All right, good evening.

I'm going to call the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission April meeting to order.

We have uh three sets of minutes uh to approve this evening the October 25, February 26th, and March 26th minutes, they're all in your packet.

Are there any corrections or comments on the minutes?

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

Thank you.

Motion to approve any, any second?

Thanks, Anson.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Same sign, please.

No.

Okay, passes.

Thank you.

I will now move to the old business section, which is not a public hearing portion of the meeting.

Uh the first item on the agenda is case uh six or the address 629 621 Lockerby Street.

Uh I think the applicant is here to check in and give us an update on the improvements to the property.

So uh Grace, you want to swear them in and uh then they can present their case, please.

Yeah, can I get your names and addresses for the record, please?

And then I'll swear you in.

Rhonda Duvall, 621 Lockerby Street.

Ari Lipinski, 951 North Delaware Street.

Okay, then raise your right hands.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just give us an update, please.

Uh since the last month.

Okay, so since the last meeting, the chimney work has been completed.

Um she's been in contact with some other contractors regarding the rest of the work.

And uh she's waiting on a proposal from Graydon.

Um she's uh excited about him, thinks that uh he's going to be willing to complete the rest of the work.

He was supposed to have uh a quote to her by the end of last week, but he said he's a little behind right now.

Um so we're hoping that we'll get that within by the end of the week or early next week, and um can get that to Ms.

Jarzin and hopefully get a uh certificate of appropriateness for that work.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Meg, do you want to offer any comment?

I don't have anything additional to add.

But thank you.

All right.

Just uh want to emphasize the need to keep moving this along and trying to make progress here.

Uh the property isn't getting any uh any better other than just the I want that as well.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

So we will plan on seeing you next month.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, the uh uh the next item on old business is uh three uh case 2024 COA 364 Fletcher Place, address 317 South College Avenue, looking for a three-year extension request.

Uh Emily, do you want to comment on that?

Uh yes.

So the applicant asked for a multi-year extension.

Um they got this a little over a year ago, uh but the commission would have to approve anything that's over a single year.

Um so part of it is there's part we'll wait with uh an encroachment license, but then also kind of a desire to wait till College Avenue is supposed to be going two ways.

And so staff uh thought that three-year extension uh would be a decent time frame uh to try to accomplish those goals.

And nothing else has changed on the project, and I can answer any questions.

You representing the applicant.

Uh I do not represent the applicant, but uh I represent a surrounding land o landowner.

Um he wanted me to make a few comments if I could.

Yeah, this really isn't a public hearing component here, so I don't know that I can really allow that.

Okay unless it's create because we're looking at just an extension here.

So any questions from the commission on the extension.

If not, I'll take a motion to approve the extension.

Thanks, Anson.

Get a second, please.

Annie.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll move to uh two cases, 2025 uh HP 002, followed by 2025 HP 001, uh Circle Tower 55 Monument Circle.

Meg, do you want to start us off on that?

I'm sorry to interrupt.

I do have one more question.

There's another item on the agenda that was set for today at public hearing related to those two um items that you just considered.

Um is that continued?

Yeah, actually the continuance were not for those uh cases that was for um the um Cincinnati case, right, Meg?

Right.

There's um 323 Cincinnati Street and 324 South College Avenue will be continued to the May 6th Commission hearing.

Okay.

I I just wanted to confirm that.

All right, thank you.

Uh-huh.

Sure.

Okay, Meg, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you.

So as you're probably all aware, uh staff has been working with holiday properties on a designation of two interior spaces inside Circle Tower, and that includes the historic interior first floor lobby and the second floor 1930s barbershop.

Um this has been in the works for probably about a year or so waiting for holiday to take uh possession of the property, and in your packets is a copy of the draft plan for that interior space, which uh just for clarification, the Monument Circle District is already designated, which this property is included in, but this is a supplemental plan that will only be designating the interior two spaces.

So uh there are historic photographs and other photographs in the plan uh to provide a little bit of um insight into what those spaces look like since they are not open to um the the public, at least on the second floor at this moment.

Um the lobby space, the public can go in and see.

But uh as you can tell, the art deco design of the interior lobby and the very fascinating interior space of the um barbershop are extremely significant spaces that are worthy of designation.

We're asking for your approval this evening to adopt the resolution for 002, which is uh listing those two spaces in the Marion County Register of Historic Places, and 001, which is for the adoption of the historic area plan to designate those spaces.

And then uh assuming that is approved this evening, we will forward that to the Metropolitan Development Commission for their approval, and that'll take place uh probably at the May meeting.

Uh so with that, I'll answer any questions that you might have.

All right, thanks, Meg.

Questions from the Commission.

Any questions?

Yeah, go ahead, Anson, please.

Um we all had had a discussion about this previously, and we all met at the building itself and and we toured it because there were spaces that were significant beyond what was being designated, including um some stonework and some plaster work that you know you're unlikely to see uh ever again.

And so um I kind of wondered where that discussion went because we I think a lot of us were interested in seeing some of those spaces included in the designation as they were significant.

Like I said, uh we're losing spaces like that, and there aren't very many like it uh to begin with, and so um I I think it would be a shame for us to to lose any more of that building than uh has already been gone.

Yes, thank you.

So after talking with the property owner, they were not in agreement for the designation of that additional space.

Um staff felt that there's definitely value in moving forward with the designation of the two spaces.

If for some reason in the future we're able to have an agreement to do that, we can always come back and amend the plan.

But at this time, we're only in agreement to do these two spaces that are in the plan as proposed.

And the uh the landowner has to be in agreement.

The landowner does not have to be in agreement, but it's certainly the preference of the commission and has been.

Well, certainly, and but we've acted um before when obviously when the uh the landowner was not in agreement, and like I said, uh you know if there were spaces like this that were common around the city, I think I'd have a different feeling about it.

But these are uncount common in both their um quality and their craftsmanship, and like I said, we're unlikely to see any spaces like that created ever again, uh especially that are uh accessible to the public.

And so um I just feel like we might be remiss if we didn't include those spaces in our designation.

Okay, other comments from the commission.

Did would would anyone else want to speak on this?

Did we do want to any additional comments, Meg?

Um you may you may ask.

I know the owner is not here this evening, um, but if there's anyone else that would like to speak to that, we can certainly hear comment.

Okay, all right.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this?

If not, yeah, go ahead.

Name and address.

Uh Jim Lingenfelder, 525 Lord Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

You'll need to be sworn in, Jim.

Can you raise your right hand?

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

Say I do.

I do.

Perfect, thank you.

As a descendant of the family that did the first improvements on this lot, I would like to vote or speak in favor of this designation.

I've watched the Circle Tower building most of my professional career, and I think it's a wonderful thing to designate this.

So the family is noted in the Ernestine Rose book, The Circle, as being uh developers of a boarding house on that site.

And I'm very proud of that fact.

So thank you for allowing me to speak in favor of this.

Thanks, Jim.

Okay, any other comments of the commission?

All right.

So I will take a motion for the uh recommendation is presented by uh staff.

Meg, do you want to read that?

Yeah, let me go ahead and read uh resolution 002.

I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but I'll read the the beginning here.

So for 2026 HP 002.

Uh staff is requesting the uh adoption of declaratory resolution for listing the Circle Tower Historic Area Interior First Floor Lobby and Second Floor 1930s barbershop only in the Marion County Register of Historic Places Okay, all right.

I'll take a motion for the effect uh word by staff.

Susan, thank you.

Mike, thank you for a second.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Aye.

Okay, uh passes five to one.

Meg, do you want to read the next recommendation?

Sure.

For 2026 HP 001.

Staff is uh requesting adoption of declaratory resolution for the interior spaces.

And this is for declaring the interior first floor lobby and second floor 1930s barbershop spaces inside Circle Tower located at 55 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204, an historic area to be of historic and architectural significance and recommending to the MDC for adoption as part of the comprehensive plan for Marion County, and it would be listed as historic preservation plan 45 Circle Tower Historic Area.

Okay.

Thank you, Meg.

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

Thank you, Susan.

Get a second.

Thank you, Mike.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign?

Aye.

Okay.

Um passes five to one.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we will move to the uh request for continuances.

COA 018 St.

Joe, address 817 North Pennsylvania Street, Ashley Danielson is the applicant.

Uh please come forward.

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

You'll know it both need to be sworn in as well.

Oh perfect.

Um Ashley Danielson representing 817 North Pennsylvania Street.

I'm with Studio M Architecture and Planning at 275 Veterans Way on Carmel, uh 4600.

Thank you.

Good.

I'm James Brown.

I'm with Studio M as well at 275 Veterans Way in Carmel.

Okay.

You'd swear the men, 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.

Okay, go ahead and present your case, please.

So we are coming back this month to present our revised parking lot plan that's in association with the project we presented last month at 817 North Pennsylvania Street.

So what we have done over the last month is um parking lot improvements, including uh some trees included in the in the parking lots.

Um we did reduce the number of spaces, but we are currently at 69 parking spaces in uh combination between the two lots.

We've also included a small dumpster enclosure as part of the lot that would be in association with the building.

Um additional improvements include a new fence, landscaping.

Um James, anything else I'm missing?

Um, the the dumpster enclosure, uh the fence.

Um the requested trees.

Okay.

Is that it?

Okay.

Thank you.

That's fine.

Uh Shelby, you want to give us comments, please?

Um, you did receive um some additional drawings today in your day of packet.

And correct me if I'm wrong, it had the additional tree and then the bike parking, I think were the main changes there.

Yes, correct.

Yeah, we did bring that up to code with the additional.

So just a couple additional items there um that were in your day or packet, but other than that, I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Questions from the commission, please.

Any questions, comments?

I think it's obviously a huge improvement to uh the parking lots that will be supporting the project.

So I'm in certainly in favor of making these improvements and glad uh the uh applicant is willing to do that.

So thank you.

Okay, we'll take a motion for the approval of the uh parking lot improvements.

Uh Shelby, do you want to or Meg, do you want to read a uh recommendation or no?

That just that's it.

Okay.

I'll take a motion.

Sorry, Bill, could I just go ahead and answer?

And I noticed that the the parking lot is actually moved closer to the street, is that right?

It should not have the parking lot.

Um there's a currently it's set very far back on the street.

Oh, sorry.

From the existing condition?

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

So there's a 10-foot setback requirement that we have maintained.

So that's that's 10 feet between that parking spot and the the edge of the the property line now on St.

Clair.

I can't remember if it's from the property line or from the sidewalk.

Um I think is the same, isn't it?

But it should be clear on the site plan there.

You zoom into that.

So it would be from the property line.

And that meets the you said that meets the the current code for that area or current ordinance for that area.

Yes.

Okay.

Thanks, Anson.

Any final questions?

All right, I'll take a motion uh for uh the improvements to the parking lot.

Uh yeah, Kristen and Susan, thank you both.

Any final comment?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Okay, thank you.

Uh-huh.

Okay, now we'll move to request uh to withdraw our continue applications.

I think we have uh one case.

Meg, you want to take us through those?

Uh wait a minute.

Before we do that, let me introduce the uh the staff and the commission members this evening uh before you jump in there.

Uh uh to my right is Anson Keller, uh Commissioner, uh myself, Bill Brown, President, uh Susan Williams, Secretary, uh Deesa Watson, it may be coming later, uh Commissioner, uh Michael Bivins, Commissioner, Kristen Wiggs, uh, Commissioner, and Annie Lear, Commissioner.

