The first order of business is approval of the minutes from January.

We're in your packet.

Any comments, corrections?

If not, I'll take a motion for their approval, please.

Thank you, Annie.

Thank you, Kristen.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We'll move to old business.

We have a number of cases this evening.

Meg will start out with 621 Lockerby Street, please.

Yes, I think the property owner is here to give us an update on some contracts that they might have in the works and possibly some start dates to begin.

So if they want to present.

The council just arrived.

He said that he'll be here in a minute.

And be here in a few minutes.

Okay, we'll wait.

We'll we'll just move on in the agenda and then come back to you.

Excuse me.

Then uh we've got 2023 COA 110 Fletcher Place, address 323 Cincinnati Street, Mark Crouch.

Are you here?

Okay.

Come come forward and be uh sworn in and then uh state your name and address, please.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Perfect.

My name is Mark Crouch.

Address is 124 East Pleasant Room Parkway.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Um I don't know, we're here for an update, I think.

I'm not really sure.

Yeah, Shelby, you want to go ahead.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's worse.

That's fine.

So this case and actually the next case um are on an existing lot together and they're being subdivided.

So if we want to do those together, we can.

Um but both these cases, we're just looking for any commission feedback on final construction drawings as part of their COAs.

Um, they're supposed to review those under old business.

Um but next month you will be seeing um a case related to these cases as far as alterations of the alley surrounding the properties, um, which will determine basically the the site themselves.

So tonight we're just looking for the feedback and then they'll come back next month with that alley case as well as um hopefully to get that final approval from you on these drawings as well.

Okay, so just for the record, we'll also hear 2023 COA 111 uh Fletcher Place at the same time.

So uh are there any comments from the commission on those two cases?

David, please go ahead.

Excuse me.

So it did not look to me like there was any difference at all between the 2023 plans when I looked at the elevations and the ones tonight, except for the garage of one of them that has two pedestrian doors instead of one.

Are there are there other differences?

Is that right, Shelby?

Because I that was all I saw as well.

There wasn't much difference.

I do believe there are no other changes.

I'll do have to double check on the garage.

Um and I can pull up those plans.

I think with the college avenue, we were just waiting for a brick sample, which uh was to come from the owner, so we'll have that at the next hearing.

Okay.

And then um we shall be we were working on the final drawing.

We added uh some elevation additions to show the window wells.

And there was a couple of errors, just a window moved in the wrong spot.

That was basically the only change.

All right.

Uh any other comments from the commission on the two cases.

Is there anything Shelby we needed to focus on that you saw or no, just looking for if you had any concerns or other requests for changes at this point.

Okay.

I think we're good, so we'll see you uh next month.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, we'll go back to the uh the first case, uh 621 Lockerby Street.

Uh looks like the applicant is here.

If you would come forward, state your name and address after you're sworn in, please.

Please raise your right hands for me.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Perfect.

Name and address and go ahead and present your update for us, please.

Rhonda Duval, 621 Lockerby Street.

Ari Lepinski, counsel for Miss Duval, 951 North Delaware Street.

Okay.

Okay, since the last meeting, uh Ms.

Duval uh has worked with Ms.

Jarzan to complete a certificate of appropriateness with regard to the um chimney work only, so that we could go ahead and get some of the work started.

Um that work was set to take place on uh February 19th.

Um and it was postponed due to weather.

Uh as for the other work, um she's she's met with a couple of other contractors since um the the contractor we were originally working with has he wasn't too hasn't seemed too interested in the project since she has wanted to repair the sighting instead of replacing all of it.

So she's met with some uh a couple of contractors and they they seem willing to do a a repair of the siding instead of a total replacement.

Um I believe she's waiting to to receive estimates from two of the I have I now have four contractors, including still communicating.

Still communicating with the the first contractor.

Um but I've since um obtained three other contractors, they've all been out to the property.

I haven't received estimates.

Um two of them have done historic homes before.

I think that might uh make things you know come together a little bit easier.

Okay, anything else Meg, do you want to please?

Yeah, I uh maybe I'm incorrect on this, but I do think they have a contract um or an estimate at least for roofing work, so we may want to get a clarification on a potential start date for that.

Oh, well, um I've been getting estimates and asking the new contractors because the roof and I'd like to keep the built-in gutters.

Um and the way that you know whoever does those, it has to be placed right and sealed right.

It can um that to keep the warranty.

Um a lot of people aren't that familiar with doing that gutter line or at least the contractor that I have, but the new ones don't seem to have a problem with that.

So I'm trying to keep it sort of cohesive and it's mostly woodwork, and they're more in alignment with the rest of the things.

So I'd like to sort of do that all top to bottom, get the chimney done, and then the roof.

Um I'd rather not piece it all out, but I wanted to get the chimney done regardless because it's the first thing before you do the roof, and then I could get started and then the rest.

Okay, yeah, I think staff is hoping for the check-in for next month that either work has begun or the certificate of appropriateness is the work on that is started.

Um I think the weather is starting to break, so I think there's an opportunity to do that, and then hopefully secure a roofing contractor so that they can start to do that work.

Um what we don't want to see is you come back next month and we're in the same way.

I'm hoping that these new contractors we can proceed.

I would okay.

I just want to make sure we're gonna do that.

Yeah, we just need to keep moving along here and making progress with the uh with the repairs for sure.

Any questions from the commission on this?

We're good.

Okay.

All right, we'll look to hear from you uh next month then.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

All right, the uh the next case I need to recuse myself.

So David, would you please uh handle the next old business item?

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh will the applicant please come forward.

And David, before we start, um if I could just give a quick update.

I did check in with Regional Center.

They did issue an approval letter for the work on the regional center side.

So that's completed.

So the focus this evening should be primarily on the portion of the building that is gonna be in the IHPC area and the um final constructions for the draw, excuse me, final construction drawings for that.

So if there's any clarification on um procedure, just let me know.

Thank you.

So give us your name and the address here.

For the record, Tim Oaks, turning to Icemar with offices at one American Square Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282 representing boxcar development.

Go ahead and raise your right hand for me.

Stand up just in case.

Works for me.

Already, do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth?

Say I do.

I do.

All right.

Good evening, members of the Commission.

This was before you last month, and it ended with an indecisive vote.

I'm not sure we put our best foot forward last month or tried to do a little bit better tonight.

But the four-page package, and you up on the screen, you see the first one.

That is the view of the in what I'll call the entire project, or at least part of the entire project on its frontage along Pennsylvania.

Page two is what the venue, the entertainment venue, which is really the subject of tonight's approval, what the entirety would look like upon completion.

The next two pages are I included just to show that you know there is detail that I think sometimes gets lost on a two-dimensional picture.

Um when you don't have a three-dimensional space to look at.

And I think this demonstrates it probably better than just simply drawing a line on a on the full drawing.

This is what this is the part of the project that's in the historic district.

That's that's it.

And so we we appreciate um, we want this project to look nice.

We want it to fit in, if you will, with the historic district.

Um we we believe it it does.

If you look at the new design guidelines in the wholesale plan, um, it you know, it talks about the facade of the building being pushed up against the sidewalk.

It talks about material use being consistent with the historic nature of the district, which is predominantly red brick.

Um frankly, the change in uh the design from uh uh what was presented back in uh 2024 is the addition of windows, which frankly is you know this whether you like the design of the windows or not aesthetically is more consistent with the historic nature of the district, that is a red brick facade with windows in it.

Um we think this we're excited about this design.

We like the design.

Uh it is thematic, and if that is important to us and the venue operator, uh it fits in well, and um we'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak about this project?

Okay.

Uh staff, do you have something to add?

I don't have any comments at this time, but I can answer any questions.

Okay.

So this is a little unusual.

I I usually when I'm chairing, I like to wait till the last, but uh I'm going to say something to begin with.

Um many of the commission members were not here a month ago, and it was a split vote uh four uh eyes and two nays.

And as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing that has changed in the design at all.

That is correct.

Okay.

And they're as far as I know, there's nothing in the circumstances surrounding this project that has changed at all.

That is correct.

So there's uh and uh I'm speaking just for myself here.

Uh so I don't see that there's any basis for me to change my vote, which was to approve it last time.

Um but having said that, I want to reiterate uh for everybody why I voted to approve it last month and why I would probably vote to approve it this month.

First, as was explained and uh shown by very job of showing it.

Uh only a very small part of this entertainment venue is actually in the wholesale district and subject to our review.

