Okay, all right.

All right, good evening.

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

Uh we have no approval of minutes this evening, uh so we'll move right to old business.

We have two cases this evening.

Uh the first case is 621 Lockerby Street, and I'm gonna ask Meg to give us an update on that.

Uh sure.

So staff has been working with the property owner and met out on the site.

Uh we do have a signed copy of a signed contract with to do some chimney work and some other things, and I think um the owner's representation might be able to elaborate on some other contracts that they've entered into recently, so I will let him provide some background on that, but things are moving along.

Okay, all right.

You want to come on up uh and get sworn in, Grace.

Could you swear the applicant in and uh offer your comments?

Name and address, please.

Will you raise your hand for me?

Both of you, please.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Go ahead, please.

Rhonda Duvall, 621 Lockerby Street.

Okay.

Ari Lepinski, 951 North Delaware Street.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead, offer your comments.

You may be able to move the mic too.

Try to make it easier on yourself.

And my name is Ari Lapinski, I'm counsel for uh Miss Duvall.

Since the last meeting, um we we had a site visit, uh walk through at the property, as um Ms.

Bush mentioned, and uh we have a better idea of the scope of the work now.

Um after that meeting, Miss Duval also met uh separately, separately with the contractor uh who was also at the site visit.

And uh since then she has obtained a couple of estimates from him.

Uh she has some concerns with the estimates, so she hasn't signed them yet.

Um of those concerns being uh that the estimate is for a full replacement of the siding, um, which uh is not necessary per the code and uh Ms.

Duval would like to have like for some of the existing siding to remain.

So we need to figure out how much of the siding can remain and how much needs to be replaced.

Um that's one issue with with the estimates, and there are a couple of other minor issues.

I I don't know if you care to hear about the estimates right now.

Um but uh the purpose of the meeting with him was to try to get a better idea of the uh estimation uh estimated completion date for the work.

And uh we we haven't been able to get clear answers for him about that uh from him about that.

So that's kind of the the hold up and getting that information for to get the uh COA approved.

So that's where we're at right now.

Okay, all right.

That's fine.

Any comment from yes, I have one.

Um at the site meeting, um, and also um in our correspondence with um with Emily with Ms.

Jarson.

Uh uh she was nice enough to um speak with somebody um in code enforcement about the notifications um or any kind of permits, and that we didn't have to do the house wrap and and all of that.

So initially he wanted to do that, and she was nice enough to find out, and it seemed like in her correspondence with us they were still not knowing exactly how much siding that we needed to do, but definitely not as much as he wants to do, and that makes a difference in the pricing and all of that.

So that's kind of where we are.

There's some minor other things that I think we can come to terms.

Um, but that's some you know that's most of the project, and I went ahead into the chimney um because he didn't have a mason, and that's the first thing that needs to be done before the roof.

So that's yeah.

Okay.

All right, Meg, do you want to follow up?

Sure.

Um, we do have copies of the two estimates that we got today, so staff has that.

You just don't have a copy of that.

And um, we're gonna continue to work with uh Ms.

Duvall on the progress with the contractors.

I know the weather obviously has been an issue, but we'll our hope is to come back next month with some updates on estimated times of completion and hopefully have the certificate of appropriateness issued if we can get that far in the process.

So we'll come back with an update at the next month's meeting.

Okay.

Any questions from the commission okay?

All right, thank you.

Thanks for the update.

We'll look forward to seeing you next month.

Thank you very much.

Okay, all right.

Uh the next case I need to recuse myself, so I'm gonna ask David to uh chair the the second old business case, please.

I'll do that again.

Sorry.

Um thousand twenty-four COA 226 wholesale district, 230 South Pennsylvania Street.

We're reviewing the final construction drawings for the music venue.

Can the applicant please come forward?

Give us your name and address the uh Nathan Heiler, um I'm with Populace 1400 Ball Avenue, uh suite 1300, Kansas City, Missouri, 64105.

And I am going to have to swear you in, sir.

So if you could raise your hand for me.

Um do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Um can I ask a question here?

Wouldn't us reviewing the construction documents indicate that we approved the design for the venue.

Well, I think that there at the last meeting there was a question about coming back with the design.

Yeah, the entertainment venue design.

We're and we're working with regional center to coordinate that approval process.

But yes, we would part of it is under your jurisdiction.

Right, but we haven't approved a design, so why are we reviewing construction documents?

I think we issued a certificate of appropriateness for that.

Is that not correct?

The applicant uh actually asked to excise that part of the project from the certificate of appropriateness at the last meeting because we a few of the commissioners objected to the design.

So when was that first COA?

September.

So September of 2024 is when you all heard the case the first time.

That's when the COA was approved for the music venue and for the hotel.

But they changed the design and they didn't.

And then they came back to amend the hotel.

That was their request.

Right.

But they changed the design for the venue.

And that design was never approved.

Was that that was not part of the COA?

That was not part of the amendment.

Probably ought to be sworn in.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Um I'll start with the same thing.

I'm sorry.

Could if I could just answer the question.

So we had them come back for the amendment for the hotel because the changes were very substantive.

And it was we determined that the changes for the music venue were something that we would normally cover under the final construction drawings, which was our plan.

And then this came up to see them, I think, at the last meeting, if I understand right.

So there is a COA that approves it, and we and you all need to approve the final construction drawings, which is what they're here for tonight.

So the COA is valid for it.

Uh yeah.

So last month, we didn't actually approve a COA.

Is that correct?

We approved.

You did.

Yeah, you did.

But the amendment for the hotel, they are going to come back under old business at a separate meeting for the hotel, if that makes sense.

So we approved one back in September.

Right.

And then we approved the whole new one.

An amendment to the whole right to the hotel.

My understanding was that we would approve amendment for the hotel in the last meeting, but not for the venue.

That that's right, but the origin the original certificate approved the venue and for them to come back under old business, which is what they're here for tonight.

They just it just wasn't part of the amendment from last month.

For the design approval?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So and the documentation that they've submitted tonight today is before the design approval.

Correct.

For for the final construction drawings.

Not for the original.

Not including the hotel.

Not including the hotel.

Just that sliver of the venue, not the whole venue, but that sliver that's in the historic district.

Right.

And just for clarification, I I understand the confusion.

If if you all were reviewing the entire entertainment venue and they were making substantive changes changes, we probably would have included that with the hotel in the amendments for last month.

But typically staff will hear those final construction drawings, but it was just stipulated with the hotel for them to come back and look at that along with the entertainment venue.

But that's normally something a staff would do.

So the amendment last month was just for the hotel changes.

And so I guess I'm I'm confused as to what they have approval for, like a COA for.

They do as far as the venue.

They have a COA for the current design.

For the current design and a COA for the hotel, and they're coming back for old business for the venue tonight, and they'll come back later for the hotel for how did that COA for the current design get approved?

Well, it hasn't.

You're approving the final construction drawings tonight, hopefully.

That's that's what they're here for.

But it the concept was approved back in 2024.

I guess I'm confused because the design has changed substantially, and that would negate that COA, wouldn't it?

Well, uh so the typically we we will have substantive changes with a large project come back to you like we did with the hotel, but because this was such a small part of the entertainment venue, we did not include that with their amendments last month.

I feel like uh we got a little bit bait and baited and switched here because it it felt like in the last meeting we were gonna have another design discussion about the venue.

I mean, am I wrong?

Does anybody else feel this way?

It felt like we were gonna have another design discussion about the venue uh because the design was wholly unsatisfactory and not uh nearly the uh of the quality that we would expect from something that was such a uh you know a big part of that development as far as the the footprint of the the project goes.

And so uh I I think I'm a little disappointed to hear that we're we've already I guess apparently approved a COA and we're just here to approve the construction documents.

Meg, I think I can help.

Sure.

Um my recollection of the way we left it was because we really have jurisdiction over such a small part, and because regional center was sending mixed messages to you know basically change the design that we liked.

We really don't have that much to say about it, but we uh uh adjourned this discussion with the understanding that staff would work with the developer and work with regional center to see if we couldn't come to some understanding.

That's the way I understood it.

Yeah, and that's and they have been working with Regional Center, and I think that they're pretty much ready to sign off on the design of the rest of the construction.

What the way Susan described it is exactly my understanding, my memory of it.

But the design is which made me kind of I was a little curious, and we have you know, we'll get into this when he when they did their presentation.

Um I was expecting something a little different than what we saw last time, and all I see in the documentation is the design from last month.

I thought there might be some changes, but I figured that they'll explain that.

Yeah, that and that's what they're here for tonight is to kind of walk through, and I'm certainly not forcing you all to sign off on the final construction drawings.

It's just procedurally that's what they're here for, and they're ready to present that to you.

All right.

Uh why don't you explain what we're looking at tonight and particularly pointing out what has changed since a month ago.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Yes.

Uh I'm prepared to speak to the design changes that happened in the venue uh since we first presented in uh late 2024.

Um first off, I apologize for my voice.