Our staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmetz is our legal counsel, Emily Jarrison is our principal architectural reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Margaret Marlejo, our architecture reviewer and recorder, and I've been calling her the wrong name.

Sorry about that.

I'm so used to calling Grace.

Uh Caroline and Emminacre, our architectural reviewer, and Maryam Burkett, our uh preservation uh planner.

Uh the commission has copies of IC 36-7-11.1, the Marin County zoning ordinances, the historic preservation zoning ordinance, and all historic area plans for Marion County on file, in which will be incorporated by reference in 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 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 up 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 of the cases this evening will be as follows.

We'll ask for the applicant to come forward and make a presentation, and then we will also ask for comments in support of that application.

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

That will be allowed up to an additional 20 minutes.

And then this will ask for staff comment.

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

So before calling the first case this evening, uh let me ask anyone who is going to be speaking to any of the cases this evening to rise and be uh sworn in uh by Morgan.

So please stand and raise your right hand, please.

Okay, do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

All right, thank you.

All right.

All right, now we'll move to uh continue.

Sorry to get out of order there, Meg.

Go ahead and please.

For 2026, COA 033 Fletcher Place.

Address is 324 South College Avenue and Alley 350 South and Alley 375 east between Cincinnati Street and South College Avenue.

The applicant is Mark Crouch, and that request is to continue, excuse me, to continue to March or excuse May 6th.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any questions from the commission?

If not, I'll take a motion for the continuance as read by staff.

Thanks, Mike.

Get a second.

Anson, thank you.

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll move to expedited cases.

We have three this evening.

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

2026 COA 027, Harrow Morton Place.

Address is 2148 North Pennsylvania Street.

Applicant is Paul Muslack.

And the request is for partial demolition of a new garage, enlarge first floor of garage and construct a second floor with living space.

2026 COA 042 Fletcher Place.

Address is 706 Lexington Avenue.

And the applicant is Joshua Fendler, and the request is to construct a rear edition on a commercial building.

And 2026 COA 050 cottage home.

Address is 1307 East Ninth Street, and the applicant is Enrique Martinez.

The request is to construct a rear edition and detached carriage house with living space and exterior restoration.

All right, thank you, Meg.

Is there anyone in the public wishing to speak to the any of the exploited cases?

Okay.

Anyone on the commission wishing to speak to any of the exploited cases?

Seeing none, I'll take a motion for the approval of the three expedited cases as presented by staff, please.

Any, thank you.

Get a second, please.

Thanks, Kristen.

Any final comments?

All those in favor of the 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 start with applications to be heard which are new this evening.

Uh the first case is 2026 COA 041 here in Morton Place.

Address 2057 North Talbot Street.

Evelyn Ruez, if I rinse pronounce that correctly.

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

Hello.

Hi, um, my name is Evelyn Ruiz.

And a um Address, please.

Address is 2057 North Talbot.

Okay.

Is that s where that's where you live, yes?

No.

No, I need you to the project we have.

Okay, I need your address of where you live.

Uh 1719 East 36th Street.

Thank you.

Go ahead and present your case to us, please.

Um our project is uh uh new house, uh construction of a new house with a carriage house.

Um is uh an empty lot right now.

And we just want to do any construction.

Um I'm sorry, I'm known this.

It's my first time here.

That's okay.

No, it's fine.

Do you want to tell us anything about uh what you're doing besides just building a house?

Tell us a little bit about the house or um, no, yeah, it's fine, please.

Just name an address, please.

Okay, my name is Alfredo Rojas.

I live in uh 17 uh 17475 Nattress Court in Oldsville.

Um what we're trying to do here is just uh we bought this law to essentially finish developing the the neighborhood.

Uh-huh.

Or that strip.

Uh we are trying to build a not like a town house, but like um just a house that matches the rest of them.

And I believe is this a historic district?

Okay, so we're we're just would you make changes uh according to your guys' specifications?

Uh-huh.

So we send the final draft last month, and just for you guys to verify that everything that you guys are wanting on the house is there in order for us to proceed building the the house, essentially.

Okay, all right.

Yep.

All right.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Seeing none, we're ready for staff comment.

Morgan, do you want to give us an update, please?

Yeah, I'm up here now.

Um staff believes the design is compatible with the historic buildings in the surrounding area, and that it is a product of its own time.

Um staff has provided applicants with the following comments to be included in their construction drawing.

Um these comments are the only reason that this was not on the expedited list.

We just want to make sure that they get included for those final drawings.

Um the first one is that the shingle sighting should be confined to the gables only on both the house and the carriage house.

Um adding the front steps to the drive for the streetscape um for 2049 and 2053 north Talbot.

And then the third comment is to align the windows on the left of the north elevation because they will be seen from the street just to give it a more uniformed look.

It's gonna be those two closer to the rear of the structure.

Um but other than those three small comments, staff is in support of this design and is not aware of any opposition.

Um, and staff is recommending approval for the request.

Okay, thank you.

Morgan, questions from the commission or comments, please.

Anything?

Yeah, Susan, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Um it feels like the form of the house is good, the footprints good.

Well, a little and and I I agree with the staff about the uh decorative stuff being up higher.

The windows are of concern to me, and it just feels like, and it's just my opinion, that um a little bit wider or heavier trim around the windows, particularly on the front facade, I think would be very helpful if it would make a stronger statement.

And then the windows on the side that are up high.

I it's hard for me to tell what what we're gonna see at street level, but the the little skinny window and uh well they're both skinny, one's long and one's wide, um, look like they're under the eve, and it might be uh prudent to maybe drop it down a little bit.

And I don't know if that's just because the way the computer did it or if if those windows are a touch too high.

So those are my comments.

All right, thank you, Susan.

Other comments in the commission?

Just there.

Yeah, go yeah, go ahead, Anson, please.

Um the the thing that I caught my eye is the the water table um trim element that you see on the facades of of the care both the carriage house and the main house.

I I don't think you'd see it um on just one facade of a house.

It should probably continue down the sides as the as it would in a historic house.

It just seems it's kind of jarring that it just stops.

It doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense.

But other than that, I mean I I'd I'd prefer to see a little bit more open space between the house and the carriage house as well, but I don't think that that's really a a deal breaker.

Um but I I do think the water table detail not continuing around the edge.

It's something you can see from the street.

I think it's a little bit um you know inconsistent.

That's all my comment.

All right, thanks, Anson.

I'll just offer a couple of comments.

Um it I don't know, it's uh we we normally don't focus on the back elevation or the east elevation in this case, so it's really kind of odd the way the window arrangement is there.

I don't know if there's another opportunity to get you know another window.

I'm also similar to Susan's comments on the windows, I just feel like there's not a lot of sort of placement and logic to them.

So I think Morgan, if you could work with them to try to maybe improve uh the alignment in addition to the facade that you spoke about, I think also the opposite uh facade could use some adjustment as well and just try to get a little more detailing uh with the sills or the trim or whatnot.

It seems just a little uh a little bit uh sort of stark in some of the um some of the treatment there with the detailing.

So I I think if you could just work with the applicant to clean that up, that probably would be uh all that's all that's kind of needed there.

All right.

Any final comments from the applicant?

Um yeah, I mean uh would it we're just essentially trying to get started on this construction?

Would it be okay if we just get started and then just uh work on the details with her as we go along?

We just normally we want to try to get uh sort of complete understanding, you know, before you just start construction.

So if you can work with Morgan, we I'm sure she'll be able to work with you fairly quickly here.

I don't think this will be a large delay.

So just get with her, and then once that's all satisfied, if the staff is satisfied, which Meg will sign off on, then you can proceed.

Get your COA.

So we wouldn't have to have another hearing.

I don't believe unless the unless the staff feels like we need to come back.

Go ahead, Meg.

No, I don't think that you need to come back.

I do want to make sure you understand though, you cannot pull permits until we sign off on your final construction drawings of those changes.

That's what I want to make sure that you guys everybody here is gonna be okay.

You right.

Yeah, just follow up with Morgan and we'll try to get you through pretty quick.

Okay, sounds good.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

All right.

Meg, do you want to read a staff recommendation then, please?

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a house and carriage house per submitted documentation is subject to the nine stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, all right.

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

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um take a motion for the staff right.

Thanks, Susan.

Thanks, uh, Kristen.

Any uh 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.

Uh-huh.

Okay, the uh the next case is uh 2026 COA 048 Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, and variants 2026 VHP 003, address 602 North Park Avenue, Randy Veach is the applicant.

Is Randy here please come forward.

Yeah, that's fine.

Just come whoever wants to speak, come forward.

Uh uh state your name and address, please.

And you can present your case.

My name is Mike Keifling uh with Illuminat at 702 North Capitol Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana.

Uh we are proposing to take a building that is located at 602 North Park Avenue and the corner of East North Street, uh, which is an existing industrial building was uh previously used as as an indoor parking garage.

It's got a an exterior parking lot, and to convert that building into a residence.

Uh part of that uh original structure we would keep maintain uh part for uh a private uh garage storage, um, so it would be private uh automobiles stored in there.

Uh we are proposing to build two new addition uh structures for uh trash containment and for pool equipment uh for fountains and uh landscaping, which would also uh uh be the backdrop to the uh an aluminum rain screen, which would extend probably about half of the existing building, and then uh tie in those uh additional structures that uh east north avenue uh facade we would maintain the existing uh windows.

Uh we are in the process of of looking at the feasibility of either refurbishing or uh finding a way to to mimic those uh as historically accurate as we can.

Uh the east facade, which is uh 602 North Park will pretty much maintain the same.

There are some non-historic windows there that are aluminum and would be replaced with new aluminum windows.

Uh the grounds uh behind the rain screen would be some additional parking, but would be screened from the street.

Uh and then we would have a small patio area at the rear of the property, uh which we are requesting a variance for a privacy wall currently we're requesting for 12 feet.

Uh there's a neighbor that has a pergola that's up over 12 feet that we are looking to uh build the privacy wall to uh maintain some privacy from that.

It's a business uh and they have you know uh people that's more of a restaurant serving bar area that um you know we want to maintain a little bit of privacy between the business and the residents okay.

Is that it?

Is it okay?

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

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

Uh Shelby.

Um staff is in support of the various aspects of this request except for the 12-foot wall and the accompanying accompanying variants.

The request is for twice the height of what's allowed per code as well as what's recommended in the historic area plan.

And we don't believe that the findings or the test of the findings of fact have been met.

Um other than that, I can answer any questions.

Okay, thanks, Shelby.

Questions from the commission, please.

Any questions?

Susan, go ahead, please.

This is very interesting.

It must have been a fun project to work on.

A couple of things.

A 12-foot wall seems a little bit a little bit much.

And I think probably with some tall trees or whatever, you could gain some privacy there.

So I've got a problem with that.

I just have two questions that the one is probably zoning.

I'm not sure.

Can that be the sole purpose of that area?

So it doesn't sometime become a parking garage when there's an event on Mass Av or whatever.

If the car collection doesn't fill that garage.

Okay.

And then the other thing that I'm wondering about is on the park avenue side.

If there's I know it's going to look much improved with the windows repaired and the garage door probably new, but is there anything we can do to make that a little bit more attractive?