The bulk of this project is in regional center outside the wholesale district, not subject to our review, but it is subject to a different review process with different guidelines and working with different staff.

And the design that we've been considering is the result, or the design that we're considering tonight is a result of that review process.

So my position is that the bulk of the project is in the regional center, the applicant went through that process and succeeded in getting an approval.

I personally feel obligated to defer to that process unless I believed that I can actually point to a very specific and real visual damage caused by that sliver of the project on the historic character of the district or any surrounding historic buildings, and I don't feel that I can do that.

So that despite the fact that I'm not particularly fond of the design.

Um I just don't feel like I can uh point to something where I say this design is damaging the historic district.

Therefore, I'm going to defer to the regional center process and its approval.

And fully expecting, and from my experience, this is the way it was at in times in the past, because there have it doesn't happen often, but there are other occasions where we've had projects that cross the line.

But it's my full expectation and my experience from the past the regional center would do the same thing if the tables were turned.

They would defer largely to us.

So I just wanted to share for everybody why I'm got the position that I have.

So other commission members.

Anything to say.

I will just say on the record, this is an extraordinarily random thing that I'm about to say.

Um I concur with David about regional center versus IHPC.

But I have a question around the music part that will that light up at night, the that whatever that spindly thing is.

I really like I mean it's very retro looking, and I really like it.

I just was curious.

Please make sure you state your name and address.

Melody Park boxcar owners rep 125 South Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Yes, the beacon sign that we will be coming to you guys for approval will light up.

And it is supposed to be looking like a retro.

The whole concept is that this is supposed to get that main street feel of the 1950s, the old music venue.

So we're hearkening back to that era.

Okay.

So far so good.

Anyone else?

Thanks, David, and I respect your uh opinion.

Um I do disagree somewhat.

I I think we have a responsibility to look at all the elements of the this um development since it is a single development and look at them in their complete context.

Now you did your best to decouple the the southern part, um, but it's not fully decoupled.

It is as far as the the development goes, but you did um create it as a separate entity.

So what you did by um changing the or not changing the brick color along with the hotel and uh changing the form that we previously had was you completely uh separated it from that hotel, so it no longer reads as a part of that.

And so what I worry about with this southern part of the development is the scale.

Um there's one currently one two-story building in the entire wholesale district, and I think scale is an important part of our parameters for deciding whether or not we uh find something appropriate.

And that's that building is a single parcel width, maybe 40 feet.

Um this will be 200 plus feet, probably 300 feet of two-story facade, a horizontality that does not exist and is not part of the character of the whole steel district.

And that's why I've had this concern is is the the scale is just completely inappropriate, especially over that distance.

So what was there before?

If I could have staff bring that up, what was on this site and the reason that this site wasn't included in, or the the majority of it wasn't included in the IHP Disc C district, is because this building, which was a the Indianapolis or Indiana uh refrigerating company, was torn down in the 60s.

Um this building was a seven-story brick building uh that was built just after the turn of the century and existed there for you know roughly 70 years or so, or 60 years.

Um if you go to the the photo photograph of the this structure, it was a formidable structure, and it was you know well appointed at street level.

Um this is the scale that we expect in the wholesale district, you know, three plus stories.

Uh and the the wider the site, typically the taller the building.

And so to have such a diminutive tail to this large development, uh I think is you know, like I said, inappropriate to the district.

And so when you couple the you know the small portion you pointed out to us uh with the portion of the hotel that is two stories, I I find the scale to be entirely inappropriate for this uh district.

And so I will reiterate and and while um I did vote for the previous design, it was because there was architectural design to it.

What you have now is ostensibly a a decorated box, and while you have some of the finest box decorators in the world working for you, and so it will be a beautifully decorated box, it's still just a decorated box, and it does not have the gravitas that the the previous uh design form had.

And so, like I said previously, the scale uh is my primary concern with this.

The design is what it is, but um I'm primarily concerned with the scale, and I will continue to not be in favor of this uh change design because of that.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Well, let's uh do I hear a motion?

We just need to approve the plans, right?

Uh do I hear a motion to approve the plans?

Susan.

Thank and Mike seconds.

Umce I'm pretty sure this is gonna split, let's raise our hands at the same time.

All those who are in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, I think we made it this time.

Is it approved?

All right.

Well, good luck.

And thank you.

If you decide to do any enhancement to it, feel free to come back and ask us.

All right.

Thank you, David.

The last uh old business item is 2026 VHP 001, address 606 Fletcher Avenue.

Vincent Braun is the applicant in the adoption of findings of fact.

Meg, do you want to just take that?

Yeah, we just need for you to take a vote on that.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions on the findings of fact from the commission?

If not, I'll take a motion for its approval.

Thank you, David.

Get a second.

Thanks, Kristen.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, thank you.

All right.

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

And before doing so, let me introduce the commission members and introduce the staff.

To my right is uh Anson Keller, Commissioner, myself, Bill Brown, President, uh, my left, David Baker, Vice President, uh, Susan Williams, Secretary, uh, Deesa Watson down the front, uh Summers is our commissioner, uh, Michael Bivins, Commissioner, and Jeanette Silvilich, uh, Commissioner, uh, Kristen Wiggs, Commissioner, and Annie Lear, Commissioner.

Our staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmetz, our legal counsel, Emily Jarzen, our principal architecture reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Morgan Marleo, Marmaleo, excuse me, architectural reviewer and recorder, and Carolyn Animaker is our architectural reviewer.

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

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

Anyone wanting to get notice that a decision made by this commission has been appealed, they may fill out a notification form and uh from the uh staff within five days, and they're available from staff uh if you uh if you need to get that uh uh that appeal.

Uh the commission strongly recommends to get 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.

Uh the order of each case uh this evening will be as follows.

We'll ask for the applicant's presentation, uh and then we'll also ask for uh support of that application.

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

Then we'll ask for objections or remonstrations.

Uh that will be allowed up to a maximum of 20 minutes.

And then we'll ask for staff comment.

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

So before calling any of the cases this evening, anyone who is going to be uh speaking to any of the cases if he would rise and please be sworn in uh this evening.

So that's all the cases.

Anyone who's speaking.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, please raise your right hands for me.

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

Say I do.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you.

We'll start with uh request to withdraw our continue applications.

And we have one this evening, Meg, do you want to take us through that?

Sure.

2025 COA 489B, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue.

The address is 409 Massachusetts Avenue.

Uh and the applicant is Justin Kingan, and that request is to continue to the May 6th hearing.

Okay.

All right.

Get a motion for the continuance as presented by staff and Jeanette.

Thank you.

Get a second, please.

Mike, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh we have two expedited cases this evening.

Uh Meg, will you want to take us through both of those, please?

2026 COA 017 Harrod Morton Place.

Address is 1824 North New Jersey Street.

The applicant is Melissa Ayanucci, and the request is to construct a detached carriage house with living space, alter openings on the house and construct a pool and hardscaping.

And 2026 COA 019 Irvington addresses 324 Leslie Avenue, and the applicant is Katie Strahan, and that is to construct a garage with the dwelling unit.

All right, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to either of the expedited cases?

Anyone in the commission wishing to make any comment on the exploited cases?

Okay.

If not, I'll take a motion for their approval as read by staff, please.

Thank you, Annie, and thank you, Kristen.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we have no applications to be heard, which have been continued, so we will move to the new applications this evening.

The first application is 2026 COA 016 Heron Morton Place, address 1716 North New Jersey Street.

Uh Melissa Ayanucci is the applicant please come forward, state your name and address, and present your case to us.

Okay, all right.

No, that's fine, please.

Melissa I and U T 5771 Central Avenue.

Go ahead, please.

Okay.

Um do we need a staff report first?

Or no, go ahead and present your no, that's fine.

Okay.

And then we'll follow with the staff comments.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Um so tonight we're presenting 1716 North New Jersey Street.

Um, and really the bulk of of the design has been approved.

And the question on the table tonight is about the cornice line um and the height of the structure.

Um you have before you two streetscapes.

One is at eight feet uh ceiling height on the second floor, and the other is at nine foot ceiling height on the second floor.

Um and I would like to just kind of preface the streetscape discussion by saying um that the as built houses are drawn to the best of our ability, but they are still estimates um and they there is a margin of error with those.

So a few inches, and that is what we're discussing tonight.

We're talking about a difference of 12 inches.