Let me know if you can't hear anything.

Um thank you to the commission for allowing me to present this evening.

Um during the course of the project, Live Nation as the venue developer and operator has spent additional time in an in Indianapolis since late 2024, as well as other cities throughout the Midwest.

Um in that process, they developed um inspiration for local context and history that they wanted to augment the design to introduce those elements.

Um these elements in particular are to uh through the development of the con of a of an overall venue concept rooted in the region's musical heritage and the role live music has played in shaping a a downtown life.

The idea of a venue as a contemporary interpretation of a mainstream destination became central to their design.

Referencing a time um not exactly a nostalgia, but when led live music venues served as places of gathering and shared experience.

Uh that's important to them as the operator for this.

They want to make sure that the up-and-coming artists that would headline a venue of this smaller size, um, that they're building their audience and their community here through that.

And so they want their building to be reflected reflective of that.

Um so this re resulted in a holistic approach where they're trying to bring energy to the exterior and drawing building into the interior spaces, which um are are also um infused and permeated with that same energy.

Uh we believe these elements um of the of the exterior design now are consistent with the guidelines provided by this commission when we first presented in 2024.

Um we included maintaining our corners line across the overall development, um, coordinating uh specific and intricate brick detailing, and uh matching the metal panel flashing details throughout the development uh using both color and profile of the metal along the facade.

Uh while the brick color itself has shifted to a more traditional dark red, this change, along with the independent design expression of venue, helps break down the overall massing of the block, um, creating a uh uh a finer scale for the overall streetscape along Pennsylvania.

Uh the variation in material and patterning provides interest for the passers by, reflecting character found elsewhere in downtown.

The red brick also contributes to a sense of familiarity within the district.

Again, it's not nostalgia so much as uh a sense of place, a sense of of understanding of where you are and how it fits in with the larger context.

Um it more directly ties to game bridge across the street as well.

The brick patterning itself is intentionally independent of the hotel.

It introduces a contemporary shadowing while introdu while maintaining that fine level of detail uh typical of masonry of uh of probably the last hundred years, um, and reinforces the design concept, bridging past and present.

I appreciate your consideration of these changes and your alignment, their alignment with the intent of the overall district.

Thank you.

Do we we don't do we take uh public no okay?

Commissioners questions, comments.

Well, I continue to find the design to be inadequate, uh cap as the building moves so it slinks into the rail line.

It's sort of a uh sloughing off of the building.

It has really no character uh the previous design at least was a statement.

It was an endpoint.

This is just kind of a brick facade that uh is you know uh no competition to the exceptional buildings that surround it.

Um I I th I would suggest that if you know they didn't want us to have purview over a portion of it, then they should have drawn demise their buildings differently.

But the portion, even the portion that we have uh purview over, it just uh does not meet the standard that I believe that a building of this importance should have.

So I I I can't get on board with this design.

It it's been reduced significantly from its original uh form.

And you know, I I'm not in favor of uh anything about it.

Before I continue, I wanted to ask, I forgot to ask staff if you have comments about this.

Um I don't have any additional comments.

Um, the only thing I was going to mention, which Meg mentioned is that Regional Center um did let us know that they're preparing that approval letter, um, but I can answer any questions.

I'm curious whether there's from last month hearing to now.

Was there discussion about any changes to the design and were there any change?

It doesn't appear that there have been any changes.

Um we did meet to go over kind of how they got to this design, but I don't believe there are any changes from what we saw last month or that's correct.

Uh uh real quick for the record, I forgot to mention my name, Tim Oakes, attorney Icemiller, officers at One American Square Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200.

Um there haven't been any changes, but but I do want to state something, um, which is uh one of the things we are hoping to accomplish besides putting the design change in the context, in other words, what generated that design change, which Nate just went over, um, is also the opportunity to submit the actual construction drawings because you look at the color renderings that are in the staff report as opposed to the construction drawings that you might draw a little bit uh I'm not sure how accurate that rendering is as compared to the construction drawings.

Um that big blank gray area, it you know it it's not really like that.

You do not see any really of the of the relief uh along the brick pattern, and so um my hope is that you know the members have had an opportunity to actually look at the construction drawings because I think there's a lot more detail uh and it's a it's a much better design, I think, than what you see in the in the color renderings that, for example, are on the screen now.

Okay commissioners any questions, comments Andrew Nan.

I'm with Anson on this one.

Um your original design back in September was had much more elegance to it and more interest to it.

You could look at that and get more of the sense of it being a public entertainment venue.

This looks almost kind of like a high school to me.

Um just a and I understand that we really can't get the brick detail as well on the rendering, but it's just kind of to me kind of blank walls.

Um if the other commissioners want to do that um to agree with the design.

I don't know if I can though.

If I may um to to talk down through the elevation, the um what we call the crown, the metal uh box surrounding the performance hall.

Um up above the roof line, it is set back from the street.

Uh it is largely unchanged from the original submittal.

Um the lower bridge.

Well, I'm gonna stop you right there because that material change is significant.

It was a metal cladding.

Can I guess warning?

Please do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

And make sure to state your full name and address for us, please.

Thank you.

Melody Park, the owner's rep for the boxcar development, 125 South Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Um, so I've been here throughout the whole design, and one of the things is that that cladding has not changed since the first submission of 2000 in September 2024.

Can we pull that submission up, please?

Yeah.

So the middle cladding, because one moment I'm gonna try to get that to come up.

That's a better picture than that.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So one of the things I don't last time we were here, we were to come back to tell you the story of why we changed the design from September 2024 to now.

And one of the things that Nate is not able to say, but as a part, you know, as a developer and owner's rep, one of the things that Live Nation is trying to do is create this new venue that creates a main street feel, 1950s, starting artists that goes around throughout the throughout the state, throughout the United States to perform in this venue style.

They have this concept in other cities that are supposed to be like the 1950s, the main street concept.

So when we submitted the September 2024, that was more generic.

I say the 4,000 C 4,000 person music venue.

As we did more of the due diligence to add to the CSX area, we try to stay within that main street, stay within the concept of Live Nation and what they're performing.

So for us, actually, it's kind of funny you say that is that we thought the initial one looked like a music performance center for a high school compared to what we are proposing now, which is more like the main street with the marquee, main marquee coming out that we will come to you guys for approval or regional center, depending on where it is.

It is in the regional center for the signage to invoke that feel of the main street 1950s music venue.

So that's where the uh the story changed, and it's almost like when I told architects when I said, Hey, for me, is like we changed from McDonald's to Chick-fil-A.

It's two different brands that they're trying to sell.

And initially, the the music venue was more generic music venue that had 4,000 seat capacity.

This one is more towards geared towards, including the artist who is gonna perform here, the main street 1950s, going around and becoming unknown artists that becomes newly minted.

Before Taylor Swift was Taylor Swift, you know, performing in a small venue.

So that's where we hearken it back to.

So last time we were supposed to come back to show you why we changed the design and why the story fits to this context.

Can you tell me what's creating the wave in that rendering on the upper portion of this building?

It was a metal panel that was like uh it's patterning within the metal itself.

Why doesn't not wave the same wave exist if it's the same material?

Maintain that or would you change it?

There is no longer a wave in the So it's not the same design.

It's the same metal, but we we've patterned it differently.

And if you look at the corner, if you look above the uh can you understand why I'm getting a little annoyed here why you're trying to sell a design that's not the same as being the same?

I think that's a little disingenuous.

I feel like you need to come clean that this just isn't the same design, that it's been simplified, that it's not as expensive or as intricate as the initial design, and that uh what we're looking at here is not of the quality of the original concept.

I I think the the fact that you keep trying to sell it as the same thing uh is starting to get a little bit of a certain understanding and I apologize I should have started out with an acknowledgement that the design has changed.

Um I do take issue with your assertion that the quality is any different.

We've provided what's the construction cost of this venue now versus when it started.

Can I answer that?

It has gone up by 24 million dollars because of the changes in materiality and also the corner area, the one that you see, the glass, the above the uh that little white box is actually a glass.

What's the square footage now versus previously?

It is still within the 80,000 square foot.

It's the same square footage.

Yes, but the you for us, the venue has much more detailing interior as well as the exterior.

Exterior prices actually is more because of that cladding on the upstairs on the corner of the North.

Can you share those those numbers?

I can share the numbers.

But I don't have the details.

I I I've been doing this for 26 years.

I don't believe that that facade on the new is more expensive than the original facade.

I I you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that.

So the facade itself, the core and shell went up by three million dollars for the new design versus the old.

Much of that is just escalation versus the actual construction.

It's bid price.

I mean, one of the things is that we had Sheel Sexton, who is our GM do the price model, and we actually had to do the negotiation between Life Nation and us.

So every pricing adjustment that they I do, they have to pay for in rent.

So therefore they want to know the comparison.

So when it comes to brick and the upstairs with a lot more detail is actually costing more money.

So the glass cladding, right?

What are you what is the materiality?

Sorry, I'm not sure.