I don't think there's any room there to plant a tree or a bush.

So that's just something to think about.

I certainly not gonna cause me to not be in favor of this project.

But since park is is a residential street, all up and down, it'd be nice to have something.

Those are my questions and comments.

All right, thanks, Susan.

Other questions?

Annie, please.

I don't know that I have any particular suggestions on what to do on the park side, but I definitely think something needs to be done just because it is residential and it's so flat, and I walk by there all the time.

So anything that you would do to spruce it up, I think would help, just because right now it just looks like a flat as it is.

You know, it is what it is.

But I think there's something you could do to add some kind of dimension to the building.

Um I'm sure Shelby could help with that, but just something that comes off the building, whether it's I don't know, that an awning or you know, something that just gives it a little bit something for the eye to go to, other than just a flat wall.

Okay.

We'll take that in the conclusion.

And I I'm in agreement with Susan about that 12-foot wall.

That's kind of the thing about urban living.

It'd be great to have a 12-foot wall, but then it's a precedent-setting thing that's not ideal for the rest of the historic neighborhoods.

Okay, thanks, Andy.

Other questions from the commission?

Yeah, Anson, please go ahead.

Thanks, Bill.

Um I just had a question about um staff's review of that 12-foot.

Are you talking about just the portion that's on the north side of the site or not necessarily the screen wall that's on the park side, right?

So the park side, that's considered part of the facade.

You're considering that part of the facade, is that correct?

Yes, it would just be that northern courtyard of sorts back there.

That seems to be a little bit of a gray area.

Sometimes it's a fence, sometimes it's facade.

I mean, but I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

I'm just trying to understand it.

And then the gates, those are integrated and it truly will be invisible.

It will look like part of the facade.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's all custom and and unified.

Yeah, it's all aluminum panel.

And the the what's the um openness percentage of the perforation?

Um good question.

Yes.

50%.

60 percent.

So there'll be some visibility through the into the windows that that it covers.

Yes, right.

Okay.

Especially at night when it's going for mine.

I assume that was the design intent.

That is the intent, yes, as you can see in that rendering.

Okay.

I think that will add a little bit of depth and interest to that facade.

No, during the daytime, it's a little less effective, but those were my questions.

I don't I don't really have any uh uh objections or any comments uh further than that.

Thanks.

All right, thanks, Anson.

Other comments, questions?

I'll offer my uh comments.

I as you look at the uh the proposed North Street uh elevation or the south uh side elevation.

What's the height of the horizontal line?

Is that at eight feet instead of you get 12 at the top, right?

Uh we're at 14 at the top of the screen, uh it's about 10 to the top of that line.

10 to the top, okay.

Yeah.

Just trying to understand that.

Okay.

So and I guess just to clarify what Anson was saying.

So the 12 feet is on the which face of is it the fence on the west or which is the 12 foot?

It is that uh the red dashed at the top of the plan there.

So it's just the red dashed line.

Just that area.

Labeled primary courtyard on the got it.

Okay.

Yeah, so that area there is is what the the images are showing of the of the neighbors pergola, that small red outlined area.

I understand.

I didn't it wasn't following.

Yeah, that's the area where we're planning on the on having that 12 foot the privacy fence.

I see.

Okay.

So it's the fact that the other landowner is looking into correct the property.

Okay.

So I guess I don't have an objection with you trying to block that.

Is it Shelby?

Is the concern that piece, or is it the other portion of that?

So the variance is just for that portion there on the back on that courtyard.

For the 12 feet.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

I don't think they have a need to screen the top of their trellis.

I mean, in there there doesn't look to be any televisions up there.

I don't see any elevated, you know, uh seating or anything on the other side.

So I think there is a platform that sits above um sort of at the midpoint of that uh where the fence is now.

So when they are back there gathering it is a direct yeah, that's what I'm getting.

Right into the property.

Right.

If I could just say, so there is a name and address name and address, please, before you begin.

Thank you.

Um so there is a patio outside of Benberg's, which is street level.

The pergola you step up into.

So there's uh it's a raised floor.

So when you're on the pro on our proposed property, people have the ability to look through that mesh screen.

There's sort of a mid-screen there, right?

Um directly down into um what would be our courtyard.

Right.

I think there could be an argument made for six feet from the seating surface adjacent because that's the condition that they've been forced to deal with.

I I but I don't know that 12 feet is necessary.

You can see where we put the red that red dotted line is at 12 feet.

So I I mean we would also entertain if we could just have 10 feet just to stop the noise and the visual into that courtyard.

Right.

I I think just to kind of clarify what we are trying to hold on to, and that that is some semblance of that ordinance for a six foot being the maximum height of that fence.

And if we can tie that six foot height to something and say it's X plus six feet, I think that that would be more um in line with what we try to do here rather than picking an arbitrary number and saying 12 feet, 10 feet, you know, something like that.

If we can say the platform plus six feet, I I don't know.

I feel like that would be a good compromise.

And really the 12 feet would just be in a isolated area, and then from the it would go down to the six foot allowable um fence height.

Right.

Yeah, so it's a pretty small margin percentage of of that alley front edge that would be that high wall.

Yeah, I guess I guess maybe a question for for Meg.

I mean, it seems like this is a very unique condition relative to this privacy issue.

I mean, what's your sense about?

I'm not I don't recall us having this kind of situation before, but maybe I'm missing something.

Sure, I mean it is a little unique.

I think if the commission feels that they have met the tests of the findings, and that's always what we're looking at.

Right.

Um I would encourage you to look at their findings because I think one of the issues that we had were the findings were really not meeting the tests.

Uh so they may need to come back with a revised set of findings if in four-year review and approval.

Okay.

Um if you feel like that there's maybe an opportunity for them to meet that, but the way they're currently worded right now, I don't think they're adequate.

Okay.

Yeah, that I think question.

Yeah, Susan, please.

Yeah, right.

Okay.

So it would take a pretty tall person to be able to look over.

Well, but they're they're talking about being the person's on that looking down into the courtyard.

No, it's halfway up the fence.

I have the fence, the wood fence that's shown in this image is at five feet.

So then the platform on the opposite on the other side of the fence is about eighteen.

The floor is about eighteen inches above that.

So you're about three and a half feet as a person standing if you were standing in members on that platform or looking into that into uh the adjacent property, which uh partitioning for the you can see directly into it.

If you were very tall.

So the platform's not at the top of the fence.

Oh, okay.

So then why why the need to take it all at twelve feet, I guess.

Um the noises and the the things on inside the private courtyard from the private residence.

Again, it's a limited small area.

Um and then from there bounce back on to the six-foot fence.

I I think I think what we're saying is that we don't see a need for it to go any higher than say nine and a half feet or so nine feet, something like whatever six plus X, whatever that platform is.

So that would be that if we were allowed twelve feet.

Well, that's what we're saying is twelve feet.

Yeah, that's where it's way too high.

Yeah, that's and there's no reason for it.

There's nothing there's nothing that would take people.

Otherwise, you know, if you want to go for 10 feet, I I don't think I can support that, um, but you can uh talk to the rest of the commission and see if they would be in support of that.

But I I would support platform plus six.

Yeah.

Okay.

So something like eight feet is probably where that needs to be.

Rough, you know, seven and a half, eight feet as opposed to twelve.

Yeah, I mean that that seems to be the issue.

So I think that uh and from what I'm hearing the commission, we need to get a lower height than twelve feet.

I now that I understand what's going on here, because I was believing that that was the platform, not eighteen inches up.

So I think it's gonna be imperative that you think about a different height is what's gonna need to happen there.

Um with regard to the rest of the project, I think it's fine.

I don't have any additional comments there.

I was just trying to sort of understand the scale of this particular issue.

So if you can work with uh staff in reducing that uh downwork with Shelby to get to something seven, six, eight, nine, somewhere in there, whatever may seem to make sense, uh I think is gonna be acceptable to the commission.

Okay.

Any final comments from the applicant?

Okay, all right.

Meg, we're ready for a staff recommendation then.

I'm gonna need to wordsmith the same thing.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, that's fine.

Take the time.

Okay, I'm ready.

Thank you.

For 2026, COA 048, Chatham Arch, Massachusetts Avenue, and we're eliminating part A and Part B, by the way.

Okay.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct accessory structures, paint building, replace and repair windows and doors, alter and create openings, install rain screen with lighting, fencing and perimeter walls, roof mechanicals and solar panels, down spots, patios and walks, parking lot, and site improvements, and a variance of development standards per submitted documentation and subject to the nine stipulations in one note in the staff's written report, and then I'll read the variance after that.

Okay.

Is that acceptable to the applicant?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh take a motion for the staff recommendation is repeated.

Hanson, thanks.

Mike, Susan.

All right.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Here are the variants now, Meg, please.

For 2026 VHP 003, staff recommends to approve the construction of a privacy wall not to exceed nine and a half feet in height.

Uh one second.

And the variance of development standards to exceed the maximum permitted height of a masonry fence.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Is that acceptable to the applicant?

It is.

Okay.

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

Thanks, Mike.

Thanks, Kristen.

Final comments?

Well, those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

All right.

I'm sorry, just in a applicant, you will need to provide a revised set of findings for the commission's adoption for next month.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Uh next case.

2026 COA 052 Woodruff Place.

Address 791 Woodruff Place Middle Drive.

Melissa Ianucchi is the applicant.

Uh there she is.

Please come forward, state your name and address, please.

Hi.

Melissa Ianucci, 5771 Central Avenue.

Uh tonight I'm here to discuss the presented plans for 795 Woodrift Place Middle Drive.

The design of the home has the support of staff, but its location on the site is in contest, so that's what I would like to discuss with you now.

This parcel was once part of a three-lot property with a house, an outbuilding, and a carriage house on it.

So the previous owner separated the lots, thus splitting off the southern lot with its historic carriage house on it.

First, I believe that pushing the house to the north is much more in harmony with the neighborhood than if it were to the south.

Most are pushed to the north property line, and many are centered in the lot.

So whilst yeah, we've got a little blow-up there.

What would have been the 80-foot lot line?

So contextually that makes a lot of sense to us.

This is in fact the same reason that so many of the homes in Woodruff Place and all of historic Indianapolis are often placed closer to the North property line.

We would also be able to save several, albeit smaller trees on the south property line.

Secondly, when the house is pushed farther south, you do see more of the carriage house, but it then seems to become confusing.

Who does this carriage house belong to?

It's so big.

Is that actually a totally different house back there?

The connection between the proposed home and the existing carriage house become awkward.

Well, it may have been more historically accurate for the carriage house to remain with its original home.

That is not what happened.

And it seems like an undue hardship to place that responsibility on the new owner.

As you hopefully saw in your packet, there was a uh letter of support from the Woodruff Place land use that came through this morning with their support for the project as proposed for these very same reasons.

Finally, I would like to ask that the conditional approval referencing the carriage house be removed.

This was noted in the staff report, and it was not something that I had a chance to ever discuss with staff.

So the first time I saw it was in the report.

The historic carriage house is seen by my client as an asset, not a detriment to the property.

He loves old houses and would like to use the carriage house as his office.

However, restoring this carriage house is going to be a massive financial undertaking, and something that will likely need to be done in phases and over time.

Well, we would all love to see all of this work done at once.

I would ask that there be some flexibility and phasing to allow my clients to stretch out their financial obligations.

