Good evening.

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

The first order of business this evening is approving the minutes from April.

They were in your packet this evening.

Any corrections or comments?

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

Thank you, Mike.

Get a second, please.

Thank you, Anjanette.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

We will move to old business.

And the uh we have a number of items.

Just to remind everyone, this is not a public hearing.

We just go through a few old business uh cases.

The uh first case is 60 621 Lockerby Street, and we're gonna have a check-in from the applicant, please.

Come forward, uh state your name and address, and uh can uh can you swear them in, please?

Can you raise your right hands for me?

Do you swear to tell the whole truth?

Nothing but the truth, say I do, I do.

Okay, thank you.

Please go ahead.

621 Lockerby Street, Rhonda Duvall.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Since the last meeting, Miss Duvall has executed a contract with uh Graydon for the remainder of the work.

Uh that contract was provided to IHPC, and Ms.

Jarzin has approved a certificate of appropriateness for this work.

Um intends to start the work sometime next week.

Okay.

That's good news.

We've been waiting for that, so I'm sure you have too.

So any any comment from the staff on this at all?

Okay.

All right.

Uh will they need to come back next month or what's the what's the plan here?

So I think if I heard correctly, the anticipated completion might be around August sometime.

I'm not sure when, but maybe next month is a little bit early for them to come back in progress.

So uh perhaps July or August.

I'll let them tell us when they make more sense.

Which one would you like to come back and report on July or August?

Um, whichever whichever one is appropriate for a check-in.

Okay, I'm flexible.

I'll let you decide, Meg.

Yeah, I go ahead.

Let's go with August.

I don't know that there's gonna be so much completed by July.

So thank you for the additional time.

Yeah, sure.

Yes, and thank you for working with staff.

We really appreciate that.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Good luck.

Is the summer and Sue's?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, uh the next case is uh 2019 COA 009 amended monuments circle, a district.

Uh the address is one and fifteen North Pennsylvania Street.

Uh Brandon Burke is seeking a one-year extension.

Uh Emily, you want to speak to that?

Yes, so the the project is one and fifteen North Pennsylvania, and typically the administrator will be able to sign off on that one-year extension, but they did need a change to the stipulation number 13 to extend the time to reconstruct the facade at the historic facade at 15 North Pennsylvania.

They are about ready to start that work.

Staff has been tracking it.

I've made several approvals, site visits, but they just haven't been able to start that yet.

So they asked for, I think I believe it was like another uh, I apologize.

I can't remember the exact extension date for the for number 13.

So September.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Okay.

All right.

I'll take a motion to provide the one year extension as requested.

Thank you, Susan.

Second, please.

Kristen, thank you.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

All right, the next two cases I need to recuse myself.

Someone Susan, if you wouldn't mind uh dealing with those, and I'll be right back.

All right, this is 2022 COA 447, amendment 1, 39 Jackson Street.

Um, need the applicant.

We don't have the applicant.

Sounds like staff's telling me that there is no one here for that case.

So I'm sorry.

I don't believe anyone is here for that case.

And so do we want to continue it or do we want to act on it?

So I'm gonna let Shelby speak to that because I think she has the samples and the photographs, and maybe can walk us through that.

Okay, so they submitted uh three color samples.

Um also each of those had two different sealing types on them.

Um and so we're just looking for um commission feedback and approval if you find one appropriate on those colors and the sealers.

Um I will say um the sealer on the right side of all of these images, um the silica sim 100, um, did have a more glossy appearance to it, but they did say that it would be more long-lasting and that the glossiness would dissipate over time for what that's worth as far as your considerations go.

Um, but I can answer any questions.

And what are your thoughts on that staff?

Um in person, uh, I thought sample two looked the most realistic, and I'll pull that up on the screen.

It just looks the most true red brick color.

Um one was a bit more orange, one was a bit more red, and one was kind of more of a purple.

So it might just be a bit of personal preference, or if there's something in particular you're looking for, but for me in person, sample two seemed to be the most realistic.

And they're looking to us to select one of those options, right?

Okay.

Comments from the commission.

Here we are.

I mean, we don't have any.

Sorry, we don't know how much longer the one number three lasts, right?

That's just kind of anecdotal.

I don't think they put a specific time frame on it.

It was just a matter of um they wouldn't have to apply it as quickly as they would the the left side.

Okay, well, I'm perfectly happy to go along with the staff's recommendation on the colors.

Um, are you thinking it's a little strange to have one side of the street be glossy and one side not?

So they would all have the same um option, but it was basically they had the two different ceiling options to pick from.

Okay.

Um the right side on the images is kind of how they designated the silico 101 versus the 100.

Okay.

Okay.

And so do we need a motion or can we take this by consent?

If you could take a motion, that would be great.