The glass cladding became more expensive because we had to change to what actually had a uh more of an old school look to it, um which became very difficult to do um and maintain energy performance within the uh um the envelope within the assembly.

Um so we ended up spending additional HVAC on the interior in order to cloud it in more of a pure uh like glass brick.

And the additional uh for the entry for the structural as well as the inset for the left side uh more towards the CSX for the VIP entrance became more intricate as well.

So definitely not a flat face, it's more of uh undulating if you're going down um north to south towards the CSX bridge.

We wanted to make sure that the darkness was not uh something that we wanted, especially for the VIP entrance to shift all the way down to the south.

That entrance, if you see the rendering, you'll see that inset so that people understood that the building is all of the parking garage all the way to the bridge, not just a small front portion.

That's one of the reasons why we work with the regional center as well to add those four windows, because they wanted more depth.

Or we had initially how many windows do we have initially?

Three maybe.

And then uh they wanted more, so we added more windows, and then they wanted to make sure that we had some depth as well as the air intake.

We wanted to make sure that it had architectural feature.

We'll be working with them as well to put details on the street level.

So, yeah, one of the things that we say that we wanted to come back was that the design changed because the venue style changed and the concept of the what the artist was going to perform and how they were going to do it, and the branding changed.

So therefore, the outside when we did the initial one was any music venue that would have 4,000 person capacity to actually being branded and having an identity of that main street field, 1950s, starting artists and having that throughout the nation that could say if you were going to this venue, you would recognize it anywhere as in like Live Nation venue that you would go from, maybe in Kansas that had the same style of venue, and you would know that this type of artist would perform there.

Well, I'm gonna just disagree with the the precept that that's uh a venue that uh you know a starving artist would play at I I I agree with Anne Jeanette that it it looks like a campus building.

Um you just can't convince me that that this current iteration is the end cap that this development deserves.

I I just I'm not gonna get there.

It's it's too plain, it's too flat, it's too uh banal, and you can add all the brick detailing you want to it.

It's not gonna change the fact that it that the architecture of it is just a plain flat facade with you know just an entry and it looks like cowwall on the the uh you know the glass boxes that you you described.

And if you're paying more than cowwall for it, then I'm not really sure what you're paying for.

Yeah.

I'm I understand how you feel about this design, but I just want to be careful that we're not overreaching because at the end of the day, we really don't have much of anything to say about what they do in that space.

And so the the best we can do, or the only thing I think we can do is just move on and with you know, on the record, our disappointment and you know whatever, but there's really nothing we can say about this.

There's one little sliver that's ours, you know, in our jurisdiction and and nothing else.

And so I think you know, I listened to what their goals were, and uh I you know I sort of understand Main Streets, and that doesn't look like Main Street to me either, but that's not the point, I think at this point.

The regional center has approved it.

That's that's who's got who has the authority, and we're disappointed.

It's uh regional center isn't a design review.

No, not not the way this body is.

Right.

But they they have the authority on that piece of geography of the downtown.

Well, as I said, if they didn't want us to have an opinion on it, then they shouldn't have drawn their their plans into our district.

You know, that I think that that that if they want to uh argue semantics over what sliver we have purview over, then they they're free to do that.

But we're also free to say that we don't appreciate the design that is in our context, and and that's what I'm doing right now.

Right, exactly.

And I you know, I have some cons concerns about it too, but my biggest concern is that um the the best we can do is put on the record that this body is disappointed, or members of this body are disappointed, and I think that's the same thing.

Yeah, I'm I'm just not satisfied that that's the best that we can do.

Right.

I get it.

But again, we're not the we're not the we don't have the authority over the bulk of that design.

We just don't.

That's okay, we have enough.

I just wondered if we could get a little bit of context on the what was passed around to us that was not in the packets just now.

Like is that that's the current, it just it looks so different than what is on the right there.

So I just wanted to know exactly what we were looking at with that.

Certainly.

Uh with these latest changes, um, we developed um renderings of the facade um trying to illustrate the primarily the change in brick and the way the windows um they don't step back a huge amount, but they do step back some.

So we're trying to show that.

Um the the biggest feature we're trying to illustrate that you don't get, I think, from a straight-on elevation is though is the marquee as a light up um signifier of the entry.

We we're not in control.

Can I just interrupt here for a second?

Sure.

If the current depiction isn't a good uh example of the current design, then maybe we should continue this and until we can get a current a good depiction of the current design.

What what is being proposed for approval are the actual construction drawings, not that.

I I can't control what's put in the staff report.

I I think that's a very bad depiction.

Now, it came from us, but I don't think it's a very good depiction of what's actually proposed in those sheets that were sent around are updated and a much better depiction of what's actually being proposed, what the actual construction drawings represent.

So you're not you would not be approving what was on the screen, which again I don't like.

You're approving the actual construction drawings and those sheets that I circulated, those are reflective of the actual construction drawings.

Okay.

Anybody I'd like to comment.

So like Susan, I recognize that it's almost sort of accidental that we have reviewing this because it just a relatively small part of it is over the line.

Um I will say that the reason I'm probably prepared to somewhat reluctantly vote for it, is that it's such a the part that we have any jurisdiction over is such a small part of this entire project.

And I can't exactly, other than the fact that I it's not my favorite design, and I think it's not as good as it was before, I can't point to that small section that's in the district and say there's something so radically damaging to the character of our district and what we've approved that we can't approve it.

And I also recognize that it's there is another body that's reviewed the bulk of the thing.

And uh it's I'm sure we have approved things that folks at regional center sometimes that are like right next to it or something that might wonder why we approve that too.

But having said that, I I just want to tell you my impression of it.

Um I look at the design from 2024, the first one, I look at it and it looks like gee, there's probably something pretty exciting going on inside there.

Um I look at the one, the present one, and uh I'm not sure.

I don't think calling it looking like a high school is maybe not the word I was thinking of, because I was thinking of uh warehouse.

Um it's pretty boring.

Sorry.

Uh whereas the first one sort of looked like it was exciting.

But that's just my personal opinion.

Uh again, I can't while that's what I feel about it.

Um I can't say that it's damaging to our district for that to be the way it's being proposed.

So that's why I'm prepared to vote for it.

But if does anybody else have a comment?

We'll just take a vote then.

I would like to just address what you said, and and I think that we can tell by the sliver that we do have purview over.

And again, they knew where the line was when they were drawing these buildings.

And if they didn't want us to have purview over this venue, then they could have drawn it differently, but that's not how they drew it.

So we do have purview over a portion, and that portion is enough for us to know that it does not compete with the grandeur of the buildings that it is in context with.

And not only that, it is like I said, it is a a slinking approach to the the end of that that run at that ends at the the railroad tracks.

And so I I think that the sliver that we have that purview over is like I said, enough to know that this scale and the design of this building is not contextual and it does not uh enrich that district in a way that this building should, as we can tell by the previous design.

So I I I disagree that you know, just because we only have a sliver of the design, and that you know another body has approved the design and things like that.

I I th I think that there is enough here for us to say that this is not an appropriate uh design for it for this building and this site.

All right.

Let's take a take a vote.

Do I I assume we have we take a vote on this, right?

Yeah.

So it's just not a certificate.

To approve the plans.

Okay.

Um do I hear a motion to approve the plans?

Thank you, Susan.

Do I hear a second?

Mike, thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

In it, were you nay?

So we are one, two, it does not pass.

It doesn't uh You have four votes, you need five.

We can't we come back next month, right?

Yeah.

It doesn't fail, it just doesn't matter.

Yeah, that's it.

It's an indecisive vote, so it will come back next month for hopefully.

All right.

So it's an indecisive vote.

And we'll see you next month.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

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

And so we'll move to the public hearing portion of the meeting.

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

My name is Bill Brown, President.

To my right, Anson Keller, Commissioner.

David Baker to my left, Vice President, Susan Williams in front, Secretary.

Michael Bivins, Commissioner, and Jeanette Silvilich, Commissioner, and Kristen Wiggs, Commissioner.

Our staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmanz, our legal counsel.

Emily Jarrison is our principal architectural reviewer.

Shelby Long is our senior architectural reviewer.

Grace Skedector, our preservation planner and recorder.

And would note that this is Grace's last meeting with us.

She is moving to Nevada.

So we'll be uh posting her position here shortly.

Uh Morgan Marlejo is our architectural reviewer, and Caroline Anna Maker is our architectural reviewer as well.

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, and which will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard by the Commission this evening.

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

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

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

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

Doing so may result in the application being continued if the commission or the staff believes the material substantially alters the request or requires more 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.

The order of each case this evening will be as follows.

We'll call for the applicant to come forward and make their presentation.

We'll also ask if there are anyone anyone wishing to support the application to come up and speak.

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

We'll then ask for objections or remonstrations to the application.

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

Then we'll ask for staff comment.

Uh we'll take questions from the commissioners, and the applicant will have a last word or rebuttal of up to a maximum of an additional 10 minutes.