Thank you.

And I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Melissa.

Any uh one wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we're ready for staff comment.

Emily, yes.

So this property is incredibly unique.

The carriage house was part of a larger estate with the house to the north, and then there were some caretakers' cottage, and the caretakers' house is still there.

And then we are confronted with the fact that this parcel was sold off separately.

So again, that makes it unique.

Another item that is unique is that it is 100 feet wide.

That is wide, even in Woodruff Place standards.

And therefore, staff is trying to find that balance between respecting the history of this site and allowing new construction.

Um this carriage house is called out in the Woodruff Place plan because it is that important and it is that architecturally significant.

And staff believes that it should be retain as much visibility as possible, and the fact that the lot is so large does allow that.

Other houses in the area are middle of the lot, maybe on the north, but again, they are not on a 100-foot-wide lot, and they are also not on a lot with a historic carriage house in which we're trying to respect those ties to the original estate.

Um, and so staff does believe that retaining that connectivity, some connectivity, is important and not to block it.

Another benefit of pushing the house further to the south would mean that it would block view of the parking pad that is proposed on the south portion of the lot.

Um staff does note that one of the letters that came in noted protection of the large trees on the lot.

Staff apologies, there were some changes to the packet last minute, and the tree study didn't make it into the submittal packet, but you did receive that in your day of.

Unfortunately, so that the topography of the site is incredibly uneven.

They will be filling the site in order to construct the new building, and those two largest trees that are in this towards more towards the center of the lot, those will not be retained because they will not survive the grade change.

So that is what is reflected in the tree plan that you see.

So moving it to the north or the south, that's unfortunately not going to make a difference for those two trees.

Um then staff just wanted to touch on the the carriage house modifications.

There are a couple minor modifications on the alley side to accommodate like a new overhead door.

Staff is in support of the support of those.

Um staff had asked to include some rehab plans because the intention is to kind of start everything at the same time, but staff also wanted to have an idea about the historic property and how that was going to be taken care of because we do really believe that you know that is a significant that is a significant asset to Woodruff Place, and we do want to have a better understanding of how that's going to be protected moving forward.

And again, staff is in support of the design overall, but does not believe that the new construction should prior should be prioritized over the historic building that is on the site and the historic connectivity to the test house to the north.

And I can answer any questions.

All right, Emily, thank you.

Questions from the commission, please.

No comments?

Go ahead.

Have there been any uh repairs made to the carriage house in the last five years?

No, I did look back and I didn't see anything.

Um unfortunately the previous property owner um has owned several properties in Woodruff Place that have recently sold, and they were not good stewards of the property.

And it is my understanding that uh there are still tenants in the building at this time.

In the carriage house.

That is correct.

You know, looking at some of these photos, the condition, there seems to be some problems with it, that would be existential in nature.

I mean, we will be dealing with another property like we we had at the beginning of the session uh before too long.

Um I just have a lot of concern with the immediate um health of that building, but also um echoing what staff has said, you know, this this building clearly goes with the property at 795.

Um I think that the moving the location of the house to reflect the original construction, the historic construction would be um better suited to the neighborhood.

I I think if it's visible from the street, you're gonna be able to tell that that style is related to the building to the north.

I it I think this is a difficult situation, and you know, I think everybody wishes that it was a little easier, but this this is a very nice uh nicely designed carriage house, and I think um we need to try and recognize its uh historic impact on the neighborhood and and by um building a house in front of it that's unrelated, I I think you diminish that.

So I think we you should look into moving that that house southward um in allowing that uh to maintain its relationship to the existing house to the neighborhood.

Okay, thanks, Hansen.

Other quick uh comments from the commission.

So I guess uh Emily, what what set the dimension as you were moving it suggesting moving it from what the applicant you just split the difference or what was your trying to look at a fairly typical setback, one that didn't feel too far or too close to the property line and still allow a bit of sunlight, so that's where the 10 feet came from.

And also just you know, honestly, the carriage house is is so large that even with the 10-foot setback, it does still cover the new house because it's 52 feet wide, does still cover a fair amount of it, but not nearly so much of it.

So is the carriage house owned separately?

The k no, the carriage house is a part of this property.

That's what I thought.

So the ownership is both of these properties.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Okay.

And they're just wanting longer to fix it up, but it's part of their property, right?

Okay.

Yes, the applet, the owner, the current owner proposing the house does own the carriage house as well.

And you're saying even if they place the house where it's proposed, that these existing trees will be demolished or removed.

Yes.

So it was my understanding is my understanding that because it's it is a significant swale in that yard.

Uh-huh.

And so when they fill that in order to create in order to level it out for the new house, those trees simply will not be able to withstand that grade change.

Does the applicant have any comment about that?

The tree?

Name and address, please.

Arthur Hahn, 421 South Park Avenue.

Um, I employed a arborist because I really was interested in in preserving those trees.

But the challenge with it was it was true that you know, filling that, but it could have built in theory, uh, retaining walls around it to give it the tree room to breathe.

The challenge was is the root ball goes so far to the north that that would e that would be an impediment as well, even if we created that that area.

Because I I wanted to keep them.

I mean, that was the last thing I wanted to do is was to cut those down.

But the brute ball goes so far north that I mean we'd end up with a 25 foot wide shotgun house at the north end of the lot, because it's just that that tree route is just too big.

So the the four trees that are identified as to be preserved, all of those would go away?

Regardless.

The only things that would really go would be the large burroak to the south end of the lot, and then the ginkgo tree is like smack dab in the middle of the lot, and that would be an impediment as well.

I don't want to cut down any more trees than are absolutely necessary.

Sure.

Trying to keep that.

Yeah.

So the argument to try to keep those trees is not really part of the discussion as to where to place the house, in other words.

Not really.

I mean, okay.

As much as anything.

Okay.

My hope with it really with the placement was my wife and I already live, we live in Fletcher Place in a historic home that was built in 1865.

We have a lot of respect for IHPC and we love Woodruff Place, and we want to be good neighbors there.

You know, the that placement of the house really being center was more of a streetscape piece for us.

And we do want people to be able to see the historic carriage house as well.

And even centered, you still get a good view of it.

But it again also too is as a uh is getting a light from the north side of the house, and I'm sorry, the south side of the house.

Sure.

The home to the south is is has a large elevation to it.

Right.

And would shadow that a bit.

And we'll probably end up um either um fence or what have you around the parking area in the back, so that would be shaded as well.

And if I can just add to the carriage house too, our plan is to, it was more about economies of scale, about having contractors all out at the same time.

Um, but our intent is to restore that to the condition that it should be uh in contrast to the prior owner who was a nice man but did not take care of these the way they should be.

So it would be that's an important building for sure.

Oh, absolutely, and we want it to be beautiful.

So that was that was part of the draw to it was was that carriage house.

So I guess my question for Emily is if we were looking at the streetscape, if we were trying to place this building, wouldn't we try to make it more equidistant between these two existing properties as opposed to just going to this 10-foot dimension and actually go to something that would be let's say closer to I'm measuring at 20 feet and and have it be more centered between the two?

Yeah, I mean, in set centered would be, I think it'd be 24 feet on both sides.

Um staff was trying to balance, right?

Between you know, setbacks and protecting as much of the view shed of the historic carriage house as possible.

And there's there's the set the setbacks are not super consistent here, so sometimes that's really important.

Everything has not very much of a rhythm.

In this, because you've got 50-foot wad lots, you've got 80-foot wide lots, you do have a lot of differentiation on how those houses are situated on a lot.

Um so trying to mimic something did not seem as important as trying to protect some of that connectivity between the carriage house and the test house to the to the north.

Um and so that's why staff was looking at it that way.

And and again, with a hundred-foot wide lot, we don't have much to go on in terms of precedent.

Yeah, I guess I'm just you know thinking about this in a in a three-dimensional way with you know, with this opening between the buildings, whether it's at 30 feet or 24 feet.

I mean, you're gonna get a big view of this obliquely.

I I just it feels to me like balancing the streetscape might be important and still maintain having a viewshed of the carriage house and not necessarily crowd the one house and make it I don't know, that would be sort of my opinion is try to more center the house placement, still having enough view of the carriage house, but not necessarily trying to push this house kind of out of the way, I guess would be my would be my two cents.

I don't know what others think, but that would be where my head would would land.

And the carriage house is hugely important for sure.

No question about that.

Other comments from the commission?

Susan, please.

Yes, I have a couple of comments.

The that kind of placement that you see in in a lot of the historic districts is because something is missing from next door.

And it becomes green space and gardens and so forth.

And that if you if you go through Wood replace, you will see that the houses, the historic houses just don't march along, and that you know the houses aren't centered on their current lots because their historic houses and something something got wrecked next door.

So I the other thing that's concerning to me is that I I haven't really checked everywhere, but the places in Woodruff Place that I'm familiar with, uh these grand carriage houses just aren't there anymore, or they never were or whatever.

I know there's another one on East Drive that I don't know that they'll ever be able to save it's in such terrible condition back there.

And so the importance of of this to the history of that neighborhood, why it's there, why it's in the condition it is, you know, with the esplanades and all that, um, there was a grandness to it, and and I think the carriage houses were part of that.

So you know, maybe a little bit of movement, but I just think it would be a real shame because when you start your plantings on the side of the house and the trees and all that stuff, it it's gonna be lost from from the view shed, I think, or won't be as apparent.

So I'm I'm kind of in a different place because I'm I'm really liking the the staff's recommendation on that.

So if that matters, it does, yeah, for sure.

Any other any other comments?

Yeah, any place.

Is there just from your standpoint like some compromise that can be between what you wish it would be and what the staff is saying?

Their recommendation is there somewhere we meet in the middle for this.

I mean, there's kind of two different, I mean, clearly we obviously are focused on the carriage house because that's why we're here.

Um but is I guess is there a way to find some compromise between sort of what Susan's saying, what Bill is saying about I don't know if that makes sense, but is there some way maybe you don't get everything that you want in terms of all of this, but is there somewhere we can move in the middle?

I mean, I mean I you know we don't have sharp elbows, we're team players.

I mean, yes, we would love it centered.

I mean, if if if it's make or break uh that maybe we meet somewhere in the middle, I mean versus denial.

I mean, sure.

Um I mean, we again we love the carriage house too.

It was a big reason for us buying the lot.

And it's sitting at the far, very you know, northeast corner of that lot.

It still has a lot of view, even if the house is centered.

But you know, if it's we're teen players.

Yeah, and just again, we've been we you know, we're in an IHBC designated area in home now.

I mean, we get it, but yes, we would love as much light from that south side as we can, and that would be our hope.

Yeah, and just to be clear, you know, I'm not saying centered in your property, I'm saying centered between the placement of the other two houses, which actually would move it.

That's what I mean closer to what the staff is recommending.

I just it just feels a little far to me, that's all.

And I and I wouldn't argue what Susan's point is at all.

I mean, I wouldn't wouldn't disagree with it.

Well, and I also think it's important to consider that look look to the north as well.

I mean, this house has been in the center of what almost 300 feet of lot for how long.

So to put another house that close to it, um, I think will throw the rhythm of the neighborhood off a lot.

If we can move it away from the original house, then I think that that's a little less intrusive on the historic context.

But putting it that close, it's I think it's jarring to to that historic spacing that's been there for what, 120 years?