Would you phrase the motion for us?

Sure.

Um, well, s in the packet, the request is for approval of stamp concrete pattern and color for street gutters.

So if there's a motion to approve that.

Okay.

Looks like Kristen.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

Okay.

We've got a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Thank you.

Got it.

We are now ready to move to 2024 COA 226 wholesale district 230 South Pennsylvania Street.

Ice Miller.

Tim, are you presenting tonight?

I am for the record, Tim Oaks, attorney at Ice Moth Offices at One American Square Suite 2900 Indianapolis, Indiana.

Um, here on behalf of the applicant um boxcar.

Um, can you raise your right hand for me?

Oh, thank you.

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

Hold on.

Just in case.

I do.

Perfect.

Um, this uh is approval of the actual construction drawings.

There was a mock-up uh that was available uh outside.

Uh we hope everybody had a chance to look at that.

Um the plans that have been submitted do uh comply with and are consistent with uh what was originally approved by the commission, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Um staff comments?

I don't have any comments to add, but I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Commission.

Any comments from the commission or questions?

Then we're ready for a motion to approve the construction drawings.

Yes, for a motion for approval of final construction drawings and the material mock-ups.

Okay.

Motion?

I do have one question.

Are we approving just the mock-up for the hotel or for both the hotel and the venue?

Both are up for consideration this evening.

Okay.

Did you have a follow-up question?

Comment?

Motion.

And then yeah.

Okay, thanks, Kristen.

Second.

Right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

We're done.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Susan.

Uh the next case is 2023 COA 110 Fletcher Place address 323 Cincinnati Street.

Mark Crouch is the applicant seeking a one-year extension.

Shelby, do you want to speak?

Did you want to take this and the next case together?

Yeah, I'll read that as well.

2023 COA 111 Fletcher Place address 324 South College Avenue.

Also Mark Crouch.

Shelby, please.

Yes, so both of these are for a one-year extension of the COA.

They had an initial extension that was approved by the administrator, so they're just looking to further extend that since they haven't started construction.

And then staff is recommending approval of the drawings.

The only thing we noticed is that some of the elevations and section drawings show box office which aren't permitted for their COA.

So we're just recommending that be updated before we stamp them, but otherwise are in support of those, and I can answer any questions.

Okay, thanks, Shelby.

Do you need to speak?

Okay.

Do any of this?

All right.

Uh any questions from the commission on the extensions for the two cases for one year.

I'll take a motion for their approval then, please.

Susan, thanks.

Mike, thanks.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and then we have one more old business item, which is case uh 2026 VHP 003, address 602 North Park Avenue, Randy Veach is the applicant.

Uh and we just have to approve the findings of fact.

Anything, Shelby, that we need to know about there.

I know it was in our packet.

And if there's any questions or comments from the commission, if not, I'll take a motion for the approval of the findings of fact.

Mike, thanks.

Get a second, please.

Thanks, Kristen.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

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

And before I call the case, let me introduce the commission members and introduce the staff and read the rules of procedures this evening.

I'm Bill Brown, President.

Uh Susan Williams, uh Secretary.

Deesa Watson, uh Summers, our commissioner down front.

Uh Michael Bivens, Commissioner, and Jeanette Silvilich, Commissioner, Kristen Wiggs.

Wiggins, Wiggs.

Did they spell your name correctly?

Commissioner.

Sorry about that.

I was just reading.

Uh Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmetz, our legal counsel, Emily Jarson, our principal architectural reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Morgan Marlejo, our architectural reviewer and recorder, Caroline Anna Maker, our architectural reviewer, and Marion Burkert is our preservation planner.

The commission has copies of IC 36-7-11.1, the Marion County Zoning Ordinances, the Historic Preservation Zoning Ordinance, and all historic area plans of Marion County on file, and which will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard by the Commission this evening.

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

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

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

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

Doing so may result in the application being continued if the commission or the staff believes the material substantially alters the request or requires more review than is reasonable at a public hearing.

However, if supplemental material related to a case is being submitted this evening, please submit it to IHPC staff when you come up to testify.

The chair would also like to remind the public that expartheid contact with the commissioners, which is contact relating to a matter before the commission outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

The order of each of the cases this evening will be as follows.

We'll ask for the applicant to come forward and make their presentation, and then we will also ask for anyone's support supporting that application to also come forward.

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

Then we'll look for staff comment.

I'll ask questions of the commissioners, and the applicant will have a last word or rebuttal of up of a maximum of an additional 10 minutes.

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

Before calling the first case, Morgan, if you would swear, anyone who is going to be speaking to any of the cases this evening, if you would stand up and be sworn in, please.

Okay, please raise your right hands for me.

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

Say I do.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we have uh one continuance uh this evening.