And then I'll ask Meg for a staff recommendation.

So before calling the first case in the public hearing portion of the meeting, I'd like to ask anyone who's going to speak to any of the cases this evening to stand up and be sworn in by uh by Grace.

If you could all raise your hand, thank you.

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

Say I do.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Grace.

All right.

Uh we have one request uh for a continuance.

Meg, do you want to take us through that, please?

2025 COA 489 B, Chathamarch, Massachusetts Avenue.

The address is 409 Massachusetts Avenue, and the applicant is Justin King, and that's for a um the trash can solution.

And that requests continue to March 4th.

All right, thank you.

Any questions from the Commission?

If not, I'll take a motion for the continuance.

As presented.

Thanks, you Ann Jeanette.

Second, please.

Thanks, Kristen.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we have three expedited cases this evening.

Maybe two.

Right.

I I do believe there might be someone here to remonstrate on one of these, so you may want to ask if that person is present.

Okay.

Uh for the case 2025 COA 427 Fletcher Place and variance 2020 26, VHP 001, 606 Fletcher Avenue, uh, Vincent Braun is the applicant.

Is there anyone wishing to speak to that case?

Okay, we'll pull that case here and here in just a moment then.

So uh we'll uh want to uh then take the two expedite cases then, Meg, please.

2025 COA 503 Lockerbie Square, addresses 520 North Park Avenue, and the applicant is Matthew Payton, and that request is for uh construct to construct a garage edition and second floor edition on the rear and construct a first floor edition and new patio on the south side.

And 2025 COA 508 cottage home addresses 1214 East St.

Clair Street, and the applicant is also Matthew Payton.

And that is to convert an existing garage to a carriage house by adding a second story edition and rear first floor edition.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Anyone wishing to speak to the two expedited cases presented by staff?

Any questions from the commission on the two expedited cases?

If not, I'll take a motion for the two expedited cases as presented by staff.

Thanks, Anjanette.

Thanks, David.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, they pass.

So we'll now hear the uh the one case.

Uh is that a new case or is that a continued case?

Uh that is a continued case, and then the one that was just pulled from the expedited case we'll hear right after.

Okay, yeah, that's what I was asking.

Okay.

All right.

We'll now hear applications to be heard, which have continued.

Uh that case this evening is 2025 COA 301 Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue.

And the address is 656 East Arch Street.

Abby Robertson is the applicant.

Please come forward and state your name and address and present your case to us.

Abby Robertson, uh 9663 Elm Drive, Carmel, Indiana.

Presenting for 656 East R Street.

I know it's a familiar project at this point.

So yeah, we uh genuinely appreciate the time at the last commission hearing, the feedback and um yeah, just the the thoughts that you provided on that and the feedback.

Um hopefully you see that we uh really heard you.

We worked to incorporate that.

Um high level changes that were made.

Um adjustments after that were uh moving the garage a couple feet further back to the alley.

Um that gained us a little bit more room to slide that addition further back.

Um we did get the addition to the back of the existing gable structure.

Um we did lose a little bit of our backyard space.

Um so that was something that we worked through there, and then we another point was the eaves lining up on the front.

So we carried that roof line down on the cross gable edition so that way it would align with the eve of the existing home.

Um the last item was uh in doing that, it created a little um bump out above the porch roof.

So we adjusted the porch roof width by a little bit to help catch that um that uh little build out uh underneath where the roof line uh carries forward.

So that's the high-level summary.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we'll hear uh staff comment then.

Morgan, please.

Um staff believes the request for this application.

Um excuse me, so sorry.

Uh staff believes the changes incorporated by the applicant between the previous hearing and now have created an appropriate solution to the addition to the existing workers' cottage, with the exception of removing the original chimney, and staff recommends approval of the applicant's request, and I can answer any questions.

All right, thank you, Morgan.

Questions from the commission.

David, please.

No.

Not really a question, but a comment.

I really appreciate your changes.

Um red line was to not get rid of any of the porch.

And you've now retained the entire original porch and restored that with the original openings.

Um basically the whole front facade and front facing part of the house is is uh retained.

And then bringing the Eve down made the proportions work.

So I unless I hear something that I'm not seeing or understanding, you've got my vote on this one.

Thank you, David.

Other comments, questions in the commission.

Anyone else?

Uh thank you for your patience in working with us.

I think it is going to be a good project.

And I too am uh very pleased to see the changes that you made and uh I think you'll get a favorable vote this evening.

Any uh any final comments?

Uh no final comments.

Okay.

All right, Meg, we're ready for a staff recommendation in place.

Sure.

Before I read this, um thank you for working with us.

I know it was a lot, but we got to a place where we are recommending this approval.

You you did have a chance to read this recommendation, right?

The uh the stipulations and everything.

The stipulations around the um uh demo, right?

Yeah, for the whole project.

This is all the language that's gonna be on the certificate of appropriateness.

So I just want to make sure you had a chance to read that.

I think Morgan sent it to you.

Yes, I believe I believe we're all yeah, okay.

Um I'm gonna read this a little differently because for permitting purposes, we broke out the garage and carriage house separate from the stipulations for the primary structure, just to make it a little easier for them.

Uh for COA 2025, COA 301, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish an existing garage and construct a new carriage house per the submitted documentation and subject to the seven stipulations and one note in the staff's uh recommendation, and for the primary structure to remove a rear lean to on the house, reopen the porch on the front of the house, build an addition on the rear of the house, replace all windows on house with new windows, remove all artificial siding, then remove original wood siding and trim temporarily for construction and reinstall on the house.

Remove block and artificial block material at the foundation and repair original brick.

All per the submitted documentation and the 13 stipulations in one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, all right.

Uh I'll take a motion for the staff recommendation is read, please.

Thank you, Susan.

Thank you, David.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we will go back to an earlier case that was pulled from the expedited list, case 2025 COA 427, Fletcher Place, and 2026 VHP 001, address 606 Fletcher Avenue.

Vincent Braun is the applicant.

Is Vincent here?

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

My name is Vince Braun, Vincent Braun, and I live at 1617 South Inn.

It's just the letter in street in Elwood, Indiana.

Uh I'm here representing uh Maria Posada and her husband Mike for building a new garage.

They have an existing garage, uh, as you can see in the pictures, that is older.

It was built in uh I believe around 1982, uh, but I think it first started showing up on the pictures in 1986.

Um the the roof, so the the it is built with a uh a rafter system for the roof.

So that's why you can see a little bit of a sag in that coach house garages.

When we build garages, they have trusses.

We have our own trust factory.

Um our buildings are of the highest quality.

If you have had a chance to look into Coach House's garages, we'll build somewhere between 40 and 50 a year in in Indianapolis area alone.

Um we work across five states.

Um the garage that we're that we propose to build is a 20 by 30 uh with pretty much the same materials as what they have.

It will be the uh James Hardy cement board for the siding.

This will have a higher pitch roof uh because we're putting an attic in it for for more storage, which is a lot of the purpose of them wanting a new garage, besides the fact that they just need to replace their older one.

And it is a little bit larger garage to be able to park their vehicles in the one that they have right now, is uh too narrow for them to really park two cars in comfortably without having to worry about damage and those kind of things.

Um what we're here about is the 75 foot sight line.

Uh the garage that's existing there now is in the 75-foot sight line.

This garage will be maybe five or six feet more into that site line, but it's on an alley.

Um I've driven over to this property many times at all different times of the day, early in the morning, late in the morning, afternoon, lunchtime, late afternoon.

Uh only time I haven't been there is after dark, but that's because I live an hour away.

Um but um I haven't ever seen another car coming out of that alley or going down.

Not saying that they don't, but uh I I don't think that this is gonna harm from my experience uh working with Coach House for seven years.

Uh I don't think this is gonna harm the site line any more than it already is.

Uh we we looked at all the setbacks.

We could come back a little bit further, but that's gonna make a tree have to come out.

And that that also hurts the history of the neighborhood uh the way a lot of people look at it.

You know, you don't want to take a tree down that you don't have to.

Um so it it it backs up pretty close to that tree, just like the original garage does.

And that's pretty much everything I've got.

Okay.

Umers are here, like I say, if if you want to hear from them as well.

Or yeah, anyone who wants to speak in support of the application, uh please come forward, name and address, please.

Good evening, Commissioner Brown and uh other board members.

Jim Lingenfelder with uh 525 Design Studio, but I'm here as a neighbor representing uh 525 Lord Street.

My garage sits on the alley that is in question.

And uh, you know from many times I've been before you when we've talked about clear sight triangle.

It's a modern um invention and is hard to apply to historic districts, and you have been uh gracious enough to grant many variances.

This, as Vince said, it's a low traffic alley.

Uh it's an alley and a street, but it's Cincinnati Street is one of those named alleys in Indianapolis.

Both are low traffic, but not completely, as maybe as Vince said, but low traffic, low speed streets.

Cincinnati is only a one block long.

It doesn't um it attaches to Fletcher Street and then dead ends at uh Lord Street.