Yeah, however long it's been.

Yeah.

Bill, if I could offer just a little bit.

Yeah, go ahead.

No, it's fine.

Umily, I I I allowed her to go on vacation, and that meant I got to fiddle with this staff report a little bit.

Um we so it I did have a conversation with Melissa about the the background on the carriage house, and I learned that I don't think they've been inside of it too much.

Um that immediately concerned me.

I that's the stipulation number four for the final restoration plans.

I put that in there because I think that kind of to Anson's point, there's gonna be a lot of discoveries made after they get in there and start assessing the condition of the structure.

I think it's vital for the commission to see what those plans look like after they've had a chance to go in there and really explore it and bring that back to you.

And in that be the priority over the new construction.

I I get it, but again, we're here for preservation purposes, and that's the focus.

So I think staff would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if we've had a chance to really understand what the restoration plans look like or need to be with that.

And we'd also like to see it.

Okay.

So what is that suggesting?

So well, I think Melissa had requested to remove stipulation number four, and we're suggesting that we keep that in the other comments from the commission.

Okay.

Final comments from the applicant.

I mean, we we actually have been inside.

I I I inherited some legacy tenants with the structure who have been there 10 and 18 years, and so I kind of just keeping the peace and having somebody there rather than it being vacant.

Uh I've I've had kept them there in place.

We have been inside.

I think where Melissa's what she was getting at is we haven't had an ability because of some of their personal property to properly measure it inside to start working at it.

I mean, most of the uh most of the challenges with that structure really are from uh poor maintenance of the gutters and down spouts, and so it's really it appears.

I mean, I'm sure we'll find some surprises, but it's mostly uh poor conditioned siding and roofing and gutters.

Um yes, there's a lot, but it our our plan is light kind materials following stuff that'll be uh more than agreeable, I would think with IHPC.

So I guess we're ready for staff recommendation then, Meg.

For 2026 COA 052 Woodruff Place, staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a single family home, pool, parking pad, and work to the historic carriage house, including siding and trim repair, alterations to window and door openings on the east facade and construction of a garage overhang, all per submitted documentation is subject to the 20 stipulations in one note in the staff's written report.

Okay.

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

And so what that does that speak to the placement of the house, one of the stipulations.

I assume it says the staff is recommending.

Okay.

So yes, so in stipulation number one, we typically include any um changes discussed by the commission.

So in the final construction drawings, we'll have to uh figure out what that number is, but we'll see that in the final construction drawings as per stipulation number one.

Right.

Okay.

So do I have a motion?

Mike.

Kristen.

Okay.

Thank you.

Comments on the motion.

Please, Susan.

I just want to we haven't spent 20 seconds on the house, and so I just want to go on the record of saying that I think that's a really nice house and very appropriate for the neighborhood.

And I have nothing to suggest by way of improvement.

It's really nice.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Here here on that, we were just focused on the placement.

So it is a nice design for sure.

Okay.

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

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead.

So where does the house go?

Well, the house goes where the staff has suggested it, 10 feet from the property line.

Okay.

And there's no room for wiggle room in there based on conversation.

I I suggested that, but the commission was not favorable to that.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then we've got a do we don't have a variance on this, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So that's yeah, that's where we ended up.

I made an argument, but it was not uh heard, which is fine.

Okay.

All right.

Next case.

Um is 2026 COA 054 Heron Morton Place, 1933, North Talbot Street.

Nicole Quint and Brock Jackson are the applicants.

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

Hi, I'm Nicole Quint, 1933 North Talbot Street.

Um so we are looking to expand our current garage.

So right now the reason for expanding it is when you park in the garage, you're not able to access or get out of your car and walk around it.

So if you either back in or park, you cannot close the door, you have to keep the door open and walk around.

So it's a very shallow garage.

We're currently looking to also expand up and have a carriage home up there as well.

We have family and friends that are staying.

We frequently enjoy the Talbot Street Fair, so we like to have family and friends enjoy that as well with us.

So that's why you can see a little bit of a complex roof design because we're adding some dormers there.

Um we want to expand to additional garage space as well for the tenant or whoever stays upstairs to have a safe place to park as well.

Uh we do live on Talbot Street, which is on the same street as uh Heron Morton High School, so parking is very um hard to come by on the street there.

So we had a couple things that we wanted to kind of bring up as well.

Is so I think we had a few things that the um IHBC was concerned about was um potentially the stairs.

So we've worked with Morgan and um kind of come up with a possibility to kind of mask the stairs, but yet they are still technically on the exterior.

Um the reason for the exterior stairs, um we're trying to maintain the footprint, so use as much interior space for living and garage room.

Um so we don't want to expand the footprint at all.

Um we also like the look of the stairs on the exterior.

We had them originally, not that that built-in kind of structure around there, so it was a little bit more obvious.

So we've worked with Morgan and the IHPC.

Um kind of come up with a different design there.

The goal is to have the garage completely separate from the upstairs or the living room as well, so that's another reason why the stairs are kind of positioned where they are.

Um second thing, I think we looked at maybe a complex roof design, so it is a little bit complex.

I do agree with that.

However, um, trying to keep the existing structure and add on to it, that's kind of where we've come up with.

So we are definitely open to staff recommendations, uh, maybe maybe some input.

This is my first time kind of doing this and stepping into this.

Um, I've previously lived in Chatham Arch and now we've purchased this home in 2024 in here at Morton.

So we're just excited to be here and start the process.

All right, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we're ready for staff comment.

Morgan, please.

Um, staff has worked with the applicant and their architect for some time to develop the plans to fit into the historic area.

While progress has been made towards this goal, there are still some areas of concern.

Um I have outlined those and I'm gonna read them for you.

Yes.

So number one is the proposed carriage house has a complex roof design compared to the simplicity of the home.

Staff recommends the applicant explore the way excuse me, explore a way the addition can be integrated into the existing garage to better simplify the shape and design of the complex roofing system.

And then number two is the exterior stairwell has not been considered appropriate according to previous IHPC commission decisions and is general generally required to be on the interior where possible.

The applicant has not demonstrated that the stairs cannot be inside versus on the exterior of the home.

Staff is recommending that 2026 COA 054 be continued to the May 6, 2026 hearing to make the necessary design changes.

All right, thanks.

Morgan, get the comments from the commission, please.

Go ahead, yeah, jump in.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I am not just the roof design being complex, but also the the whole assemblage just seems to be a little bit too busy.

I feel like there's a lot, a lot happening, a lot of moves.

Um inconsistencies with you know walls.

Yeah, I think the dormers would be more successful if they extend it all the way out to the exterior wall.

Um, but you know, that doesn't solve all your issues.

This I think a much more simplified design would be uh preferred for this, and and I know that that's not always the easiest thing to do, but you might need to consolidate some forms in order to simplify that, both the the roof design and the facade design.

And so that might mean instead of keeping the the carriage house root house roof as it is, you um add add a the you know raise the gable up so that it encompasses all that space, maybe make it a uh a cross-gable design rather than uh yeah than the these dormers the way that they are because it just is too too busy and and uh to it's just not very successful, especially when you start talking about the window sizes and and things like that.

I think a lot of you need you just need to take some elements away from the exterior and bring it back to because the the garage that's there, I think um echoes the uh simplicity that the the staff is looking for, and and I think maybe if you run with that spirit that you might um be a little bit more successful.

Uh yeah, I'm uh I'm open to that.

So the key is we're trying to yeah, keep the existing structure, and yes, the window designs um kind of do mimic the house.

If you look at the original house, um there are lots of different sizes of windows, so we're trying to mimic that.

Um we originally had kind of limit of different textures to the roof as the original house does.

The front has some metal paneling as well as the back has some metal paneling.

So we did originally have that.

That was um voted against as well.

Um we also did present a design that was a very uh simple flat roof as well, since the building next to us is a um apartment complex that does have a flat roof, so we tried to go that route as well, um, but that was denied.

Um you can also appreciate the current existing roof there.

Um our alley is flooded 90% of the time.

So there is a photo, thankfully, that you guys captured as well there.

Um so if we continue to move that roof along that way, we're just going to flood that alley even more.

So that's why the design of the roof was changed a little bit there.

Um it's very challenging.

If you have a car to drive through this, uh you bottom out.

So most of our gutters currently, right now, actually enter into our home there.

So we kind of agreed that we're trying to keep as much water out of the alley for our sake and our neighbors' sake as well.

Um so that was kind of where that design went.

Uh can you go to the alley side kind of perspective that they have?

It's it's in the package that's on the different roof plan.

I I think it that's kind of emblematic of what we're talking about as far as the yeah.

I mean, if you look at the the location of the facade for the the dormer, and then the adjacent gable facade and then the facade of the original garage, you know, it it appears like there are three different planes, even though the the other garage is in the same plane.

And all those moves with the roofs coming together on the dormer and the the other roof, and then the return, it it's just too much.

It's there's um it I think you can simplify that a lot if you just and it seems like it might even simplify construction if you just go up on the existing walls and all that is in point.

Um yeah, so I I do agree.

I mean, we originally kind of went back and forth with our architect on that design as well, but if you're talking about now cost, that does increase our cost quite a quick um to remove that existing roof and raise everything.

So I think that's why this design did come about.

I mean you're you're saying incremental cost uh of removing a little more roof.

Oh, I I'm understanding that you're talking about removing the entire roof and then raising the entire roof.

No, no, no, no.

I mean it's a similar approach, you just but yeah.

I I I don't know what this it's just uh so messy.

I'm just trying to get some ways to simplify that.

Um it's just hard to know where to start when you've got this much going on.

So I'm I think I'm just gonna leave it at this should really be simplified.

Yeah, I think you're the reduce the number of movements in the facade, and I think you need to consolidate some roof forms to simplify the look of the building.

Okay.

You know the different types of windows on a building this small, uh if they they really start to be more impactful than on the structure stuff.

Um so if we discuss changing the roof, then what ours are take on the exterior stairs then.

Well, we we'll offer some more comments here, and then we can uh see where you're where you're it uh it's clear that this is gonna need to be continued and you're gonna need to work with your architect.

I'm I'm gonna fall in the same place, Anson is and I'm gonna also say the stairs are gonna need to be on the interior.

You're going to need to figure out how to get this much simpler, and you know, whether it's just taking another gabled building and putting it against another gabled building and then figuring out more simplified dormers.

It you've really got to edit this down uh pretty significantly from where it is right now.

It's way too complicated uh for the house.

It it it's it feels like it's about three or four things coming together instead of sort of one idea at the end of it all.

So you're gonna need to work with your architect to really try to get this to be a fairly straightforward, a massed uh sort of solution as opposed to just all these different sort of pieces and parts cobbled on to this existing garage.

Um we're not gonna be here to design it for you.

So um you're gonna need to come back, work with staff and see if you can come to something that is is simpler uh than where you are right now.

Okay, yeah, I think my confusion was the last um comment was um the current home or the garage currently has a on the back portion uh some rain coverage.

So we did remove that based on request to help kind of simplify things, and then you guys came back and recommended to potentially place a um I can't remember the terminology you used, but to maybe make more design on the back end there was maybe a canopy.

So I guess I'm just kind of thrown off of why that was recommended.

Yeah, I think we didn't get to the original idea.

Obviously, the commission wasn't in those conversations, so yeah.