Um the clients would prefer to have a nine-foot ceiling height at the second floor.

And um, if you would look back at what used to be there, the original house was quite a substantial structure.

So that was very large, and this too um I think kind of speaks to that.

But I think the biggest point to make is that this particular street has a wide variety of houses and heights.

And I don't know if we could pull up the streetscape.

Would that be possible?

No.

Uh sorry, I mean like Google Maps, Google View, Street View.

Because the streetscape shows the two houses to the north, but if we continue north, we see them continuing to decrease in size.

And so I just wanted to point that out because it's it's such a big change over several houses.

Um, that I don't think that another house with a different cornice height is going to stand out.

Is it possible to pull that up?

Okay, that's okay.

Um, maybe some of you had a chance to drive by 1808.

Um you can see a little bit in the pictures there, how they start to decrease.

So the house to the north of um what's drawn on the streetscape, the to the north of that modern house is a story and a half.

Next to that to the north is another story and a half that's a little bit shorter, that's a historic house.

To the north of that is a very tiny one-story cottage.

Um so this is a block that kind of welcomes houses of all different heights.

And I I think that um as we're getting into this discrepancy of 12 inches.

Um, I think it's important to keep in mind that that this block does have quite a variety.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

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

Uh, Emily.

Yes, and the commission received uh like a letter in your data packet from from the owners regarding uh their thoughts on the additional height.

So staff does find the overall design to you know be very appropriate.

Uh we saw a variety of renditions as it kind of moved through the process, and actually, height was something that was a discussion from the get go.

And we had staff when we looked at it as a whole had said please drop that Eve height down to be in line uh with the others because once you raised it up, that brings up the windows, it brings up the eve height, it brings up it stretches the siding between windows, you know, and the roof, and also just trying to weigh between obviously there's an apartment building next door, but it feels somewhat diminutive because of its shortened hip roof.

Um so pulling it down, even just that foot aligned better with the Eve height of the neighboring um than both neighboring historic buildings.

Um and staff was looking uh particularly at the uh the guidelines in the plan that state that for height in terms of new construction, cornice height can be as important as overall building height, and where there is uniformity should conform with contiguous buildings in a similar manner.

And there are a lot of variations in heights in the immediate area, but staff was looking particularly at what is the closest, basically the for the four buildings, like the two buildings on either side, and those Eve heights are fairly similar as you look at those, and staff felt that was important um to not make the new building feel too massive, and just felt that the commission should weigh in.

And I can answer any questions.

All right, Emily, thank you.

Uh questions from the commission, please.

Anyone?

David, please go ahead.

So I've I'm struggled with this a little bit.

Uh on the one hand, um I see and appreciate where staff's coming from with this.

On the other hand, I'm also trying to convince myself that the extra foot makes that big of a difference.

Um I I know that uh in my experience when you look at elevation straight on with the drawing, that isn't ever what a building looks like.

Right.

So yeah, I have to try to think what it's gonna look like if I'm standing there on the street looking at it, you know.

And would I really notice much of a difference?

Um I also on the way here today, I drove all the way from 22nd down to 16th on New Jersey.

Um, further north than this on New Jersey, uh, where there hasn't been as much loss of of the houses.

Um there are a lot of very big houses.

I don't know if they're this tall or taller or not as tall, but they something like this.

And they're fairly uniform.

They're not perfectly exactly the same, but there's a lot of uniformity.

But by the time you get to the 1700 block, uh that kind of uniformity of large buildings is really broken up, and you have uh more of a mixture.

Um the I don't know.

Does anybody know what was where those apartments are next door?

Because they're old, but they're not there, there were probably houses there originally.

Do we know anything about those?

The houses just the two apartments to the south?

Yeah, I've worked on those before.

I believe I believe they're about from 1915, if I remember correctly.

I'm just wondering what what kind of houses were there.

I would guess that they were similar kind of houses than you used to see there.

So I I don't know.

I'm a those are not I don't know that that those buildings themselves should rule the day necessarily.

So I I'm not sure I'm convinced yet that it's uh a big problem, but I'd like to hear what maybe others say about it.

Okay, David, thank you.

Other comments from the commission?

Hanson, go ahead, please.

I just want to clarify.

Are we talking about the eve height of the carriage house?

No, the main house.

It's but it's existing, isn't it?

No, it's a new correct.

Is that this is new con this is uh brand new house, pool, and uh I believe this one has just a garage on it.

Kind of a highly decorative garage, but a garage.

Renderings in the packet that you see from the street.

I get I got a small screen here, so it it looked like a to me like it was existing.

And the architect does have two projects in front of you, so you may be looking at and they're both on New Jersey.

So you may be looking at the other one.

The other one was an expedited case.

Oh gotcha.

Yeah, no worries.

Yeah, Mike, go ahead, please.

Yeah.

Just want to go on record to agree with David.

I don't think the uh this under the circumstances, I don't think the one's going to be a big deal, especially if we're trying to relate to the excuse me, the multifamily houses uh next door.

I think it's it's kind of a fine point.

I appreciate also what staff is getting at when I look at next to each other on the drawing.

I see what was being said, but I think in three dimensions, I don't think it's going to be everything on the C Mile Pledge Range for a character of uh British.

Okay, thanks, Mike.

Anson, do you want to any comment?

You're right.

Uh I'll just say this, you know.

I think if frankly, if uh either one had come before us, I think I would have been comfortable with either one.

I do appreciate you know what the staff is uh suggesting, but I think if if the eight foot had been we would approved it, I think the nine foot I'd at least my I would have approved either one.

So I'm comfortable read the applicant's interest in having a nine foot ceiling on the second floor.

I don't think it's gonna make a big difference uh to the streetscape and to the relationship to the house, particularly to the north.

I'm less concerned about the apartments to this house.

So I'm I'm supportive of staying with the the nine foot ceiling.

Any final comments from the commission?

Any final yeah, go ahead, David, please.

Um to the staff.

Um don't read this as we don't care about corn sites and all that sort of thing, because uh particularly staff that I've worked with before.

You know, there have been some uh approvals that we've found we should have been more careful about.

And so I appreciate looking at this very closely.

Um I think in this case, given everything going on around this house, as everyone's saying, I don't think it's going to be a problem.

Um we know that there have been some that that are, and we wish we could go back.

Yeah, I think you know, from looking at this, I mean, if the house to the north was like the house or the apartments to the south, I think it'd be a very different conversation, uh I guess from my perspective.

It it feels like the the house to the north, it's gonna relate, I think either way, pretty comfortably, recognizing there's other larger houses on the street.

There's been a lot of change to the street uh with the new homes and things that are shorter and similar height.

So I I think it's a situation that as I said, from my perspective would support either one.

So I do agree with David.

We can need to continue to look at these kinds of things as the staff does on a regular basis.

So do appreciate that.

Any final comments from the applicant?

Okay.

We're ready for staff recommendation then, Meg, please.

For 2026 COA 016, staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to build a single family house and detach garage, and to construct an in-grand pool with associated hardscaping per the submitted documentation and subject to the 10 stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Could I a motion for the staff recommendation is read, please?

Annie, thank you.

David, thank you.

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.

Okay, well, the next case, uh 2026, COA 018, uh St.

Joe, and variants 2026 VHP 002, address 817 North Pennsylvania Street.

Ashley Danielson is the applicant.

Is she here?

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

Hello, I am Ashley Danielson, um representing 817 North Pennsylvania.

Um I'm at studio, I'm architecture and planning up in Carmel, uh, address 275 uh Veterans Way Suite 200, and also have Ryan Hellsworth with me here.

Hello, my name is Ryan Ellsworth, architect at Studio M Architects 275 Veterans Way, Carmel.

Thank you.

Go ahead, present your case to us.

Okay.

Well, thank you, members of the commission, for hearing our project this evening.

We're excited to uh show you our project at 817 North Pennsylvania.

We are proposing a four-story office building for our door corporation and merchants bank.

If you could slide to the next uh slide, we'd do you have our uh present our presentation that we shared with you.

Would that be possible to pull up?

Ah, there it is, yeah, yeah, sure.

Okay.

Yeah, if you wouldn't mind going on to the next slide, please.

And uh so these are roughly 10,000 square foot per floor plate.

Um we are adjacent to some other uh historic buildings in the in the in on the block.

Um if you could you go to the next slide, please one more.

I'm sorry.