The alley goes across, but it's pretty slow traffic, and um I think that that what is being proposed is compatible with historic patterns, and so I am speaking in support of this alley.

As I said, I drive I drive down the alley.

I don't think I'm going to be suffering anything because I know to stop there, but there is a stop sign, and uh I think we can live with this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Okay.

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance, please come forward, name and address.

Excuse me.

Sorry, Jeff Miller, 558 Fletcher Avenue.

I live about four houses to the west of the subject property at 606 Fletcher.

Uh my garage lets out into the alleyway.

And I I don't disagree with the staff that it's probably not frequently used, but I can say that I use it at least a couple times a week.

My son's girlfriend lives in Irvington, and when I want to get to Irvington, I come out of my garage and I head east, I cross Cincinnati, and then head out to college and then head north.

Likewise, when I'm coming home, I'll either come back on Fletcher, head up north on college, and then head west along that alleyway, cross Cincinnati, and then head to my home.

And I have seen other neighbors do that.

Uh in fact, some of them were brave enough to do it in the snow, and I had to help push one back in their garage.

So it is used, but I do agree with staff that not only is it not super frequently, but it's also currently there's a T intersection, right?

You've got Cincinnati going north-south, got an alleyway to the west that's paved, and then an alleyway to the east that is miserable.

It's dirt, probably better driven with the Jeep.

It's horrible.

But there's some context that I'm not faulting the staff for not having it in there, but I want to make sure to share with you.

So in fact, I did try to inform staff, but I'm incapable of typing people's emails because I messed up uh the email.

And then also I left a voicemail, but of course, staff was out because of the snow.

So through a comedy of errors, I didn't get a hold of anybody in time.

But I did send an email that you might have in your day file that you get day of that shows a petition that you all approved.

Uh 2023 COA 111.

That's a really important petition to have context in.

That's in the northeast corner of this, you know, cross that we're talking about.

What you all approved, and that's gonna be awesome, is two homes.

So they're actually splitting the lot.

And if you look at the plans, I'm so impressed they kept out of the clear sight triangle on both.

Uh that is not easy to do, especially if you're splitting a lot.

So they managed to get no or to need no variance, so it can be done.

And they obviously lost a lot of developable property because of that.

Now, did they do it because they thought this intersection was unsafe?

I don't know.

But they certainly didn't want the variance and planned around it.

So the point is there's gonna be two new homes there, but also the plat committee finally, you all approved this in 2023.

Platte committee approved it at the end of 2025.

But the two homes are also going to move to the north by 10 feet, vacating a really crummy alleyway north of 324 South College, the two properties.

So the one that staff is talking about will now move five feet north, expand by two feet, and be paved.

Hallelujah.

So the chance that it will be used is a lot higher.

And that's a commitment, by the way.

It's not like, oh, we may pave it.

No, it's actually a commitment to Platte Committee, you know, put into law.

Also, long-range plans for DPW are for college to be two-way all the way down to Virginia.

Who knows if that'll happen, but they've managed to get it two way to market.

I didn't think they could even do that.

So I'm really happy.

If that happens, there'll be even more traffic using that alleyway, which again is now paved because you can go south on college.

And then I will also do that to head west to my home.

So that's important context that I just want you to have.

But again, I don't fault the staff for not having that in there.

All right.

What I do think is an issue though is on page 32, which is the proposed findings of fact, and I believe that comes from the petitioner.

I don't agree with the response to number one and to number three.

So I believe this is about the variance and whether you all should approve it.

And the first one is about public safety, et cetera.

Their answer is the building will be similar in size of the existing garage.

I don't think that was meant to be misleading, but it's not similar in size.

If you look on the property record, the current garage is 22 by 22.

If you look on page 29 of the staff report, the new garage is 24 by 30.

That's almost a 50% increase in size.

48.7 to be exact.

So I I don't think they answered that question adequately.

And I think anybody reading the staff report and reading the variance request, naturally, we go, oh, if it's the same size, oh well, right?

I mean, it is in the clear site triangle right now, but it's been that way for 40 years.

You we've dealt with it.

I deal with it.

When I stop, I scooch out, I look around, and I go.

But this answer I would argue is is not factually correct.

So I think instead it should say it's nearly 50% bigger and extends six feet into the clear sight triangle beyond what the current plans or what the current garage is.

Because if you look on page 28 and page 29, where they're showing the proposed uh uh garage, a little bit of it goes behind the area to the west where the garage currently is.

But it's hard to tell because they don't put the exact dimensions on here, but I did my best, I think it's about six feet, is extending into the clear site triangle.

I'm six foot tall.

So imagine me additional clear sight triangle being removed.

I personally think, as somebody that drives that alleyway, and I can tell you I have to scooch out and you you look both ways, and we do have the stop.

That's great, I have the stop sign.

But now I've got to be careful because the other people don't.

The people in Cincinnati do not.

Now, granted, the lower part of Cincinnati is a terribly maintained cobblestone alleyway or street.

But it may be improved one day.

It's my goal to find enough money to do that because it's one of the few cobblestone streets in the city.

But even with the fact you're going slow, still they have the right of way.

So I got to stop, and now I'm gonna have to go six more feet to look around that corner.

I also think the answer to number four, or sorry, number three on page thirty-two is inadequate because it says that it's being built in the same location.

Well, again, it's it's not in the same location.

It's it's bigger.

So I don't think this was meant to be misleading.

I'm not at all trying to convey that, but I do think it is factually incorrect.

And I think they need to justify why an additional six feet the cars have to move to the point where you're almost on Cincinnati to be able to see around it, why that should be okay.

Now, preferably they would have come to a neighborhood meeting or come to a land use committee meeting, and I did email the petitioner's agent because his email contact I I did that one right.

Sorry again, Morgan.

Um, but I did email them saying, hey, can we have a continuance?

Can you meet with us?

And his answer was no, we want to go forward, which is fine.

I understand some people want to roll the dice and just come before you all, but preferably they would have come to a neighborhood meeting and presented, or at least talked to the land use committee.

I can say that three members, I'm one of them, have said they would have liked a continuance, but we didn't get a full vote on it because there wasn't time and no one presented to us, so can't speak for the land use committee or for the neighborhood in that regard.

But I will say, if they had met with us, I would point out a couple other options they could do.

They alluded to one of them.

They could shift it to the west.

That would eliminate a tree and have to change the fence around, but they could probably do it up to three feet, maybe more.

That would reduce the clear sight triangle, you know, being blocked.

So that's one option.

Another option is they could change the orientation so it lets out into the alleyway.

Now, obviously, that would reduce the backyard, which is a bummer.

We live in an urban setting.

We have really small lot sizes, but if you want a bigger garage, sometimes you got to sacrifice some of your backyard.

As an example, my garage is 22 by 24.

Theirs is right now 22 by 22.

But in my garage, I can fit two cars, and for a while it was an SUV when my son was younger, two bikes, two ladders, and I have a big shelf where I have all my Christmas decorations.

And mine's only two feet bigger than what they currently have.

So there are other options.

And obviously another one is just rebuild the current garage at the current dimensions.

Obviously, the ones have been there for 40 years.

So sure, it's in the clear site triangle, but it's no worse than what we've dealt with for those 40 years.

So I would respectfully ask that it be either continue so they can meet with us, or if they want to have it heard tonight, then that it would be denied.

So anyway, thank you for your time.

Most importantly, thank you for your service.

I know this takes a lot of your time, but I also know you're really passionate, and thank you for that, and thank you also to the staff.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Seeing then we're ready for uh staff comment then we've got uh Morgan.

Um staff is recommending approval of the application.

Uh the garage is straightforward and respectful to the property and the district.

The obstruction to the clear sight triangle of the alley is minimal as the well, it's Cincinnati Street, but um is not paved or frequently used by the pu general public or city services in the direction of the impediment on the clear site triangle.

Um when I visited site, I also did not encounter any vehicles.

Um and their impediment is on the clear site of the alleyway to the north of the property and Cincinnati, not the eventual alleyway that'll cross over to college.

Okay, thank you.

Questions for Morgan or comments from the commission answer, please go ahead.

I drive this frequently.

I live in that area, and um I come down that alley quite a bit.

Uh I do have a four-wheel drive vehicle, so I do brave that Cincinnati uh leg that goes um south past there.

But uh, you know, I I've rarely, if ever, encountered a vehicle coming east on that alley.

And furthermore, um I just don't think that we can apply a hardship when, especially when the the garage to the north impedes much further into the clear site triangle than this uh garage would, even the proposed structure would.

So I I just think that we don't really have um any reason to deny this uh petition.

Thanks, Anson.

Other comments, please?

David, please go ahead.

So um before the meeting tonight, I drove over there, drove both ways in the the alley.

Uh I had no problem.

Uh I tried to imagine the new location, and I still didn't uh have a problem.

But the biggest problem was the trash cans, maybe in the core on the corner.

They could maybe be moved over a little bit.