You'll need to work with uh staff and see if you can come back with something a little more clear and simple uh to try to work with a house.

Uh your materiality generally is fine.

I'm not sure about this board and batten kind of system that's on the house in a more detailed way, but uh we can we can look at that as well when you come back.

Uh are there any other comments for the commission?

Okay.

I think uh we've probably you probably heard enough uh from us and then we'll just take a mo I'll take a motion to continue the case to the May 6th, 6th meeting.

Is that soon enough for you guys?

Okay.

All right.

Can I get a motion to the effect?

Thanks, Mike.

Second, please.

Anson, thanks.

Uh any final comments?

I do have a final just question.

Yeah, please.

Um, I'm just interested in where the documentation or reasoning behind there is for the need for the stairs be on the interior.

Is there some documentation that can be?

Yeah, we just don't really have stairs on the outside of their buildings in the historic districts, just generally.

Okay.

In fact, I'd be interested to know if we have one or not.

Yeah, well when they return, we'll provide some more information on um the commission's history and in requiring interior stairs and the rationale behind that.

Yeah.

It'll be uh much better for you long-term maintenance-wise as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Oh, for sure.

I'll take the uh I'll take a vote.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

We'll see you next month.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

All right, we've got uh one more case in uh the new category 2026 COA 056 uh Woodruff Place, uh 552 Woodruff Place, West Drive, Charlie Watson is the applicant.

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

Good evening, Charlie Watson, 10929 in his Brooklyn, Fisher's.

Uh this project is to put a small addition on the back of the home uh for uh guest suite.

And it's pretty straightforward on exteriors.

We're gonna match the existing finishes and siding and trim, etc.

Uh we'll be moving the existing rear door to the new location, so it's the original door.

Um there was a discussion with the Woodruff Place Historic Preservation Committee, and I spoke with Eric at length.

They wanted to see us increase the pitch of the roof and adjust the windows, and we made that last week, I believe that would come in your data packet.

Uh so it did improve the look quite a bit.

Uh and they indicated to me they were pretty happy with that.

Um that's pretty much it.

Yeah, and we did receive that today in the packet.

Which I know that what you're seeing there is not it.

Right.

So do you want to put up the uh correct from today?

Give me one second.

I didn't know who was in charge of the question.

I apologize for the glitching.

But this is the this is what you received.

Right.

Yeah, the original thought was we were matching the pitch that was existing where that deck is, but by raising it to a 412, it does improve the look.

Um we can achieve it pretty easily.

So we're happy to do that.

Okay.

All right.

Any any other comments?

Okay.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we're ready for staff comment, then Shelby, please.

Um staff is in support of the design on including those new changes.

Um I don't think we received an updated letter of support or anything like that from the Woodruff Place Committee, but I do know they were in communications, and I think their changes were to address their comments.

Um, but I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Questions from the commission?

Everybody happy with the revisions.

That back door seems to be pretty high off the step.

Is there is that um it'll be even with the step.

Oh, it'd be just a regular I just they drew the steps wrong.

Didn't know if there needed to be more steps or if the door needed to be lower on the with this, there would need to be one more step.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

I don't have any uh comments, so I think we're ready for staff recommendation then for 2026 COA 056 Woodruff Place, staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a rear edition per submitted documentation and subject to the seven stipulations in one note in the staff's written report and uh including the changes that were presented this evening.

Okay.

I'll take a motion for the staff recommendation as read, please then.

Thank you, Annie.

Thanks, Kristen.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Good luck with your project.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move to the preliminary review this evening.

I need to recuse myself, so I've asked Susan to chair this evening, and she will chair the preliminary review and close out the meeting this evening.

So thank you.

Um can I have anyone who's going to speak to the case, please stand for me.

Anyone at all.

Okay.

I'm going to have you all raise your right hands.

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

Say I do.

Perfect.

And we are considering a concept in preliminary review of uh 2026 COA 057.

Address 231, 235, 239, South Meridian Street.

Applicant Jennifer Milliken.

Most of you have been through this before, but I need to say this is not a public hearing as a reminder, a preliminary review is an opportunity for a project proposer to have some public conversation with the IHPC about a project prior to an actual public hearing.

The matter being presented for us is a concept that we are being asked to comment on.

This is not an official application.

The comments given by commissioners are their personal opinions and nothing said should be construed as binding on any further discussions or decisions.

The order of events is that the applicant has 20 minutes to present.

There will be comments from the commissioner, and we'll go from one commissioner to the next to make their comments.

Applicants do have the last word.

And we ask if the applicant would like to come back for a hearing at the end, and if you have a date in mind of which hearing that you would like to show up on the agenda.

So with that said, claw yours.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh, members of the commission for the record.

Uh Tim Oaks, attorney Ice Miller with offices at one American Square Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0200, representing the petitioner and the property owner.

Um we're excited to present this to the commission and look forward to the feedback we're about to get.

This is a uh a real opportunity to uh I think kick off redevelopment of a portion of the wholesale district and a portion of downtown Indianapolis that uh very much needs it.

Uh and and so we're we're excited about it because we we think this could be the impetus for uh bigger and better things in the future.

So with that, I'll turn it over to uh Mike.

Thank you.

Mike Baylog, 11312 Hazeldale Parkway, Carmel, Indiana, uh owner's representative for the project.

So what we're looking to talk to you about tonight is uh concept where we need to uh merge together several different buildings on South Meridian Street.

Um this area has had some uh different combinations of buildings over the past history.

Um and it will uh we'd like to bring together what's currently known as 231 South Meridian, which was comprised of the original 229 and 231 South Meridian, as well as uh 235, which has retained its title.

Um we're also looking at doing some work in where there used to be a building 247 uh 239-247, and uh two sorry 237, 239, and 241, which is currently a parking lot.

So we'd like to keep the exterior uh appearance and cornice treatments that make these buildings look unique and become a part of the historical historical fabric of Indianapolis and create a space where we can bring in a new concept for Indianapolis of a restaurant, bar, and music venue that we think will help to revitalize this area over what it's been in the past.

We recognize that this is a very important building historically to the city, but it's also had some issues over the past years of its existence.

We're looking to do something to this that will allow us to maintain this building for many years into the future.

It's also important to let you know that we have as an ownership group purchased some of the nearby buildings as well.

So we're looking at this as part of a redevelopment of this area, and want to make this something to help re-establish the wholesale district.

Uh, if you want to look at the handout that I we passed out, uh I want to run through page three a little bit of the history of the area.

So there were originally five buildings built as the Austin W.

Uh Morris Ayers building in 1864.

Those five buildings uh two of them, 225 and 227 were taken down to create the span loft building.

And what remains is 229, uh 231 and 235.

Um 231 were merged in the past.

It was most recently the Tiki Bobs uh nightclub.

Um but portions of the interior walls remain, so they busted through several different areas of the brick demising walls, but there are still visibly two separate buildings there.

Um 235 has been treated as a separate unit at times in the past, it was likely used uh in conjunction with some of the other buildings.

In 1909 in December, there was a fire that took place uh primarily in the 229 building, the 231 building.

And it was considered to be a rather significant fire that caused some damage.

The buildings were re-established.

You can see the photo on the screen that shows the extent of the damage and the headlines of heavy loss to the facility.

Uh in probably in the 1950s or 60s, the 231 building, which by that point encompassed both 229 and 231, was covered over with a cementitious facade.

The windows were reduced, and you can see in the picture on the screen as well.

Uh this was taken down from the openings that were there were just reduced in size and quantity.

So instead of having six windows on each level, there were two windows that remain of a much smaller dimension.

We believe this stayed in existence until around 1998, where we found a demo permit for the site that seems to indicate that that's when the fake facade was removed.

Um then um the in within the 1990 wholesale district plan, this building is pictured with this facade.

So the historic importance of it at that point was already diminished.

On the south wall, which you can actually see on this, the south wall of 235, that was actually the original interior wall for the building.

It was a four-story building that took um that existed in the 239 location, and that was demolished uh in the 1930s, I believe it was.

Uh, if you look at that south wall, there are some remnants of the wood joists, so the flooring, all the all the buildings were set up with brick demising walls, and there are Joyce pockets that have been filled in, but you can see where the interior uh Joyce actually came in to the 235 building.

And I'm now gonna turn it over to Ashley King.

Hello.

Um Ashley King, senior architect with Woolport Architects.

I'm based in New Orleans.

My address is 224 North Alexander Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 7011.

Um I was asked to look at this project from an adaptive reuse and historic preservation point of view.

In addition to being uh senior architect with Woolport, I've also served on the New Orleans Architectural Review Committee for their historic district for 16 years, as well as the preservation resource facade um easement committee.

I've served on that committee for six years, so I was asked to look at this in terms from a somewhat objective view of being true to this building and how could it be restored.

Um my general observations were that you know the 231, that facade had been significantly altered in the past and at the time of the nomination of the wholesale district.

Um historic the inter and during the nomination of the hotel for as a historic district, that building was listed as non-contributing because of its altered facade.

Um, being familiar with these late, these mid to late 1800 buildings that are very long and narrow.

Um it they are prevalent across the United States, and unfortunately, they also have the same issue as here is that it's very hard to inhabit the upper floors and make them code compliant because they're so narrow to get the two required means of egress.

Unfortunately, in New Orleans, Pensacola, Charleston, any sort of historic city where you have these long narrow buildings, the upper floors sit primarily vacant and uninhabited and deteriorate as a result.

Walking these particular buildings, I saw what I've seen in many other buildings of similar ages where the upper floors being neglected, the existing wood structure has deteriorated.

There's been, you know, uh minuscule attempts at maintenance to say the very least.

You know, introducing the multiple means of egress needed for each building takes up such a large footprint.

So with this in this proposal of uh of connecting the three buildings, and so with the two means of egress allows a more opportunities for use on the upper floors.

Um anything beyond storage.

Um also the structure is so deteriorated.

I don't I'm it was precarious walking through there, uh to say the least.

And so the proposed of replacing the existing structure throughout seems to be the best course forward in order to remain what it of the existing fabric, the existing historic fabric and what is contributing to this district, and that is that west facade.

So it is being proposed to instead of individually repairing each joist, it's just it's too ominous of a task, is going in and replacing all of the joists, unfortunately, all of the structure on the upper floors, which unfortunately would in order to execute that, the south wall and the east wall would need to get removed in order to insert the new structure, but allows us to retain the west wall in existing conditions, you know, minus replacing of some windows and retain the north wall.

We feel that this is the best path forward to maintaining the character of the building and its contribution to this district.

Thank you.

Just a few things to finish up here.

Um first of all, it kind of set the table a little bit.

The proposal is not to demolish the entire building.

The front facade would be maintained through an elaborate uh plan scaffolding on uh embracing on both sides to try to restore the front facade.

Um the um uh the north wall, which is uh is in common with the building to the north would remain, and the build and the basement would remain as well.

Um the south and the east walls have to come out, as you just heard, in order to make the buildings usable.

Um this bit these buildings have not been treated well.

Um some of the windows are acrylic, the second and third floors you'll see in the photos in the structural engineering report that we submitted from FRP are in horrible condition.

The floors are not original.

There was a fire damage back in the past as noted.

Um if you go through the structural report, you'll note that it's just not suitable to have live loads on, especially on the second and third floors that meet the requirements of today's building codes.