Um so we sit just north of the Sylvania apartment buildings, uh south of the Burton, and also the Cathcart apartments, which are uh great examples of Eastern Flat apartments and um our project uh we're trying to uh be good neighbors and and fit in well with the context.

Um obviously we are in the St.

Joseph Historic Neighborhood.

Um our project will uh also utilize the parking shown just to the east of our building footprint there.

Um so we're adding no new parking structures or parking to the project.

Um there will be a branch bank for merchants on the first floor and office space above that.

Go to the next.

Um so the way we have attempted to be a good neighbor here is by going around and really trying to identify some of the building elements that that belong to our historic district.

Um we've really noticed and emphasized or tried to pick up on the strong symmetrical building entries, um, arched brick cornices, um, the water table line that exists above the basement floors of most of the uh eastern flat apartment buildings.

Um brick colors, uh the red and yellow brick that is within our our neighborhood.

Um these are all elements that we are trying to work into our our building design.

These continue to show some additional examples.

Um but you can see the the arch brick um is a common uh pattern that's seen on the ambassador, the cast cart, and the Sylvania project, and we think that's a strong design element that that we picked up on in our project as well.

Um I'm so sorry to interrupt, but you're you're taller, so you're further away from the mic.

Yeah, yeah.

We this is recorded, so I just want to make sure they pick up everything.

Sure thing.

I'll speak up a little bit.

Um these are just some views looking north and south toward our project.

Ashley, would you like to speak to the sure?

I can I can speak to the existing building.

So currently on the site at 817, um, there is a one-story structure that is um concrete steel with some limestone cladding.

Um it was built in 1949, but it is considered non-contributing as part of the St.

Joseph area plan, and it has been sitting vacant for approximately 30 years due to a fire that was in the building in 1994.

So um it has kind of been sitting and um has um also some water damage on the inside.

So um, as you can see from this uh elevation photo, the the windows are damaged, the interior pictures.

Um can you go to the next slide, Shelby?

Oh, there's some exterior photos of some of the exterior materials.

Um you can go to the next one.

So as you can see from the interior, it's pretty deteriorated.

Um, a lot is a lot of mold growth, um, a lot of um damage due to the fire, and um is like I said, been sitting vacant for about 30 years now.

So these just show uh schematic plans for uh the branch bank on the first floor uh with training room space and office uh open office space above.

Keep going, I think.

So uh we recognize that our building is taller than the adjacent uh structures that are next to us, but within the greater context, we really feel like um our our building is appropriate based on um the heights of of buildings such as the Blue Triangle and the National Guard building, which just sit just south of ours, um, as well as the ambassador, which is taller than our building, and of course uh Central Library, which is considerably taller.

Um so within that context, um we believe our the scale of the building is appropriate and it's also well suited for its office use.

Here's another view looking south showing just comparative building heights.

Uh so here's a uh rendering of our project from Pennsylvania Street.

Um and you can see we we really tried to pick up on that strong symmetrical uh act uh entrance as well as the the arch brick cornice at the top, um the raised brick parapets.

Um we use two different brick tones to uh help to break down the scale of the building.

Um there's also elements such as uh large glass windows that are both uh suitable for the office use inside, um, but we think also speak to a modern design that that complements central library as well as picking up on the historic nature of the context.

Um we've also got uh uh first floor stone base uh with uh decorative uh banding, uh water table banding.

Um there's also uh divided light uh uh transom windows above the the storefront entries, which uh is kind of a nod to the ambassador building.

Uh so the next slides just uh show additional views of the project.

That's the south elevation and cornice details.

We have uh brick samples with us tonight if you would like to see them.

Uh but we selected a red and yellow brick that we believe is complementary to other uh buildings in the neighborhood.

This slide shows uh the context directly next to uh the Burton to the north and Sylvania to the south.

Cathcart is on the far left.

Uh finally building elevations of each each side.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Okay.

I think that's thank you.

Is that it?

Thank you very much.

Okay.

All right.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

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

Uh Shelby, please.

Staff's in support of this request as well as the proposed variances.

Um the structure to be demolished, as mentioned, was built in the 40s, but is non-contributing to the district, which per the district plan basically means that it is considered to have little or no historic significance to the district.

And the review of work to it is more based on the impact it has on the district as a whole rather than the structure itself.

Um staff does not believe the demolition would negatively impact the overall character of the district.

Um we find the new design to be compatible with the historic structures in the surrounding as well as being a product of its own time.

Um and this afternoon, after the day of packets went out, we did also receive a letter from the neighborhood expressing their support.

So I have a copy of that if the commission would like to review that as well.

Um and I can answer any questions.

All right, Shelby, thank you very much.

Uh questions from the commission, please.

Susan, please.

Yes.

Um I had such a difficult time hearing you, and so if you already answered this question, I apologize.

This is a very big building with a teeny little bank branch and a comp some conference rooms and some training room.

What is what's going on in the rest of this building?

So that's correct.

There is a branch bank on the first floor with uh training space as well as um office space for merchants bank and uh our door merchant uh our door housing corporation has office space on the upper floors.

So it's all going to be offices for this little bit bitty bank.

Uh the the bank is uh as a branch bank for merchants bank, um, but the additional space is is office space, yes, for our door corporation.

So it's not a data center.

It's not a data center, no.

It was just kind of surprising to me to see so much there.

Obviously, they're not all supporting this little branch.

No, that's correct.

Um Merchants Bank's headquarters is in Carmel.

This would be uh a branch bank location for um people to visit, like any other like branch bank.

I didn't hear what you just said.

I think that just for clarification, there's there's two businesses, right?

There's our door two businesses, that's correct.

Offices for merchants bank, is that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

So our door is a real estate company?

Uh housing corporation uh providing uh uh multifamily uh home and home development.

Okay.

Housing and development.

Now that makes sense.

Okay, thank you.

Uh other questions from the commission, please.

Anson, please go ahead.

Is this entirely parked on the surface lots to the east?

That's correct.

There's 86 parking spaces to the east.

Currently we're planning for about 60 employees in the office building.

Yep, that's what I was kind of afraid of.

Um I don't necessarily have a problem with the den demolition of the building or with the design as it is, although I'd prefer something more modern, but um this will cement that surface parking lot in that area for the next hundred years.

Um or make it extremely difficult to develop in another way.

I would have preferred something that would eliminate that surface parking lot, at least the major one.

Um I'm struggling with the fact that it's still going to be there and it the impact that it that's going to continue to have in the neighborhood over time.

Um I don't know.

I'm I'm struggling whether I can support the design of the the building when it leans so heavily on surface parking.

But I'd like to hear if other people are concerned about that as well.

Thank you, Anton.

David, go ahead, please.

I I like the bulk and the height of the building because on the mall, I mean the building that would be coming down was a mistake in 1949.

It was part of a trend that was unfortunate along that mall area where you really want to see a wall of buildings of facades, and this starts to introduce it at this end.

Uh I also have a concern like Anson, because uh you've gonna have this big gap here.

Did you consider it all turning the building the other way?

Well that that lot isn't included in the lot to the uh south is not part of the project, I don't believe.

I'm talking about the lot that faces the lottery.

Walnut behind the building to the east.

Oh.

Correct.

So um the the footprint of the new building is almost exactly the same footprint as the existing building on that lot.

So there's three separate lots of things.

So what parking lot were you talking about, Anson?

It's the lot that fronts on walnut that's behind the building.

Oh, okay.

But that's gonna leave that gap tooth on walnut.

Okay.

All right.

Well, never mind my question.

But uh I hadn't seen the clarification just real quick.

The the lot is can you outline the uh the lot there so everybody understands which one we're talking about?

I mean the parking for the the four-story building takes up four times more land area than the building itself.

And that's that's what I'm struggling with.

Yeah.

And you said there's eighty-six spaces in those two parcels?

Is that is that right?

Yes, it should be eighty-six parking spaces, and that's in the uh site plan documentation.

Do we have a site plan?

Yeah.

It's uh not of the parking.

I don't know if we have is it in there?

Yeah.

So is it both of those lots or is it just the one lot?

That fronts on St.

Clair.

Shelby, can you clarify what which lots are the parking?

My understanding it is both.

Is that correct?

Yes, it is both the larger lot east of the proposed project, and then the smaller, skinnier lot north of that, that totals 86 total lot parking spaces.

And then who owns the lot to the uh I guess to the south.

Is that part of the apartment building immediately south?