Uh but uh I also that whole intersection is actually a little bit more spacious than some intersections of alleys.

And I'm thinking of alleys in Lockerby and uh Chatham Arch and St.

Joe that are far tighter.

Right.

Uh and it's just you know, this is an old area, it's tight, and you have to drive carefully.

But I don't I don't myself see a problem either.

Okay, other comments?

Susan, please.

Yes, I don't have an opinion either way, given what we've heard today.

The thing that captured my attention was the fact that the neighborhood wasn't given the opportunity to review this, and that's always uh uh red flag for me.

And I think that with our partnership with our historic districts that we owe the owe it to the neighborhoods to give them an opportunity to review.

We don't necessarily agree with them every time.

We don't necessarily um have to um other than just take into consideration what the thoughts are.

So that's uh gonna cause me to either vote for a continuance or vote against the application.

Other comments from the commission, please.

Okay.

Um I certainly hear what you're saying, Susan.

We often do look for the uh neighborhoods to review uh you know the the various cases.

We certainly have heard cases, obviously, that have not gone in front of the uh the neighborhoods.

Um I I would ask staff how many garages violate the clear side triangle and alleys.

Hundreds.

Yeah, I mean honestly, probably the majority of any garage that's on a corner of an alley is probably already in the clear side triangle, especially in Lockerbie, as you mentioned.

It's very tight there.

Right.

Yeah, I live in Lockerbead, so I appreciate exactly what that is.

I I absolutely agree with what Susan is saying, but I think the preponderance of this is such that I'm not sure that it's necessary, in my opinion, anyway, to continue this and hear and hear the case again and get to the same conclusion because I think we're having so many garages that are in this situation.

I don't see this one as being that unique.

So that would really be my thought that we proceed this evening with it with a vote, and then uh everyone can choose to uh vote accordingly.

So uh any final word from the applicant.

I just want to say the reason that I met Morgan mostly by email and some phone calls was that I was speaking with her about the historic uh part of that.

Uh I can't remember the name, historic preservation commission.

So we were speaking, and then she told me, hey, you're in clear the the site path, so you've got to do this as a variance instead.

So we didn't avoid that, it just this is where it went to, and this is how the large areas that we deal with, it's usually once we apply for permits that we hear about neighborhood committees or or historic areas.

Uh I just recently had to do with the Meridian Street historic had to do a variance with them.

So I wasn't before you guys, I was for somebody else.

Yeah, they're and then I also after got that one done, then I had to do one with uh Marie and Kessler for the same same one.

So we are used to that, but we just don't always know that those those committees exist until we're told that they are.

So I was speaking with them on this.

I plan to have to do two hearings.

Um from what I understand, this is gonna take care of both instances for us.

So uh in that regard.

As far as turning the garage 90 degrees the other way, they have two dogs, they need their backyard.

It's not a very big backyard as it is, so it really wasn't feasible to do that either.

So thank you for your time.

Uh huh.

Thank you.

All right, Meg, I think we're ready for staff recommendation then for the uh case and the variance.

Sure.

Before I do that, Chris just wanted to comment on the findings real quick.

Right, Chris.

For the uh the variance aspect of it.

The petition or I'm sorry, the remonstrator had concerns about the uh findings of facts.

These are findings, proposed findings of facts that are submitted by the petitioner.

Um reviewing these, I too have some concerns about the language that's used in these findings.

So we can go ahead and vote on it, and it doesn't affect the outcome.

In fact, this is what we do if something gets denied, we have to come back later for negative findings.

It would be a very similar situation.

So I I just well wanted to advise the commission not to adopt findings on this very petition tonight.

Well, I could interject there, whereas I I kind of disagree because the petitioner or the the most reader, excuse me, um, sort of cherry-picked the facts there.

He used square footage, which is a little misleading.

Uh the actual dimension that is less than a 10 percent uh increase in uh the overall, or sorry, less the far less than a 50 percent increase.

Um it's an eight-foot increase on a 22-foot uh length.

So the the actual length that's being created on the on a facade, the the largest length is far less than uh a 50 percent increase.

It's like what's that uh maybe a 30, uh not less than 30 percent increase, so or maybe a little bit more than that.

percent uh increase in uh the overall or sorry less that far less than a 50 percent increase um it's an eight foot increase on a 22 foot uh length so the the actual length that's being created on the on a facade that the largest length is far less than uh a 50 percent increase it's like what's that uh maybe a 30 uh not less than 30 percent increase so or maybe a little bit more than that i i would just say that similar in size is subjective depending on what metrics you use and he chose the ones that made his argument but I'm not I don't think that that's necessarily the the total story okay my concern is with the language and the proposed findings okay so there are concerns with what is stated in number one also in number three it states that the garage is being built in the same location as the existing garage and given the fact that it's a larger structure it's you know not possible to you know at least not do it in the same footprint right yeah I was speaking with the first one where it said similar size so maybe the maybe number three is is yeah uh that was my recommendation I'm I don't sure dictate anything to the commission understand Chris so I I guess the uh so if we were to revise the findings that would be something you'd bring back under uh old business at the next hearing and we could adopt the findings then we can still vote on both the case and the variance this evening is that correct yes you can and I'll I can read that recommendation.

Okay yeah that'd be great and then we can adopt the findings at the next meeting please for 2025 COA 427 Fletcher place staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a historic garage construct a two-card detached garage and for a variance development standards for the submitted documentation and subject to the seven stipulations in one note in the staff's written report okay thank you I'll take a motion for the staff recommendation is read please uh Kristen and David okay any final comments all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye aye any opposed same sign please okay uh passes uh six to one and then we'll do the variance for 2026 VHP 001 staff recommends to approve a variance development standards to allow construction within the required clear sight triangle okay thank you Meg I'll take a motion for the variances presented by staff thank you Kristen thanks David any final comments on the variance all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye aye any opposed same sign please okay thank you uh passes six to one as well and we'll get the findings taken care of at the next uh next hearing okay good luck with your project all right uh we will now we have no new applications this evening and so we'll move to the one preliminary review case 20 2026 COA 009 ransom place address 1010 Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street and Joseph Cauldron is here oh I've got more than enough that's annoying Joe Godin thank you state your name and thank you address and uh Joe Calderan 11 South Meridian Indianapolis and I'm representing the petitioner good evening President Brown and members of the commission we are here to um elicit some feedback on a proposed new construction of a grocery store on the parcel that is commonly known as 1010 Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street it's a vacant parcel staff did a good job with the history um most recently it was a gas station it's been vacant for 25 years probably we have been meeting with staff um since the end of the summer we submitted plans in October and importantly uh for the commissioner to know we also submitted a rezoning application right now the parcel is CBDS which is like a plan unit development for the central business district and staff concluded that we needed to rezone it so we filed for C3.

Keep in mind we are under contract and the seller is given us so much time to uh get through the uh due diligence including our our zoning work and we had uh proffered with the rezoning the COA application with admittedly uh some can more of a conceptual plan just because we're not zoned yet so working with staff uh we've gone through a couple iterations of the plans and we pushed it to the point where we do have at least more than a concept probably less than what ultimately we'll need to do for a COA application but we want to get your feedback because it's important for us to know how to move forward how much more money to spend some kind of timeline etc.

So we think that what we presented to you today, and that you know, keep in mind this is a small conservation district um being ransom placed.

This may be the only parcel that is proposed to be commercial in the plan.

Uh we've got a lot of houses to the south and to the north of us immediately that's an apart existing apartment building and then a couple of residential structures on the same side of the street.

To the west of us, where the district doesn't extend, we've got kind of a typical strip center with restaurants, etc.

So we're kind of trying to balance the context, uh certainly to be respectful.

I think if you look at the site plan in tab five, and I know staff made comments about well, we can't tell if there's variances here or not.

We think we've got the setback lines about right on both MLK uh as well as as 10th Street.

Um the setbacks on MLK to the north of us are typically uh the apartments like 17 feet um to the edge of the sidewalk and the two homes are 20 feet.

Uh and then on 10th street, the strip center is set back further.

Um we know that the newer uh town home and apartment project has variable uh setbacks off of 10th street.

So we're trying to bring, and this was in response to staff's comments, trying to bring the building to respect uh the set the existing setbacks um along both of the streets and not really feature the parking uh in front of the uh along the main streets.

Um if you look at tab six, that's a whole series of our elevations and renderings.

This is going to be a masonry building.

Um we will have two entry points.

We've added windows, we've added some interest uh in the building with cornices, etc.

Um and we understand that you know this may not be the level of detail or the colors that you want, but really what we want to do tonight is kind of get your initial thoughts, and if you know if this is something that is doable or something where we have to go back to square one from your perspective.

There's really not as much guidance in the ransom street plan as there are in other plans as to particular styles or no other commercial buildings to compare it to within the plan uh area.

So we're we're trying our best and trying to meet with staff, but it's important for us to know, you know, since we have a contract whether we're feeling good about moving forward or not, to be frank with you.