That includes any use, even offices.

Um the suggestion is that the floor joists would have to be increased by four to ten times to meet that requirement, that the stiffness would be have to be increased by 16 to 80 times.

That's eight zero.

Um the truth of the matter is is that it's just not feasible.

Then when you throw in to that equation, the fact that these bays um are 22 to 25 feet wide and 190 feet deep, and the 190 foot length, there's no windows.

And so to put this to adaptive reuse, this is the best plan.

And we think it's significant, particularly in light of the last two requirements that we must show to ever demolish any part of an historic structure.

I think in the in your packet, you'll see the proposed building after it's been redone.

You can see photos of that on the first page of the handout.

We want to make the building facade for the three buildings look like one, but we want to try to uh keep in place all of the significant historical features of those three buildings, including the cornice for each of the buildings, and try to restore the front facade.

The original window shapes, and to some degree the treatments would remain the same on the front facade.

And so there's a real effort here to try to save and enhance what is truly the most significant aspect of the building, and that is it's its frontage.

As I indicated at the beginning of this presentation, this is a real opportunity.

If you take a look at I'm gonna ask you to go to uh page seven of the handout, there's a little quadrangle that's shown there.

Um, C and D.

Um A is the new Signia Hotel.

Um B is the new project uh redoing uh Circle Center Mall.

Uh C is the new fever practice facility.

D is uh something that this commission is very familiar with, which is the new hotel project uh directly across the street from the field house.

Um in that quadrangle, there is now 1.5 billion dollars worth of investment.

And here we have this part of South Meridian where the police have to make inordinate a number of runs.

All we have are dilapidated buildings that are starting to fail due to neglect.

The second and third floors haven't been used in I don't know how many decades, we can't tell.

Um, and when you look out of some of these windows, one of them you look right out, and it's a it's a view corridor right to the brand new, you know, 650 million dollar signia hotel.

And um it's a shame that that it has fallen into this kind of state of disrepair, and it's gonna continue, we think, to be that way until we step forward and we start doing projects.

The first one is always the most difficult when we do that.

Um, but this is a real opportunity to start.

We hope that impetus for bringing dollars and investment in uh where we make this corridor commensurate with the rest of the wholesale district, but doing it in a manner that preserves the best parts of the building and why it's historic, which is the front facade.

Um we hope that the commission uh would understand the goal and objectives and how that fits in with the third criteria for demolition, which is when we try to preserve the best parts, but the part that gets demolished is not as significant as the goals that can be achieved, in particular the advancement of and preservation of this part of the wholesale district.

Um without this, we're just gonna keep getting the same thing.

We're we're gonna keep getting you know businesses that come and go that cause problems, and the buildings are gonna continue to decline due to neglect, and this is a great opportunity to restore this building and start the process for the rest of the block.

So, with that, we look forward to your uh comments, observations, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Thank you.

Um I think we'll start with you, Anthony.

Thanks, Susan.

Um I want to lead off with saying uh again um we appreciate your client taking on an often troubled portion of the city and um trying to do something good with it, and that is uh very much appreciated.

Um and I agree that the long narrow footprints of these buildings are problematic, and they will continue to cause problems until they're remedied in some way.

And so I think your proposal um practically is the best solution for these.

I I support it in that there's not really anything historically significant about the buildings behind the facade.

At least I don't know, I haven't seen any evidence of that as staff seen anything that's historically significant behind the facades.

I have been in the buildings.

Um of the original material is still intact on the upper floors.

I would say the first floors there's pretty significant alterations and build-outs in interior spaces.

Um you know, these spaces were open, so there wasn't much to them to begin with, but uh but from basement to top, it's it's pretty much original with the exception of the interior or first floor.

Are there are those materials are you seeing like plaster with plaster moldings and things like that?

Yes, and you there's some photos here too, but the um flooring, the original wood floors are intact.

Um the plaster walls and that sort of thing are intact.

There's through out or is that I mean uh they they referenced that most of that floor structure wasn't original.

Is that in the north two buildings, or is that well we didn't to be fair, we did not go through all three buildings.

Okay.

I think we went through two, I believe.

Um, and I there was some evidence of the original wood floors in those buildings.

I don't know about the southernmost building, I guess it would be um the front facade there was mention of there being um like a plexiglass, and that that is correct.

The front facades have been altered in some ways.

Um but kind of to what was alluded to earlier, the upper floors have sort of been frozen in time for quite quite some time.

Um so most of that material, albeit maybe not you know in perfect condition, is is there um we have not gotten into the nuts and bolts of what can be reused and what can't be at this point.

We just don't know much about the structural integrity of anything at this point.

Yeah.

The the 231 building, there it's heavily braced on the second and third floors because there are it's there are portions of it that are failing.

There's there's even water damage on the second floor.

And then just a quick comment on the floors.

Well, on just in terms of what existing historic fabric is remaining.

Um the upper floors were always designed to be storage um or um manufacturing and it was uh it was a leather goods manufacturer and shoes.

So the upper floors were always secondary or tertiary spaces that were designed as such.

There were never designed to have an any um any decorative plaster ornament, any plaster or paint that might be on the walls was either removed or after a fact, and you can see by the hatchet marks on the walls that there's various ages of whatever remaining plaster there is.

Um the floors themselves, there are it's a variety of different yes, there's narrow wood planks on the floors.

I would say about you could you could see I can't remember if it's the second or the third floor, half of it was um on a 45 degree, which is indicative of that was clearly storage and not ever meant to be inhabited space, and there's others that was um uh parallel or perpendicular to the joy.

So again, saying that this is all secondary or tertiary spaces if you're looking at it in terms of secretary and territory standards of the uh significance of historic elements.

Yeah, and I don't think we need to get into detail of all that right now.

I think um what I would like to see when we review this, it there seems to be some sort of difference in in what what we're hearing.

And so I would like to see some documentation of what exists on the inside um just so we we know if we do choose to vote that way that what we what we might be losing or what could be salvaged.

So that would be extremely completely understandable.

So and and just excuse me, just for your awareness and the rest of the commissions.

Oftentimes when we have a request like this, we will ask for the commission to do an on-site visit.

And so that's something the commission would be.

I know that they referenced that there's some safety issue with some of the areas, so um we might want to issue those areas.

vote that way that what we what we might be losing or what could be salvaged so that would be extremely completely understandable so and and just excuse me just for your awareness and the rest of the commissions oftentimes when we have a request like this we will ask for the commission to do an on-site visit and so that's something the commission would be I know that they referenced that there's some safety issue with some of the areas so um we might want to issue those areas um but in any case um I think I just this line of questioning is just about um what exists and continuing in that line um I want to talk about the front facade and originally that is there cast iron is that original cast iron at the base there are pieces and parts of the original cast iron um it looks like the column capitals have been lost um in some type of previous renovation but the pilasters um the sort of the the columns I want to say and the pilasters are cast iron and original and I think the idea is to retain those and i excuse me if any of these questions were I had to miss the presentation um I had a family thing um that you gave uh the commission are you taking that central portion of the cast iron and then moving it to the north I think in a in a what we discussed in the I think we're trying we're in discussions of how to retain that and has this little intervention to the ground floor really um the ground floor innovation will consist of new openings and a canopy and I think we're trying to figure out how we can retain those cast iron elements we'd like to retain and the cast iron that's salvageable especially when the coverage went across 231 it almost looks like they took a chainsaw to it to be honest with you the edges are ragged um it cut through one of the vendors branding on the project which would have been a neat piece to have but unfortunately that's been chewed in half so are there different pieces of it there are yeah there's the bottom right hand picture that's on the screen shows you where they cut it right in half so we don't have anything to retain there for the other half of it we're not planning right now to move these pieces around but want to create something that mimics what the look of the cast iron would have had and retain whatever cast we can I think that's kind of where I'm going with this is that you know it seems that that central portion of your rendering there's just sort of a run of the mill modernized storefront that doesn't really have much to do with the historic facade at all and I would discourage that I'm just saying this is you know what I would prefer to see I would definitely not prefer to see you know uh that cast iron or what's left of it replaced with that uh iteration of the design um but again there's I think the nine of us here so I that's just my opinion into details on that the intent on that is to that the majority of that would be above where the cast iron is because it dies into plywood no no I'm I'm talking about the actual storefront where the entrance is we we owe you an updated um exterior elevation we sort of we have evolved that approach and are retaining as much of the existing ground floor that we can that's salvageable again you I mean if that's the intent you guys can just say we're intending on that and that's fine I'm not trying to drag this out I just I'm saying that this is what I would prefer to see and but again that's just what I'm just one of the commissioners up here.

So um and then moving moving on from that I I you know obviously that ground um floor experience and that that uh pedestrian experience is vitally important to the historic district and and I would ask that you make that a paramount importance to your development as well um continuing with the facade being the important element of of this development um I understand your dilemmas with the brick um I'm not a huge fan of painting brick and you know also that you know that opens up a whole other can of worms I I would prefer to see the facade that's painted you know have the paint removed and the brick restored um you know that's a uh uh procedure that you know the Pacers headquarters had done to it and uh obviously they used historic tax credits on that um which you probably won't be using but um I think that would be a much better uh approach given that these were built um you know a lot of these businesses part of their history were that they opened a small portion and then as they had success they widened their business they didn't build them all at once and so I know you can see some evidence of that in here as there's slight stylistic differences uh as the facade continues and so I think I would prefer to see those subtle differences continued in whatever rather than a homogenization of the facade because I think that erases that history and so again one person's opinion up here but that's something that I think I would um prefer to see um and are those elements above you know the arches above the windows and then some of the the coins on the the upper facade are those um steel elements or iron elements are you talking about at the attic oh oh above the the arch yeah the arches and then the they look I thought I thought I saw some rusting on those so I thought it might be a metal

And so uh again, one person's opinion up here, but that's something that I think I would um prefer to see.

Um are those elements above you know the arches above the windows and then some of the the coins on the the upper facade are those um steel elements or iron elements.

Are you talking about at the attic?

Oh, oh, above the the arch?

Yeah, the arches, and then the they look I thought I thought I saw some rusting on those, so I thought it might be a metal you need to step to the microphone, please, because we're recording this.

Thank you.

Um are you asking about above the first floor or above the second floor opening?

Well, the second and the third floor, there's only you know one bay on the second, but I believe that those are the ones that are retained on 235 are cast iron, and I believe that the uh the arched decorative elements on 231 are fiberglass or some other synthetic material based on the age so it it would be the intent to either restore or recreate those elements.

Okay.

Um I think the the only other thought that I have is you know, I know I know that it's specifically uh noted in here that the uh open space to the south or yeah it I guess I'm confused here.

The open space to the south that that's listed as a through alley and parking.

Is that part of this development?

I mean, you see some elements in some of the presentation um it is not, but there is a uh a potential for I probably remember just south of your brothers.

They have a faux facade.

Um we're investigating that possibility, and um we'll we'll have uh finalize that in time for the next hearing.

And just uh uh a note on that the reason I'm saying something is if you're I would prefer to see that in field, obviously, because that's what we would have had historically.

Um barring that possibility, I would like to see as significant a facade element there as possible.

Um rather than I I think I saw a gateway piece.

Um I think it it doesn't have to be a full facade, but I think I would like to see something that that continues that streetscape and that um uh facade a little bit more significantly than what was shown on the gateway.