Correct.

That's the the Slovenia's parking.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Other questions from the commission.

I guess I one thing I wanted to at least address uh was the fact that the plan for St.

Joe was written in 1991, and I just I at least wanted to get on the record about the fact that we're demolishing a building from 1949 that is now a different age than when the plan was done.

And so I guess my question to the staff, because obviously we take our demolition of buildings pretty pretty seriously.

Um would this still be a non-contributing building if the plan were done today.

Chronologically, yes, it would be historic, but from the significance of the structure itself, I don't know that we would consider it contributing, kind of to David's point earlier.

Okay.

Yeah, I just the the reason I bring it up is because I I just want us to be careful as we're obviously we're getting ready to update our plans, and as we're updating our plans, I think we and I think you think you are looking at these kinds of questions because I think that as certain buildings have now aged into 50 years and older, I think we need to be cognizant that maybe some of the buildings may or may not move from non-contributing to contributing.

I don't believe this one is, but I I guess the point is is that I think we we as uh as a commission and a staff just ought to be careful as we look at these plans until the the uh plans get updated, just making sure that we still are in agreement uh because time has passed in a number of these plans, obviously.

So just wanted to, I guess, put that on the record as much uh today.

Um I guess this question of the parking is an interesting one.

Um is there has there been any discussion on the developer's part about these lots and any future uh development besides the surface parking?

Or you guys may not have that answer, but I might at least ask it.

To our knowledge, we do not know of any future development on those lots.

Okay.

And and this is CBD one or two.

Two.

So you're not required to have any parking or from a zoning standpoint, is that right, Shelby?

Or what's the uh rule in CBD2?

I think it can rely on parking within the area if I remember right.

Meg is nodding her head here.

Go ahead, Meg.

Yeah, so in CBD two, you can have a a parking agreement with an adjacent property to fulfill your parking requirements on site for what would be required on site.

And I I actually think some street parking also may be applicable.

Yeah, I believe it is, yeah.

It's it's different than in inside the miles square where there is no parking requirement for CBD.

In the C B D one, yeah, there is zero requirement.

The reason I'm bringing it up is just to clarify maybe Anson, what your comment is.

I think there could be development if they solve their parking differently.

Not to not to contradict what you're saying.

Well, but that that's the that is exactly the point though, is that how could they you know when they can't develop on that site if they're currently using it as parking and if other people are currently using as parking as well?

Right.

Well, and it's you know, I it gets to the question of how how much parking in the area, how much street parking is there, all of that uh sort of thing.

So it's uh I mean it's a real legitimate issue for sure when you're building this large of a building and how are you supporting the parking?

Uh obviously, you know, looking at you know similar office building recently, like in Bottle Works, where they've built in parking within the system.

Uh and I just point out, you know, I drove that, you know, for a couple of years every day.

Sure, going to work and back, and there's a lot of surface parking in that area, and it's really i it it's it's counter to urban design uh and good planning principles.

Yeah.

Agreed.

Yeah, Susan, please go ahead.

Yeah, if you look at page two oh four, um I have a piece of paper that I'm looking at, and so I can see it a lot better.

There's just a sea of surface parking there, and it's really um a barrier to the positive redevelopment of that area right across again from the mall and the parks and the library and all that, but it's just there it's all over the place.

Uh I'd say maybe the majority of the space in that chunk of two and a half blocks is surface parking all along St.

Clair, um Delaware, not so much 9th Street and Pennsylvania.

It's too much.

Right.

Yeah.

Uh obviously, you know, we we as a commission support always getting rid of surface parking lots if we can possibly do that.

Obviously, we're getting rid of a building and not a surface parking lot in this case, but we're uh we're just keeping the surface lots that are that are there.

So any additional comments?

Yeah, go ahead, place it.

Well, I don't know when this aerial photograph was taken, but it's my experience in driving by those existing lots that there are very few cars in them.

And so it's just pavement.

And um you know, I guess it m has to do with the time of day or whatever, it'd be interesting to know when this shot was taken, but um it it's empty a lot of the time and a lot of the spaces are empty.

So it'd be nice if some kind of an agreement could be reached with some of these others to avoid dooming this huge amount of very valuable real estate to surface parking.

Right.

Yeah, certainly if you could, you know, if you would fast forward and fill in the lots that face the major streets and then you had something back in the middle of the block, whether it's a structured parking or initially a surface lot and then eventually structured parking, that's ultimately what we'd love to see, obviously, in the development of the of this neighborhood.

So yeah, that's my point is that you know if they took this exact building and then just rehab the other building and just plopped it right there on St.

Clair, I mean it's the exact same size.

You've solved both problems.

And I mean, like it it's hard to find tearing down a building appropriate when it leaves that that gap in the the urban fabric.

Right.

David, you had a comment.

Well, I guess I'm just dense here.

I can't quite I still haven't figured out.

Okay, I finally found that.

Yeah.

So the building is on the left.

Do they own do you own that big those two parking lots?

I'm looking at two parking lots.

The big one is blue.

Yes, that is all by owned by the same.

Okay.

And is part of your plan any improvement to those currently, there's no plan to improve that right now.

But they're presently used as parking lots.

Yes.

Well, I know that's a a dilemma, but any building that's going to be built on there is going to have an issue.

Right.

So if the alternative is to not build buildings, I don't know.

You know, I think I uh or if you have to if we were going to say you have to have parking on the site itself, you have a have you'd be saying you have to have a small building.

Right.

Or you have a garage underneath your office space.

Um this building isn't going to make more parking than that's already there.

So there's always the potential that something else would take its place.

So I guess.

I still think the building itself is would be a good addition there.

Sure.

Even though I also would have preferred something maybe just slightly more contemporary, but I think what's designed there is is uh would look nice.

I guess a question uh for Meg or Shelby with this building relying on the parking, is there any ability to have the lot that faces St.

Clair improved because of this building?

Because right now it's not got any screening or any of that sort of thing associated with it.

Yeah, you can require any stipulations that you want for this.

Because it's it seems to me, I mean, at a minimum, any time we have a surface lot as a part of a project, there's usually a requirement to at least landscape the edge and deal with the you know the ed the the right-of-way edge, if you will.

And is there anything in the plan to do that right now?

Sure.

And I think one one point of clarification.

I and maybe the architects don't know this.

Is the developer do they have any plans for the parking lots that you know of it?

No, not currently.

There's no plans for the parking lots.

Um I will say that the the parking lots are not part of the project necessarily.

It's how they're being parked, but it is not part of the parcel being developed.

But there's a requirement in CBD two to park the project.

So how are you parking the project?

With the surface lots.

Okay.

Sure.

All right.

All right.

I think what it is part of the project just by default.

So I I think what I'm hearing is there's maybe some acceptance of the demolition of the existing structure and the new design, maybe with the one caveat that they come back with a design for the parking lots to support the new development.

Yeah, I think I think we need to have something done to this lot because we'll never have something done to it later if it's not, you know, if it's not done now.

Obviously we would prefer it be developed, but at a minimum, you know, I don't know, you know, they're showing like a uh and I don't know if it's there today because I'm focused on the hedge that's immediately on Pennsylvania, you know, is screening that lot.

I obviously the lot they're actually using, you know, needs to be screened in a similar manner.

So yeah, I think it would be important to deal with the parking, particularly the edge along St.

Clair, I think is a at a minimum uh to sort of address it.

And is that something you want them to come back with next week?

Yeah, I I think if we wanted to, and I'll I'll look at the commission, we could split this into an A and B and have the building approved and the demolition approved and then come back with the parking if that is acceptable to the Commission.

Sort of getting a few nods.

Maybe some, yes?

Okay.

Go ahead, Susan.

In the meantime, it might be prudent to just have a look at that whole area during the the middle of the day of a work day or weekday and just see what the vacancy rate is all around there.

Now this is an existing lot and it looks terrible from St.

Clair Street for sure.

And it's not up to code.

Right.

Well, exactly.

That was my point.

Yeah, exactly.

And but it it just for the sake of that area and the preservation and hopefully future development of that area would be good to see if all that parking is really needed.

Right.

Okay.

Annie, please go ahead.

Um I think to Susan's point and your point and Anson's point, is this kind of an opportunity to set maybe a higher standard for these lots and how they're managed and how they look, because if it's not going to be developed, I feel like it's important for us to set some kind of standard um when people come to do these projects, that they're coming more prepared to just instead of going, we're just going to use that blank ugly lot for parking to come prepared to look at that lot in context of everything else.