We have been in electronic communication with the neighborhood association.

We told them that we would meet after we got feedback tonight.

Uh also talked to Paula Brooks uh about the project as well.

So I'll stop there and and uh we do have representatives if you have questions of the ownership group or uh the contractor.

So I'll stop and take your comments.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Joe.

Bill?

Yeah, please.

Yep.

Just for clarification, it the drawings that are on the screen and the drawings that are in your packet, they look different.

So the commission knows what to respond to.

Are we supposed to be looking at the screen or these?

Um let me check.

I think these are the last ones right now.

Well, and the plans and the elevations didn't correspond on the ones that we received, and so that those elevations don't match the plans that they submitted, but those plans match more of the elevations that we received today.

Okay.

We probably just need to make sure this is probably the ones on the screen.

The screen are right.

I'm sorry, must have downloaded the wrong screen.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure we're all talking about it.

So yeah, he as you can see he's added more uh uh window treatments on the on the elevations on the renderings that you're seeing there.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for the clarification, Meg.

Excuse me.

Is there uh I know in the packet you've got the uh uh the statements from the uh uh area plan.

I think it might be helpful because we don't do a lot of new construction in ransom place, Meg.

It might be good just to give a little background that this is a conservation district and it's different than our historic districts.

You might just offer just a couple sentences about about that and how we review these a little bit differently, not significantly differently, but somewhat differently.

Yeah, so your role in a conservation district is pretty similar.

You're still acting as the BZA and you're still reviewing new construction.

The guidelines are a little more lenient with things like materials.

Um, but by and large, new construction guidelines are largely similar to the rest of the plans and other historic districts.

Right.

Okay.

Uh generally what we do is just go from commissioner to commissioner and get comments that uh uh the applicant can hear, and then if you've got questions, we certainly can ask the applicant as well.

Uh but uh why don't we just I'll start with Mike Bibbins this time.

Um I guess uh my comments should be the corner streets well.

Uh judging too much on that.

Um thing I will say is that based on the site plan on curious as to be out and uh strategy or plan for a custom traffic deal.

And then I'll just put out these things respond uh you'd like to signage I know the preliminary planning more uh reporting for the sign or signing board that appears to be built in the basement is it in the signal on the floor side or I I think the uh the south side of the west side would be pro the key ones and and maybe you know for those in the parking lot uh on the west facade.

I don't know if it's really needed on the north side.

One other question I have there were clear story windows marked on the uh the elevations and it seems to be not they seem not to have a relationship to the windows and the local one.

So I'm just wondering maybe if yeah we'll talk about the sign there as well.

Um those are my initial thoughts.

Okay.

If you want the uh contractor who's been involved in the design to come up and answer that question, he can, or we could just take a note and do it later.

Tommy come up yeah, name and address, please for the record.

Yes, this is Tom Sears and address is 1621 South 500 East Lebanon, Indiana 4604.

Thank you.

Yes.

You want to just answer a question?

Yeah.

Because of the the intent is this for a grocery store, so naturally you have a lot of shelving, so even though there can be natural light that is brought into the window, sometimes shelving can you know that light.

So adding the transom windows that are still underneath the drop ceiling are allowing just the more natural light to come through for the ambiance inside of the store.

That was that was the reason for the transome windows, and there is not a particular reason why they are not exactly above every single window, besides that we thought it was aesthetically pleasing to have them kind of sporadically throughout throughout the top, but are very open to recommendations on how to change it to make it more appropriate.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mike.

Yeah, yeah, sure.

Please I also noticed that some of the I hesitate to call it storefront, but the window the penetration around the other uh elevations doesn't go all the way to the ground, and um I wasn't sure if uh and I haven't seen this plan yet, so maybe it's in here and I just haven't seen it.

Yeah, but is it the intent to have windows in all almost I think three of the four sides?

Uh yes, and that was from just some of the preliminary comments we got back.

Mrs.

Shelby Long was helpful in sending us since there wasn't much guidance in the ransom place documentation, it was helpful to have some comments there.

Um she sent us a few historic photos too of some buildings, and we were just trying to emulate those those windows as best as we could.

But but they're not false windows, they're actual.

Some of them are spandrel glass because they originally had um shelving and coolers and such up against the wall, and the last thing we wanted necessarily to do is just look in the back of a cooler.

So where there is open space, there's the open glass, and where there was those shelvings there, put the spandrel glass to have that glass facade appealing to the outside, but also be functional for the grocery store and tent inside.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks, Mike.

Uh Susan, please.

Yes.

Um I I thought the building that we were looking at here was a little squat, and so when I saw what you did up there, I think it gave a little more height to it.

This style of architecture, um you know, that the shape and the size and all you do do see around some of the historic neighborhoods.

Um but not in this area.

And the building next door is quite tall, so that kind of brings um attention to that.

So I was concerned about that.

I find myself at that intersection more than I would like.

And um it sort of reminds me of dodge them.

You know, you have to figure out what lane to get in, you have to anyway.

It um the the traffic patterns and how that's gonna work is something that when you're here for a final presentation, it would be interesting to see.

And I have concern about pedestrian traffic in and out of there too, because from the neighborhoods or people coming from the other parking lot to pick something up and then go back.

I think the the whole pedestrian situation is a little bit scary too.

So those are my concerns.

I think a um a food market in that area is a wonderful addition.

I think there's no question about that.

Um, and I think you'll you'll see some people coming even from the campus and and so forth.

Dealing with what's going on in that intersection is a huge concern, and I'm guessing it'll be a concern of the neighborhood too.

And the other note that I made to myself was it would be nice to see um some really nice landscaping there to kind of help soften, I don't know, with all the fumes and stuff coming off of all those cards, they might not survive well, but um it'd be nice to see um uh some enhanced landscaping.

That's it for me.

Okay, so quick question.

Was the concern about the height?

I just misunderstood.

Was that because it wasn't as high as the other buildings, or it was too high?

I just misunderstood the first no, no.

I I just thought that being next to the the uh apartment building, I think is what that is.

Three stories, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

I I just thought it I thought that was an improved look because it kind of brings it up a little bit.

Yeah.

Understand, thank you.

All right, thanks, Susan.

Kristen, please.

Um, um Susan beat me to it.

Um I'm at that intersection every day, too.

And it is really hard for me to imagine people getting in and out of there for like many hours of a day.

Um just because everyone's using that to get on 65, right?

Um it's always so so tight.

So um I would just I I don't really have an answer.

It's just like I would love to hear how you guys are considering how I mean I know there's not a ton of parking spaces, so maybe you do envision most of your customers walking.

Um, and if that's the case, then yeah, that sidewalk couldn't be much narrower either.

Um so maybe that would be interesting to see.

Um it does look wider, the driveway that you would enter off of MLK.

Um could it shift slightly that way, or are you have you put that there so there's some space debris that people are like not feeling so quite so crowded to come in off MLK?

I I don't know.

Um but I think that's gonna be a really big pain point for anyone trying to shop at your at your market.

But I I I we I want a grocery store for sure.

It's a food desert, like we need healthy food in the area.

Um so that's great.

I just um it's hard to imagine how it'd be easy, or it wouldn't be a barrier for people to get in and out.

Okay, thanks, Kristen.

Internet um I appreciate your overall design aesthetic of it, and it's very reminiscent of old commercial buildings.

Um the couple of things that I have issues with is like Michael had mentioned was kind of just the placement of the transom windows, but also the two doors on the south side, they're right underneath the pilasters.

That is just it it doesn't look right because pilasters are supposed to kind of indicate a structural weight, and then you're putting it over an opening.

So if you can maybe look through and shift those doors or the pilasters somehow.

And then the other question I had is that all of the storefront windows, you have listed as spandrel.

Um just when you come back with the new design, if you could make a clear designation between what is clear vision glass and what is spandrel um opaque spandrel glass.

All right, thanks, Anginette, David.

Just for some perspective, uh for some perspective.

Could you remind me of what we've approved on this site in the past?

It seems to me we approved something a long time ago.

And I'm just trying to remember the thought process.

Yes, so in 2015, um, as part of a larger development that included a couple other parcels, um, it was rezoned to CBDS, um, which is what they would be rezoning from in this case for residential use.

Um it was gonna have six residential structures, um, and that also included um a variance petition for setbacks, some parking lot mover maneuverability, trash can access, and things like that.

Was that part of the development that got built on the other side of the street?

Um I apologize to the other.

So I think it was just never got built.

And I think the C BDS also allowed for certain commercial uses, retail use, it just didn't specifically say grocery store.

So we wanted to be conservative and just take it to C3 so that there wasn't any use issue in play.

Um I know one of the letters the letters we got was somewhat critical of the design.

Right.

Um I think actually it has the potential of fitting in pretty well with the brick building next door, which probably is more important than fitting in with the apartments across the street with the caveat of some of the detailing, which got some good comments on that.

Um maybe thinner pilasters on each side of those openings.