But again, one person out of nine.

So um I think that that would be the preference for that.

But if it's not part of this development, obviously there's not there's limited um opportunity there.

So understood.

Um I think those are most I mean there's a lot of things to go over here.

I don't want to keep going and and on a preliminary hearing.

If I could just real quickly on that opening, we do have to keep it open because that is part of the hotel and live nation complex that we are gonna need to move some trucks and buses through there.

So we can't close that in because especially the cities invested so much money into the Georgia Street with the renovations that are coming, sure, that we need to have alternative entrances.

Yeah, and I I don't think I was recommending that it had to be closed off, but I think that there's some ways to make that a little bit more significant and um continue that historic facade a little bit more consistently.

But I I'll end my comments there because it I'm already taking up most of the time.

Annie Hi there.

I would be very much like uh Anson.

I mean, one of the things is as you know very well that a shining example of bottle works and how it was redone exactly how it was instead of doing, you know, when it was a terracotta building, which I know this is different, but we required it be terracotta done on the replacement pieces.

This is kind of the same, where to Anson's point, like these metal details for them to be as close as original and made of materials that are similar.

Um I think is always our preference on these broken pieces because I think that's part of what made the building sort of what it was.

Um that would be something I would be looking for.

I think you know, it's you could argue at both ways, sort of it being homogenous because it's gonna be one building.

Um, but I do think um maybe there are ways to and I would prefer just because we had a case not long ago about just the challenge of painting brick and all that it portends.

I'm not a paint expert at brick but I know we had these discussions and it just sets in motion a whole set of things if you start painting brick on this old brick.

I think it's um amazing this to have something in this quadrant because you know it's it's just as when the Simons did Circle Center it created a whole different change in the city and my hope is that this will be the exact same thing.

It just takes one to to bring more and with all of the investment that's going on in the city now I think it's important that the city get that message out because I live downtown and I always laugh because if you live in the suburbs it's like you're going to be murdered if you're downtown and they don't realize the billions of dollars being invested because I think that's an important message because you know if you're going to get murdered there tends to not be a lot of investment.

So anything that you can do to I think take advantage of of what the exterior has to offer is going to be I think certainly advantageous and anything and I know this is altruistic but I'm just going to throw it out there is is on the thing if it is to be taken down like these two walls and all of the stuff behind it and this created this new venue any things that you can do that are a nod to what was there whatever that is you know if it's if it's a similar wood look or if it's a similar I just think it's always you know whether it was storage or not because I think what she said was is valuable.

You know what these rooms were used for weren't spectacular spaces but I also think it always bodes well when there's a nod to what whatever it was because you know the the front of the building you know you'll have the benefit of something very new behind it but any time you can have a nod to what was in it to recreate in the new space I think is something I always appreciate thank you.

Mike several years ago I was in your shoes standing right there and proposed something similar to the historic building and one of the commissioners here today referred to it as a facadectomy and it was rejected and I thought we had a good argument but uh be that as it may I think it would help us understand your project more and be more on board with the concept if we knew what was going to be built or at least you know not obviously final CDs or you know design development drawings but something close enough that would help us uh feel feel better about um you know not going too far down this road and then having a developer in theory back out at the last second after everything was demolished and then we turns out they're just trying to sell the site which I know isn't the case here but um so I think if you have uh plans that um that you can share that aren't that are you know not uh confidential but uh if they're pretty well developed it would be helpful for us in understanding how we could justify um approving a facadectomy and uh you know those those will be ready for the next hearing certainly okay um and I guess the other question I was thinking about just moments ago was have you considered leaving like the first two or three days of the buildings and designing around that so that there's more than just the facade but something something more substantial.

Right now, the the way the building structure works is though those those walls, those 195-foot walls that go all the way back, they're all every single one of them is load-bearing.

And so as soon as you start taking down and messing with one, you've got to do all of it.

Are you uh or do you anticipate uh underground parking on the site under the buildings as well?

No, we're the original basement is going to be retained.

Um there will be no underground parking on this site.

Sure.

What was in the basement, just out of curiosity, and how will the basement be used?

Um the the basement was clearly used for we talked about secondary or tertiary storage up on the second and third floors.

I don't know.

What do you call it when you go a level below that?

So there, you know, some in many cases jerry-rigged um mechanical is down there.

Um it's got a fascinating entry underneath Meridian Street.

We think it's probably where they dump coal and hauled it into the coal furnace, so it's utterly filthy.

The floors are the ceiling heights are very low.

Um so they're the they weren't really used, and it would be uh extremely difficult to put them to a use because of the way they were originally built.

It was structurally ACAA to be in white piece.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I think everyone said a lot about you know, I feel the same way, like we need the materiality to be as close as it can be to make it feel the same way.

Um so I think I'll speak to something different.

That I think that it's really clear that the time is now to do this.

You all own these properties, and um I think everyone it's an opportunity to get off the merry-go-round of tenants coming in and out, um happening in the area, um, and really an opportunity to turn these floors that have just been storage for so long into something that people can experience and enjoy and bring more people in.

So that does feel like a really cool opportunity, and kind of like Mike said, I'll be excited to hear what you all might bring in there to that end.

Um, but yeah, I I you know it's it's exciting.

I hope it can still feel like the historical building it is on the outside, and we can honor that in some way at the same time.

Thanks, Kristen.

Um I have a question that goes back to the beginning of the presentation.

We were looking at a photograph that I think was a missing south wall.

That it that the building was open for a time.

Is that right, or am I confused about something?

No, I I just I think that's a function of the quality of the photo.

Now, there was once upon a time a building that was on what's now that kind of a little parking lot.

And so that south wall was originally built as a demising wall.

It was never meant to be an exterior wall.

Um, but to our knowledge, it it's always been there, and it is low, and it you know, despite again, despite the fact that it was never an exterior wall, it's still a load-bearing wall.

So it's it's it's been there.

You can see the holes in the side of the building where the floor joists used to connect as part of the structural integrity of the original building.

So this is an historic wall, and the windows are where they when the building came down, the windows were added, or what what is your history show, Meg?

Yes, that would be my assumption.

If that was an interior wall, we I don't I I don't think we've looked in the file to see when those were added, but definitely not original.

Okay.

Okay.

Um my initial reaction to um the idea and what it would do for that part of the uh wholesale district was really positive.

Um doing all that demolition is troubling, and you're just gonna have to convince us.

And there are commissioners that are not here, and particularly one who was part of the sort of beginning of the wholesale district has a lot more historical knowledge about that, but it it takes a lot to convince this group to just wreck a place.

And the fact that you're willing to do the the facade and restore the facade is really um compelling, and what you plan to do inside, although it's superficial, you've told us sounds like an interesting concept that will draw a lot of people to the area, which I think is what causes places to revitalize is when when the the when the people start coming there.

The the uh flat iron in my mind is really important, and I know there are iron works.

In fact, I worked with one someplace in I think around Nashville or whatever where they did amazing and very ornate restoration, way more ornate than this would need to be.

So when you when you're before us, uh we'd like to hear a lot more about the the flat iron because we don't have very much of that in the city.

Um beyond that, I am curious, and I guess you don't don't have to tell us, but I think you said you didn't own the building next door, uh 225 that that's owned by someone else.

No, that the building to the north is has common ownership, yes.

But that's not part of our request, and um but you but you have control of that?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, that's good news because it's in your best interest to get busy on that shortly after you start this.

Okay.

Um Idle money is not good.

Um we appreciate your time and you've gave given us a lot of information.

You need to remember that there are a few people missing that are gonna have questions when you come with your presentation that are not unlike what you've heard tonight, and some might be uh very different.

But Susan.

Can I say one more thing?

I was reminded um by Michael's comments of a couple of things, and um when especially when he said facadectomy, you know, in this group um before I was here approved the Krieg Brothers building.

Um obviously the conceit of that project was flawed, and so what was executed was the demolition and nothing else.

And so obviously this is a different ownership group and a different situation.

But one of the things that um sort of commonalities that could potentially uh cause uh issue um the music venue, uh is that also gonna be I mean the point of this is that a competing music venue to your other live nation music venue.

Um is that also gonna be this one also gonna be run by live nation so that they're not necessarily competing, or is that um it it's not being run by live nation.

They're not in our mind competing.

Okay.

So I know the spaces are different sizes, but um I just have a a concern that there's only so many music venues that downtown can support.

Having worked with folks that do music venues, the that you know they were gonna do music venues downtown, and that they didn't do them because they weren't necessarily going for the same size, but they didn't do them because of the music venue you guys did over there.

Competing music venue.

Uh yeah, hi, Phil Bate, one American Square, Indianapolis.

Sweet 2900, right?

I don't know all that zip code that you know, but here I am.

Okay.

Uh anyway.

Um both users are aware of each other.

Both users are familiar with each other.

Uh they are not going to be competitive to each other.

Yeah, and that point is really just to say the the conceit of the project is important, uh, especially if you're asking us to do this because we've seen where it has gone wrong.

Right.

We the last thing we want obviously is to approve something and then have what happened to Krieg Brothers happen again.

They are at different scales, like nation is 4,000 person capacity.

This will be under a thousand, uh well under a thousand.

Um partial answer to an earlier question, I can I can state um the buildings are under control, the financing is complete, the lease is finalized, and uh it will happen.

Well, that wasn't I'll take you to the bank, you know.

That was good.

Good to hear.

Financing without permits, that's an interesting one.

Did you have some?

Did you have some I did just want to say I appreciated the riddle, felt like a riddle answer of venues versus venues.

Uh so I mean I think it's I mean, you don't owe it to us, but it always serves you very well to be, and I know this isn't the time to be more specific about what that looks like, just because I think when you're approving something of this magnitude, you know it's our goal, obviously for the historic preservation, but you know, everybody up here wants this city to thrive and wants this to be successful.

So more detailed be super helpful.

I know the emails will be okay.

I was just told we will be able to share that and get into detail at the next meeting.

So I guess in closing, when will be next time?

When when do you plan to or would you like to be before us?

We'd like to be right back before you in May.

That's possible.

Is that possible?

We're gonna hold them to it.

Okay.

I think well it's just for our planning, it's it's helpful to know.

And and if it doesn't happen in May, it'll happen in June, and we we know that.

So it you have something yes, just for timing person uh perspective.

We we do have internal deadlines for documentation.

Um I'm gonna defer to Shelby on this one because I uh I they know it better than I do.

Uh in order for us to have time to review this and come back in May.

So let me check and see what that deadline is.

Well, well, tomorrow is the is the deadline uh for submitting documentation.

So I defer to the applicant on whether they think they'll be ready.

Um I mean that's the that's the initial deadline.

When's the deadline for submitting?

That is the application deadline.

No, I understand.

That's when you submit plans for the hearing.

Right.

That will give time staff time to review them, and if we have you make changes, there is a secondary deadline for you to make corrections and submit that.

That is not supplemental time to get in the original application and documentation.

So tomorrow is the deadline.

Sorry.

June.

Okay, see you in June.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we have concluded our business.

I don't know, can't remember.

Does somebody need to make a motion to adjourn?

Or I just get to pass the case.

Yes, make a motion to adjourn.

We're adjourned.

Can anyone who spoke, if you didn't sign in, please sign in for me so I get your names right?

Thank you.