Okay.

Any final uh comments from the commission?

Just about the alley is a brick alley, right?

And I I I assume there's no plans to improve or repair that Correct.

The current plan was to not touch the alley.

Um does that include like protection during construction.

So obviously you're going to stay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Tell them that it will need to be protected.

I think stipulation that we want to put in there.

So if if we approve part A, then what is the incentive to be righteous on parking?

I guess that's yeah, that's a good point.

I'm always hesitant to vote for a demolition.

We've been hurt in the future by that when we really don't know what the rest of the point is.

Right.

But as far as building this building, you're not ready to build it yet.

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

So a month, I don't think is a huge.

What about it?

Could we approve it?

And have a stipulation that building permits cannot be issued until they have an approval.

Well, they can't get an approval.

Yes.

So the stick then they would have the knowledge that the design has been approved.

Right.

The so the standard stipulations are going to be the final construction drawings.

So we're gonna have that stipulation anyways, and we can add a stipulation for the construction drawings for the improvements to the parking lot in that as well.

And we could also stipulate they can't demolish the building till the as well, right?

Yep, you can do that.

Right.

Is that Susan?

Does that satisfy you?

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

So why don't Meg you state what once you think about what your recommendation is going to be?

I'll craft something now.

Okay.

Any final comments?

Any from the uh applicant.

No, I don't believe it.

I need to have comments.

We'll wait just a minute here till Meg and then we'll read this and make sure you're okay with the language.

No.

I do have a clarifying question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Does the commission want to see the site plan for the parking lot?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So just as a reminder, under the first three stipulations, we have a box around it, and it's there's a note to permitting structural permits for the new building may not be issued until stipulations one through three are fulfilled.

Right.

But I'm going to add a I'm going to add a stipulation number four and a number five, which will sh throw off the numbering here, but let me go ahead and read these in in the order that they are that I'm suggesting.

So for stipulation number one, construction must not commence prior to approval by the IHBC staff of final construction drawings.

Number two is for the preconstruction meeting.

Number three is the site shall be filled staked prior to issue issuance of permits.

And number four, which will also be prior to issuance of permits, is a wrecking permit shall not be issued until final construction drawings for the building and parking lot are reviewed and approved by the commission.

Number five will be a final site plan for the parking lot shall be reviewed and approved by the commission under old business at a future IHPC hearing.

Okay.

All right.

Yes, we can plan from the that piece of the case and the next month.

So okay, Meg, is that your recommendation?

Yes, if you I can read the beginning if you would like and then you sure yeah, go ahead and just for the record do that.

Yep.

So for 2026 COA 018 Fletcher or uh this is St.

Joseph, right?

It's a St.

Joe sorry that's a type of SJ to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the existing non-contributed contributing historic building, construct commercial building, and for variance of development standards uh per the submitted documentation is subject to the what will now be nine stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, all right.

Is that acceptable to the applicant?

Could I just ask what improvements to the site or to the parking area are being proposed?

Yeah, go ahead.

So you'll work with Shelby to bring the parking lots up to code.

They're going to have to provide landscaping and screening, and she can walk you through what the requirements are for that.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

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

Kristen and Jeanette, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

And the variance.

Staff recommends to approve a variance of development standards to construct a building in the required clear site triangle and for reduced setbacks where a ten foot is required per the submitted findings of fact and site plan in the March 2026 IHBC staff report.

All right, I'll take a motion for the variance as presented by staff, please.

Thanks, Mike.

Second.

Uh Kristen, thank you.

Any final comments?

Okay.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

So uh we'll see you next month to review the site plan.

All right, thank you.

All right, we have no preliminary reviews.

We have one case this evening and applications to be heard work started without approval.

Uh the case is 2026 COA 012A Irvington address 15 Campbell Avenue.

Stephanie Trucan is the if I'm pronouncing your last name right.

Thank you.

Uh name and address and present your case.

Uh Stephanie Truchen with Craig Devault.

Um offices at one Indiana Square, suite 2800, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Um I am here on behalf of Charles Matthias and Katie Tyler.

They're the homeowners.

Um Charles and Katie purchased this home um about a year ago.

And this house had some extensive fire damage.

It was acquired.

Yeah, there had no.

Sorry about that.

Um this home had extensive fire damage.

It was acquired by a real estate company that undertook renovations to the home.

Um Katie and Charles purchased the house from that real estate company.

Um Katie had reached out about installing a driveway to help with some of the parking situations.

These are narrow streets, no garage in the back.

Um, and was informed that a couple items that were undertaken as part of the renovation were not done with IHPC approval.

So we are here tonight to try and resolve the chimney issue.

Um you'll see that prior to the fire damage or um after the fire damage prior to the renovation, the home had a brick chimney that was unpainted as part of the renovation.

The real estate company who did that renovation painted the brick chimney.

Um Katie spent an inordinate amount of time trying to strip the paint off of the brick to bring the chimney into compliance with IHPC standards.

Um that is not only a really tough project, but also significantly risked damaging the brick on this home.

You can see the areas where uh the paint was removed largely unsuccessfully.

There's still a lot of paint left.

That was after several applications of remover using different types of chemicals to try and remove that.

Uh the risk is that removing the paint from the entire chimney will damage the brick and the structural integrity, which is a large part of the home.

Um certainly this is under the porch, which is really easy for them to reach, but having to remove the paint on the entirety of the chimney is quite a process that we're hoping will not need to be undertaken and certainly you know happy to answer any other questions.

We've been very grateful for Caroline's guidance throughout this process in trying to get this resolved.

I think we're hopefully we're very close.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Seeing none, Caroline, we're ready for your staff comment, please.

Staff is recommending approval of a certificate of authorization to retain the painted chimney as the case meets at least one of the three criteria as outlined in the IHPC statute.

The owners have tried extensively to remove the paint with little success, and staff believes that maintaining the current structural integrity of the brick is safer than continuing to treat the brick with paint removal products.

Additionally, the current owners had no part in completing the work and have cooperated with staff since they assumed ownership ownership of the home to correct the violations, and I can't answer any questions at this time.

Okay.

Meg, it might be just helpful to summarize what you told me about sort of the background of this relative to the current owner not being the person who actually painted the chimney and is now being responsible for taking the paint off, just so that the commission understands the history here.

Sure.

So my understanding, and Caroline can correct me if I'm wrong here, but the prior owner did the work, and I think at some point there was an attempt to have an agreement to have the previous owner fix it, and for reasons I can't quite understand, that did not occur.

Um the new owner is in the situation that she is in right now, and and did in good faith make an attempt to rectify this, but as you could see by the photos, it's just it's not gonna work.

So per the statute, there is um circumstances where something may actually be a hardship for somebody, and we we feel that given the background on this, this does warrant a certificate of authorization for the hardship to the owner, and then also just uh as the testimony uh was given that there could be further damage to the bricks that are there to try to get that off.

And um just so the commission understands, I I did actually meet with a real estate um agency here yesterday, gave them a presentation on IHPC, and I actually used this case as an example because there are many uh real estate agents who are in the flipping business, which I think was the background on this case.

And so I did stress that there is a duty for any property owner to disclose any violations on a property and to also make sure that they do get the appropriate approvals from IHPC, uh, especially if they're a real estate agent, because that is um one of their liabilities to do that.

So we stress the importance of that.

And I've had similar conversations with my board and other entities.

So Caroline can elaborate on that, but I do believe that's the background on this.

Yeah, that's helpful.

Caroline, you want to add anything?

And to my understanding, there was an addendum that was added right before the house closed.

Um they contacted Katie contacted us right before the closing.

I think within a week it was set to be closed on, and the um previous owners did promise to fix it.

Um they were in talks with us until about July until they said they were retaining legal action and then wouldn't respond to any emails, which is when we started working with Katie.

Um, and you could see the progress that they had.

That's why I'm here.

Great.

Thank you for that.

And if I I'm sorry to interrupt if any anyone who's watching tonight, we've this is not the first time we've had a conversation like this.

And so, you know, it it's it's really it puts everybody in a really bad position uh where it's tough to rectify these violations once the property has changed hands.

So hopefully if anybody's listening to this, they can ask those questions, and a seller knows now that the right thing to do is to disclose that and and make it right before the closing.

So that's it.

Okay, thanks, Meg.