I think I hadn't noticed that, so I'm glad that you brought that up because now it's like really obvious.

Um I think landscaping can't be just a second thought to this.

It's part of it.

Um but it's a tough site.

But I think j generally you're going in the right direction, it seems like to me.

So thank you.

Okay, thanks, David Hanson.

Um first I just want to commend your client and uh recognize their previous work in addressing food deserts in Indianapolis and continuing that on this site.

It's definitely a project that I think we all can get behind and is something that we would like to see in this neighborhood.

Um but you know, that being said, I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the design and the documentation uh that presents that design to this body.

Um the site plan, I'd like to see as much information, especially as it uh relates to zoning as possible, particularly the clear site triangles.

I I'm I I don't have there's not a lot, there's not dimensions on here, so I don't have a good feeling for what the the clear site triangle would be on this site, but I do have a little bit of concern given uh as Susan and Angine or sorry and Kristen mentioned uh visiting this frequently and having a lot of traffic.

I think that that's something that we should be concerned about, especially with the amount of pedestrians that are at this area.

Um additionally on the side, I understand the curb cuts are existing, so you know those are kind of set um, but the one that's on 10th street being right next to the the other commercial it's just problematic and and it will cause problems, especially as this becomes more trafficked.

So I just encourage you to look at maybe finding another solution for that curb cut, maybe eliminating it somehow, um figuring something out with that.

So in in such close proximity with then the corner being just a maybe less than a hundred feet away.

Um then to the documentation, uh, you know, as I mentioned previously, the plans that we got didn't match the elevations and the renderings that we got.

And so in order for us to make a decision about whether this is appropriate, we really need the information that we receive to be accurate.

And so please make sure when you resubmit that all plans, elevations, renderings match each other.

Um the material descriptions as well, um, didn't necessarily match what was depicted.

The renderings show glass being clear when in when we previously had mentioned it being spandrel.

Uh the amount that's that's shown as spandrel also I think is far too much.

I think there needs to be far more transparency in these facades.

Um again to to talk about the uh claristory windows, uh there's really no precedent in a building like this to show a clear story window like that.

So uh you know, the best would be a taller storefront with maybe a uh more traditional view at that type of clear story, which would be uh you know, a freighted glass or a um a a rounded glass, something like that, something that's integrated with the storefront and not just kind of floating there.

It's it's pretty anomalous and it's not something that uh fits with uh uh historic precedent.

Okay.

Um the brick, it it looks more like CMU on the renderings.

The proportions, it's noted as modular brick, but the proportions are not margin modular brick by any means.

So we really should see the actual product sample if you had yeah, if you had photos of the in the rendering should depict that and the elevations as well should depict that as closely as possible to the actual project.

Like I said, it says modular brick, but they're not depicted as modular brick at all.

Um then um I think that's just about I mean the front setback on MLK, I would just like to see how that relates to other setbacks on MLK.

It's pushed all the way to the property line, at least that's what the site plan seems to depict.

And so I'd like to understand better, especially when it's on the corner.

Now it's sighted properly, it is definitely in the right spot on the property.

Um just whether that uh setback is appropriate to the neighborhood, I'd like to see some context to that.

And those are some of the things I you know, we really need a full presentation that's accurate and and documented in a in a way that we can uh really uh dive into to approve this if it comes in.

Do you want the setbacks moving north in the same block or also going south?

I think both directions for context would be helpful.

And now I know that some of those are newer buildings and and there aren't a lot of existing buildings in in the immediate context, but you know, the especially the one to the north would be pretty helpful to see in context with the building that you propose.

I think that's yeah, David, go ahead.

Yeah.

I just want to add one more comment.

Uh I think it's gonna be very important that the brick you choose complement the brick building next door in size and as well as color.

I'm not necessarily saying it has to speed the same, but I think it would look good if it comes from the same world somewhere.

Not you know, needs to complement it.

Okay.

All right, I'll just offer a few additional comments.

I think uh you get a pretty good idea of where uh a number of the areas that we suggest you uh work on.

Is the is the setback on the north side um the uh maximum uh uh amount?

Is that what you're showing?

I don't know how he's measured that we do have to do we're supposed to do a transitional yard, right?

Um there, so we'll have to the reason I'm asking is you know whether you know what would well I guess it goes to the question of do you have enough parking, do you think?

And then is there an opportunity to get a variance to get additional parking to the north or not?

I it feels to me like you know, we might be willing to understand you know how you're using the parcel, maybe more fully, even if it requires some change to the setback there's maybe a one-way in, one yeah.

Yeah, just yeah, just a way to kind of think about using the full property, obviously without compromising the neighbor, you know, to the north, but at the same time, I don't know that you need as much space between your building and their building and you know, having just a driveway, you know, I guess would be the point.

Thank you.

We actually spoke to her yesterday or Monday, and she asked about parking.

So I mean, I you know, it's likely going to be a one of the first questions the neighborhood will be asking.

It's often a question we ask regularly.

Um and I, you know, I uh uh to Anson's point about having these two driveways coming out on 10th.

But I don't know if there's a way to put them together or not, or you know, I don't know, those are more complicated conversations from an ownership standpoint, but something at least to to think about.

Um, you know, as you as you place the building, you know, to to Mike's comment about it being at the corner, I think is very good.

At the same time, if you needed to push things a little bit to the north to give you, you know, a bigger sidewalk, more landscaping, you know, just getting out of the clear site triangle if that if it's even in it.

I it just feels like you ought to sort of look at the parcel in a broader kind of context and not just say, well, we got to put it here, we've got to put it here because the setbacks, and I'd sort of give yourself some freedom to think about that a little bit more.

Also, I don't know how hard it is to move a curb cut, uh whether that's helpful or not, but you know, that this is a parcel that has been vacant for a while.

It's been tried, and I I think we would all love to see something developed here.

And certainly the idea of doing a grocery store in a food desert is really positive.

So I would just say we'll, you know, I'll speak for myself.

I'm gonna be really trying to make sure we figure out a strategy to make this work and make it work for everybody, understanding that there's a lot of challenge here.

Uh to talk just a little bit about the architecture.

I it it seems a little out of proportion right now, particularly if these clear story windows, which are frankly a little odd, if they go away, then the storefronts look very squat with regard to the height of the building and the parapet.

And so there needs to be some work relative to the sort of the proportioning of the void windows to the solid walls so that that feels like it settles in uh properly.

Uh like Anson said, there's way too much spandrel glass.

And we really, you know, we understand a grocery needs some blank space.

There's also is an opportunity for you know, clear story windows above shelving and whatnot, but I would really look at sort of the building section and kind of understand where your shelving is, where your windows can be.

Usually, obviously at the cashier area, there's opportunity for plenty of vision glass, and certainly on the back side, you're going to want it to be welcoming and making sure there's a nice way in and all that kind of thing.

So I would just spend some more time with the architecture.

And you heard some good comments about Pylasters landing on windows and things like that, just needs to be cleaned up, and obviously brick colour will be important uh as you as you work through this.

Um I think Susan's comment about the uh you know using historic precedents for these uh smaller call call neighborhood retail historic buildings.

We've often referenced that and when these new projects come up.

I there's a lot of nice versions of those around in all the districts.

They sometimes will have little uh you know, little tiled roofs or these kinds of things.

I think there's a lot of tricks that you can play with these kind of buildings to really make them feel you know, like they settle into the neighborhood.

So just take a look at the those that are in other districts and not say you have to copy any of those, but just use them as a precedent to think about architecturally and so forth there.

So I think all in all, I just want to commend the group for looking at the site, trying to do something with the site.

As I mentioned to Meg when I spoke with her, I just am glad to see something happening here, notwithstanding the traffic issues.

The one thing I would say, and I don't know how far out it is there, but I know that in DOT is looking at the West Street intersection, and there's a lot of conversation about what West Street may be getting ready to do, uh, because there's a lot of pressure to try to improve that with a lot of people along it.

No idea what that would mean to this intersection, but there's no doubt lots of people know this intersection is a mess.

And so I think that in time some of that will change.

We'll just have to see how that plays out.

So uh let you offer any final comment and we'll call it.

We appreciate the feedback from each and every one of you.

Would the commission ever consider splitting the COA and the rezoning portion just from a timing perspective?

Yeah, I think so.

I don't think that'd be a problem.

Meg, any issue from your standpoint?

No, I think as long as you can do the site and development plan for that application, I think you should be fine and you can come back for the design.

Yeah, I think we just have to give the seller.

Sure.

Understand comfort and make sure that they're okay.

Because it's gonna take more time to get the final design, right?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think we'd be up for that.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else?

All right, thank you for your bill.

Just right, I'm so so sorry, I did not catch your name, but Tom Sears.

You're the architect.

I'm the general contractor design builder.

Okay.

I saw you feverishly taking notes.

This is recorded, so if you need to go back and listen to everything that they just said, you can watch the video.

It's on our website.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other business this evening, Meg?

Is that it?

That's it.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you all.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you.