.

Brian, uh state your name and address and present your case for us, please.

Uh Brian Bueller, uh 711 East Vermont Street.

Um we are asking just for an extension onto the COA that was uh approved last year.

Um I think what I believe happened and it's an error on my end is miscommunication on the period of time that we were gonna be in the location that we're currently in today.

Um it was made uh as if we were moving out in 2025 in the spring end or summer, and um that is actually not happening.

We're still in the existing facility and in the process of finishing the build um near the airport for our new facility, and so we're just looking for an extension um on the current COA that was in place.

Okay, all right.

Uh see uh Emily any comments.

No, the uh the staff does believe that they had clarified that it was 2026, May 2026.

We probably would have just come up with this recommendation in the first place.

Um so basically the they're just asking to retain that fencing.

The requirement is that they would need to remove the fencing by December 31st, 2026, or when ALFSCO vacates the site, whichever comes first.

Okay, I can answer that.

And that's acceptable to the applicant.

Okay.

Any questions, comments from the commission.

If not, I'll staff recommendation.

We stipulate that no further extensions be given, just since the moving out.

Well, I understand that, but they also said that you know there was a miscommunication.

So I mean I I I feel like there needs to be an endpoint on it.

Well it is December 31st, right?

That is the end point.

Yeah, our goal is to be out of our location in the summer of this year, 2026, with a decommission of the building, and so that's why we're asking for the extension till the end of the year.

Um again, the only concern that I would say of removing that fence um as the property is being sold is right just the issue of people coming on the process.

Right, exactly.

So the property.

I mean, we have an abandoned van that uh arrived on our facility uh uh six days ago that we're trying to get removed right now.

Um and so there's just those types of things that the neighbors have a concern with, but from our once we're done decommissioning the building, um, you know, the goal is to put it up for sale and then kind of go from there.

So we do not have an issue with if you wanted to add that on, but I don't know if it's necessary.

Yeah, I was gonna say I think I think we're okay, Anson.

I think we'll I think we're fine.

Because they're gonna be selling the building, and then the our bigger issue is what's gonna be redeveloped there is what's is what's gonna be happening.

So okay, Meg, I think we're ready for uh staff recommendation then for 2025 COA 039 amended Lockerby Square.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of authorization to retain the chain link fencing for a set period of time per submitted documentation and subject to the following stipulation.

Fencing must be removed from the site no later than December 31st, 2026, or when AlSCO vacates the site, whichever comes first.

Okay, thank you.

Meg get a motion for the staff recommendation as read.

Susan, thank you, Annie.

Thank you.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for coming in.

Appreciate it.

All right, we have uh no old business, but we have two items that Meg just wanted to inform us on.

Go ahead, Meg, please.

Sure.

Um, you may have read that the archdiocese has dismissed their appeal of the denial of the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of Holy Cross.

Um they did file a federal lawsuit.

Um the complaint is there was a violation of the first amendment.

And so we are uh talking internally with our litigators and office of course corporation counsel.

Um and at this time there's no need for to for the commission to call an executive session, but if there is, we'll certainly let you know and and um do that if we need to do that.

So and I'm I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um but it's yeah at this point pretty much all I know right now.

We're not we're not if you're contacted, we're not here to make comment and that sort of thing would be the other thing.

Yeah, yeah, that's a good yes, the very good point.

We we actually have received quite a bit of inquiries from the media about it, and um we consistently have been saying that we are uh not commenting on any pending litigation.

Right, and ultimately we'll have a uh an attorney representing us, and that's in process right now.

Yes, yes, we we have a um uh a firm that we're working with as well as um the office corporation counsel team.

Right.

So we'll report with any updates as we get them.

Okay, um, Meg, thanks.

In more positive news, I would like to give you a summary of the staff's uh some of their accomplishments from last year.

Um I'll make it brief, but I thought these numbers were pretty remarkable.

Uh as far as the total number of COA cases that came in and that staff processed, Emily uh was at 200.

Uh Shelby was at 160, uh Morgan was at 162, and Caroline, who only has seven months in, had 92 cases already.

So there's there's been no down time at the IHPC.

So as always, uh thank you to my team.

They work incredibly hard and do an amazing job, and I'm very thankful for them.

Well, Meg, thank you for your service as well as the staff.

You guys do a phenomenal job, and you keep a lot of things away from us, which we which we appreciate.

And you do a very good job of preparing for the us, you know, the information that we have to review and and and uh rule on.

So thank you all for that for sure.

And uh any other items?

Any please.

Please.

I just wanted to go on the record.

I know so much of all of the time behind the people behind Meg and Chris that it's often a pretty thankless job, but you guys do such a good job, and it really really is appreciated.

Okay, all right, everyone.

Thank you, and uh we stand adjourned.

See you in February.

Don't forget your Christmas cards.