Questions from the commission.

Annie, please.

It's really more a comment kind of to the broader audience that may be watching.

Um I might understand, were you the one that tried to clean the brick or I saw the brick, yes.

Um the one thing that I will say just on behalf of IHBC staff, we very much appreciate the fact that you even consider doing that, because I think what happens, a mistake is made, it's passed on to you, which is extraordinarily unfair.

But I do appreciate and want to acknowledge the fact that in the spirit of these these places and the historic districts and things like that, that it's clear that you take it serious.

It's clear that you wanted to abide by that.

I mean, I'm sure you felt pressure, and that's unfortunate because that's an unfair byproduct of somebody that passed that along to you.

But I just did want to acknowledge I very much appreciate your effort and that that you tried to follow what we had hoped would have originally been done.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Any uh other comments?

David, please.

So I think this is uh a textbook example of why we can grant certificate of authorization.

This is I think a very appropriate use of that.

Uh I also want to thank the owner for really trying to undo something that clearly can't be undone, and it's a good thing to stop working on it now, because I think the at this point the brick is better off just being left alone.

Right.

I I'm I'm gonna um speak for the overall health of that brick um and and I'm gonna disagree.

If this were solely a an aesthetic issue, I would say we can probably get away with a a certificate of appropriateness.

But this is brick on a chimney um which will end up getting water behind it uh because of the joints on on the cap.

That will then be unable to be released because it's not a porous paint.

I I doubt that they went through the the effort to research and apply a proper paint for a a uh brick.

And so that water will not be able to escape and we'll end up with spawn spalling brick all the way down this chimney from that that water entry.

And that will happen.

I mean it it I mean it's inevitable unless somebody is vigilant about that going out there every every year at winter time and making sure the snow is not sitting on there and there's no gaps in the ceiling and everything like that.

So I think that there's actually more of a threat leaving the the paint on this brick than there is by trying to clean it.

Did you attempt any media blasting, any type of media blasting?

I think only chemical removers were used.

Um again, these are homeowners, they're regular people.

They did not hire commercial contractors to come out and remove this paint because they didn't put it on the chimney, they just bought the house.

Well, yeah, and and I understand that it it's not this what they they didn't do it, but it is a violation and it's yeah, we we definitely understand, to my knowledge, no, that has not been the health of the brick is probably more threatened by the paint than it is by a removal technique like dry ice or walnut blasting.

So um those are two things while it would be expensive, you may just need to seek remedy from the the prior owner because I I just can't in in good faith say that I support putting this out there.

One, because painting brick is so popular right now, and just kind of getting away with uh, well, it wasn't your fault.

That's just gonna encourage more flippers to do the same thing and just encourage them to get do it faster.

And so um we're gonna we're gonna have a plague of this stuff.

It we already do, and it's gonna tear brick apart uh on all these houses.

And so um while I sympathize with the homeowner and and I'm and acknowledge that that they tried to remedy um, I think there needs to be a little more investigation into um some techniques uh because I think a a professional might be able to remove this uh paint a little bit more effectively.

Other comments from the commission.

Yeah, Kristen, please.

Um I'm just curious, since it's all very well documented when this happened and who did it.

Like, is there any option to re-engage with that party other than like Anson mentioned seeking remedy?

Like that feels like it's on the burden of the homeowner.

Like as the IHPC, do we have any thing that we can do um to help I don't know, spur them to action, help them engage?

If it is a professional contractor, I know it it's not they don't own it anymore.

But if it's gonna be an issue that keeps happening, is there an option like that?

One sec, I'm gonna ask Caroline a quick question.

Okay.

So we may want to ask the owner, because I think they may still be in communications with the seller about some other things that needed to be corrected.

What I don't know is if they've had a conversation about this.

So I don't maybe I don't know if you know the answer to that.

There has not been a conversation about uh there's been a high-level conversation about um trying, you know, attempting the paint removal, um, that not working, the direction that we received from both my client and the previous property owner was to pursue a certificate of appropriateness.

Okay.

So we have not sent this to the prosecutor because there they were working for for some time.

Um for for what it's worth, I mean, we may want to have that conversation about this, and is there a way to do it?

Um you know, there's a couple of things I think from from our perspective that we were looking at, and that was one was to assess what the brick would look like underneath if they tried to take it off.

And so that's why we brought it to you this evening, because there isn't a good way to to remove that.

Um, can the seller provide some kind of monetary relief for that?

You know, that's that's a conversation that we can have with the prosecutor if we needed to do that, or if they can come to an agreement for that.

But I think we we just given the circumstances, there's not really a great way to make this okay.

Um, you know, the we've talked about painting over the top of it, so the color is different, but the paint it it is a problem.

I mean, that's that's what we that's why we have in our policies and our guidelines not to paint on painted masonry.

Luckily in this case, this brick is a harder brick, so the the surface is not as porous, but you know, I think there is some something, a conversation to be had about what the long-term preservation of the brick might be if they do keep it.

Um but that's uh you know, I I guess we defer to the commission to try to figure out how to rectify that.

You know, which is which path to go down, whether to grant a certificate of authorization to keep it, or should they pursue some path forward to try to remove it and see how successful they can be with it without damaging it.

Right.

Yeah, you know, certainly blasting often will damage the brick.

Um you'd have to test to see if this is a hard enough brick to, as Manson says, use uh dry ice or walnut shells or beads or glass beads or some other options out there other than sand, which tends to tear the brick up pretty badly.

Um obviously, if if that could happen, they'd it also when you're doing that, it's also gonna likely damage the mortar because you can't just do the bricks, it doesn't work that way.

Um so there's a whole repointing that probably would have to happen as a part of this if you could in fact get it clean.

I don't know if you can get it clean or not get it clean.

You'd have to have to see uh how obviously the chemicals are not getting into the groovy, the grooves of the brick.

Uh and and I don't know how many applications were done to try to get this, so if this was one, two, three, four, I don't know.

It was several, I think three.

I assumed it was several, but I don't know how many.

So the chemicals aren't going to get it done.

Um I mean, whether there's the only other option is to blast it somehow, and that can absolutely damage the brick beyond repair.

So that would have to be done uh carefully to see even see if it's possible if that would even work.

Short of that, I don't know.

You know, when you get when when we've gotten into these kind of preservation issues in the past, and the brick is damaged on the front.

Sometimes we've actually turned the bricks around if the brick on the back is the same same way, sometimes it's not, but that's a whole thing.

So then you're into replacing the chimney and all that sort of stuff.

So then you're not protecting the historic resource anymore, you're just reconstructing it.

Yeah, and I think from staff's perspective, one of the things that we always take into consideration is you know, we can always file a complaint and they can always pursue a civil civil action with the seller, but the homeowner still has to front cost for this.

With the hopes that they will get it back.

And so, you know, we we think given the circumstances and what we think the actual outcome would be, the path of least resistance was to attempt to get a certificate of authorization first.

Um we are sensitive to that, and so we're just gonna ask for the commission's um decision on that tonight.

Okay.

All right, well, go ahead, Answer like without it, you know, knowing how much sand or the the dry ice blasting might cost.

You know, it's hard to say that this is a hardship without even having a a real cost attached to it.

You know, I mean, we don't even have a real cost attached to somebody trying to chemically strip it.

Because I mean if you all remember back, what's now the Pacers headquarters is a similar brick, covered in paint, probably far many more layers of paint than that uh over the years, and they managed to remove all that.

And that was done by covering the stripping agent and allowing it to work for a longer time and then peeling it off.

And but it it can be done, and I think we at least owe it to the district to find out if having it done professionally is too much of a financial hardship for this project.

Mike, go ahead, please.

A question for the applicant.

Um, was there title insurance involved with the purchase?

And did they I didn't personally handle the closing?

Do you I I presume that you had this was handled through a title company?

Yeah.

So you have title presumably a title insurance policy.

It seems like the title and insurance company would be aware of the violation.

Well, possibly in if that's the case.

Um they may have endorsed over the violation, or they might have uh they might have addressed it somehow, or it might be hanging out there, something worth looking into as far as compensating the owner for work done, possibly.

Was the violation issued prior to the sale?

I'm gonna let Caroline speak to that.

Um the violation issue was done prior to the sale, um, but they didn't find out about it until they reached out to us, the current owners, um, like the week of the sale.

So it was issued well before the sale happened.

The violation?

Yeah.

No.

The vi we found the violation and the violation was then entered after the sale or around that time, um, because we found it around that time.

It wasn't a previous violation, we found it when they contacted us for the first time.

Okay, so the violation was issued to the current owner and never to the previous owner.

It was it was both the the previous owner was on it, but they are now on the violation primarily is my understanding of how it's entered in the system right now.

I just got really confused uh on the timeline that you said like the actual physical or the the actual date on the the violation was after the sale date.

It was pardon, right?

I might have explained that weirdly.

It the violation was basically at the same time as the sale of the home.

So the previous owner was on the initial violation, but it is to my understanding now that it is only the current owners on it now.

So it they switched it over, I think, or added their name on to the violation.

So it was in that like weird kind of nebulous timeline in between.

I think that's important to Michael's point.

If the title company didn't know about it, then they wouldn't have insured it.

Yeah, I mean there might be a way out that uh I'm not sure how the title company goes after the seller of how that works if there's subrogation or some other method, but um it might be insured.

Something worth looking into the yeah, Annie, go ahead.

I mean, I think that's a really good idea, but we're still sort of at this impasse of what d what is the burden for this homeowner to move this process along, because I feel like you know it is an unfair burden.

Unfortunately, we stop to deal with it.

So I feel like it would be great if we could come up with some kind of like conclusion to this so that it is dealt with.

Um I think Anson's point is worth you noting if if the painting of it is going to be an issue just for your mindfulness moving forward.

I don't have any expertise in that.

It's probably something to investigate.

But I would like for us to be able to come up with some way to move this forward.

Well, the way to move it forward, obviously, is to look at the staff recommendation, you know, and motion it and we see whether it passes would be the way to actually move it forward.

Go ahead, Meg.

I I would just also add there there's nothing that precludes the homeowner from pursuing what Anson was referring to afterwards if the commission decides to approve a strict certificate of authorization.

If they if they choose to explore whether a more abrasive method to remove the paint would actually work and if they want to go after the seller for the cost to remove that, I think long term to Anson's point, you know, that that is a better way to deal with the structural integrity of the brick.

Um, but we I I guess we are just sensitive to the homeowners' financial obligations to something that wasn't their responsibility.

So I I think given the way that the statute is worded, it gives you an opportunity to grant a certificate of authorization for for that hardship.

So I just uh where I balk at that is is the incentivization of the the flipper where they're gonna get off scot-free for this whole thing and they're gonna they're the ones that cause the problem.

I mean that's the and the only way we obviously we have no method of getting getting to them.

But if if there's a requirement that we put upon the owner that they can then go after them for, there might be some remedy.

But if we don't require that, they will have no remedy whatsoever.

Well, if so if the commission would like to, we can certainly speak with the city prosecutor to try to pursue legal action on the previous owner.

Um that has nothing to do with the case this evening.

Right.

Um but if that would make the commission feel better about this decision, we can certainly do that and see that you know there is some kind of you know damages or something that they can they can seek to for the the original violation being their responsibility.

I think the larger community being aware of it is the of the utmost importance, and a lot of times those prosecutions happen behind closed doors and it's there's not a lot of awareness.

So if this chimney just sits here and it's painted, everybody in the neighborhood is gonna wonder why they can't paint their brick.

You know, I mean, or or you know, a flipper is gonna be like if I paint it real quick and and flip the house, then nobody's gonna uh I'm I'm just gonna get away with it.

And so I I just think there's too much of a risk because this paint is difficult to remove and it it's easy to put on, is really easy to put on.

Um and I just think that there is it's a bad message to send to people to allow them to allow this paint to stay.

Yeah, I think the issue though is the fact that this owner didn't do it.

That's the difference.

I think if if it this owner had done it, then I think the argument is sound.

I think it's challenging to force this owner to deal with a problem that they just inherited.

And normally if it if we're um, like I said, just an aesthetic issue, if it was something that was you know just a little bit off.

I I just know that that there's gonna be water problems with this paint, and as soon as you get a pinhole in that paint, it's gonna spread, it's gonna be the whole chimney.

And now you're now you're chasing after it year after year, repainting and repainting.

Uh and I and like I said, I understand, and it this is a difficult issue because of the way it happened.

Right.

But I think the threat is is larger than the the uh Yeah.

I think you know, I think the threat also is relative to the hardness of the brick, to you know, to the point that if this is a hard enough brick, the paint will fail before the brick does, and then you're painting it all the time, like you're saying.

I mean, if it's a soft brick, it can in fact spall.

If it's a hard brick, it may be harder than the than the moisture with the paint, the paint would then peel, and then you're into painting the thing forever.

As soon as you paint masonry, you're into painting it forever.

I mean, that's just that's sort of the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

Right, unless you take it off.

No, that's exactly right.

You're absolutely right.

I guess the you know, I guess the situation is that issue is really this current owner's decision as to whether they want to keep the paint and deal with the problem or not.

The the issue in front of us is dealing with this as a violation, and the violation occurred with a different owner, and this owner's now been saddled with that.

That's the problem.

And that's why I think this is a a different situation than if the owner was in front of us who actually did the work.

I then that I'd be fully supportive of your of your argument.

Well, I I just think that the violation happening the way it happened is is part of the problem as well.

It didn't it wasn't issued, so they had no they could have no idea, and I I know that this is no fault of theirs, right?

But there they also had no remedy for that, you know, because of that.

Sure.

And so I I you know they had discussions with the the previous owner about uh fixing the brick.

Why didn't they are are they just not responding to that or well you understand how difficult it is to get money out of people, I'm sure.

Sure.

Um but she's hired retained counsel.

I mean, I think we're doing our best, yes.

We're doing our best.

Um this is as far as we have been able to get it.

Okay, are there other comments?

Mike, go ahead.

I think maybe the the correct way or the appropriate way to handle it would be to deny the certificate of authorization, which would give the applicant the footing to go after the seller in a normal situation.

In this case, uh because the house burned down and the only thing left standing was basically the chimney from the photos more or less.

Um well that's not entirely true, but because of the fire, I think maybe there's a distinction here where we have wiggle room to maybe approve the certificate of authorization, knowing there's going to be problem from resulting from painting this brick, which is a good point I hadn't thought of, but maybe that's the distinction in case the next person who comes with this problem, you know, another flipper for instance.

We we can say look, the difference is your house didn't burn down.

This house burned down, so there's some some difference.

As far as setting a precedent is what you're getting at, Mike.

Yeah, okay.

All right, other comments.

Throwing just one thing.

Yeah, go ahead, Meg, please.

No, it's fine.

Um so it we're happy to come back to the commission and give you an update if we send this to the city prosecutor and let you know what the outcome is.

The um financial burden for that obviously would not be on the homeowner, so that I think was uh is a better path forward um in in that regard.

So we can certainly do that, and if they choose to go speak with the title insurance company and come up, come back to us with a different outcome, then we can come back to you with an update on that too.

But I I do think there's some um some avenues that we can go down that doesn't cause additional burden to the home to the homeowner, right?

Okay.

Any final word from the applicant?

No.

Thanks for your consideration.

Okay.

So we'll take a recommendation, Meg, and then we'll see how the commission is going to vote.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of authorization to retain the painted chimney for the submitted documentation is subject to the three stipulations in one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Could I get a motion for the staff recommendation as presented, please?

Thank you, David.

Get a second.

Sorry.

Oh, Disa, sorry.

I didn't see you down there.

Uh so I get a second.

Okay.

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

Aye.

Those opposed?

Aye.

Okay.

So it passes eight to one.

Okay.

And Meg, are you going to still file it with the prosecutor then?

Yes, I will have a conversation with them and follow up to the next month if there's any questions that the prosecutor has about the case or anything, but that will be our um next step, Mr.

Go ahead and then you might look into the title insurance issue that Mike brought up that may be another vehicle for the uh current owner to get some right reimbursement from or not.

Sure.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Okay.

All right.

Meg, any other items this evening.

I do have one.

So Monday night, March 9th, I cordially invite you back here at 5.30 for the city county council meeting for where I will make a formal request for the James T.

Kinley Memorial Way.

And so hope to see you there.

That date again.

Sorry?

Oh, the date?

Date and time again.

March 9th, which is this upcoming Monday at 5 30, right here.

Do you know when you're on the agenda?

I don't.

Hopefully first.

Okay.

Any other business?

All right, we stand adjourned.

Thank you all.