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

Sure.

2025 COA Ford 89 Beach at a March Massachusetts Avenue.

The address is 409 Massachusetts Avenue and that request is to continue to June 3rd.

Okay.

Any questions from the Commission on the continuance to June 3rd?

Yeah, Susan, please.

Um, do we have anybody here that could give us an update?

We've been kicking this can down the road for a while.

It'd be nice to know what's going on.

I'll have staff answer that.

I'm not sure if anyone's hearing.

Shelby, do you know if the applicant is here?

I do not believe so, and unfortunately, I don't have any news on where they're at.

The last I heard from them.

They were trying to get a hold of neighboring property owners to see if they could consolidate and work together, but I have not heard any updates.

Can we put them maybe on old business for next month and request that they appear?

Thank you.

Yeah, we can certainly do that.

Any other questions on the continuance?

Uh, could I get a motion for the continuance then to the June 3rd meeting?

Thank you, Susan.

Thanks, you and Jeanette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Uh, any opposed, same side?

Okay, thank you.

We'll move to expedited cases, and we have five the or four this evening.

We pulled one.

Yeah, go ahead.

Meg, if you could take us through those, please.

Sure.

2026 COA 102 Irvington.

The address is 317 South Downey Avenue, and the applicant is Carl and Kristen Leffler.

The request is to demolish a historic garage.

2026 COA 107 cottage home.

Address is 703 Dorman Street, and the applicant is Heather Sullivan.

That request is to demolish a rear edition, construct a two-story edition, extend side porch, and enclose existing porch.

2026 COA 117 Chatham Arch Massachusetts Avenue and 2026 VHP 004.

Address is 429 Massachusetts Avenue and the applicant is Halil Ibrahim.

And the request is for a variance of use to allow continued use of a tattoo parlor.

We're not permitted.

And the last one is 2026 COA 121 Chatham Arch Massachusetts Avenue and 2026 VHP 005.

Address is 602 North Park.

Applicant is Randy Beach.

And the request is for a variance of use for a single family dwelling.

We're not permitted.

And I'm going to ask that you take two separate votes on this one.

Any uh question for the commission, please, Susan.

Yes, Meg, just to um for the record on page eighty-seven of the packet.

You have Chatham Arch listed in Warren Township and Council District 12.

Oh, well, that's not right.

No, that's not right.

Thank you for that.

I just thought you might correct that for the record.

Thank you for the question, Susan.

Any other comments?

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak to any of the expedited cases is presented.

Okay, I'll take a motion for the approval of the expedited cases as presented by staff.

Thanks, Angette and Kristen.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

And I'll take a motion for the two variances that were presented by staff.

Anybody get a motion for that?

Thanks, Kristen.

Thanks, Mike.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh we are now ready to move to applications to be heard, which have been continued.

Uh the first case this evening is 2026 COA 054 Heron Morton Place.

The address is 1933 North Talbot Street.

Nicole Quint and Brock Jackson are the applicants.

If you could please come forward, uh state your name and address and present your case to us.

Nicole Quint, 1933 North Talbot Street.

Alright, so we currently have an existing 2.5 car garage on the has limited functionality due to its shallow depth, which prevents the ability to exit your parked vehicles when the garage door is shut.

Our goal is to retain as much of the existing structure as possible to avoid a full tear down while addressing this deficiency.

The garage will be extended four feet towards the primary residence.

Second floor will be added with a living space.

We have revised the design to address the prior feedback.

The stairs have been relocated to the interior.

We've also added an exterior access point beyond the fence line.

We've also simplified the window design to be a little bit more cohesive with the existing structure, and the roof line has been simplified.

After we've made some of these changes, we have altered the interior layout and functionality of the second floor, but we are willing to compromise on that to move forward with our build.

Okay.

Alright.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Seeing none, we're ready for staff comment.

Morgan, please.

Staff please the applicant has not fully addressed the commission's comments and concerns from the previous IHPC hearing.

While the stairs were moved to the interior of the structure, the overall design and form has not changed.

Um staff does not find the alterations appropriate and is recommending denial of the request.

Okay, thank you, Morgan.

Uh comments from the commission, please.

Any comments?

Mike, go ahead, please.

I didn't speak up too much about this case uh last hearing, but one of the things that I've noticed is that.

Excuse me.

I think the design is struggling a little bit because of the attachment that the addition is.

Let me rephrase that.

The addition seems to be uh controlled by the existing garage.

I think if maybe the addition were expanded outside of the footprint of the existing lines of the excuse me, the existing lines of the garage, then maybe you would have more flexibility or your designer would have more flexibility.

Okay, thanks, Mike.

Other comments from the commission.

I'll just offer I guess a couple comments.

That still seems a little bit disjointed.

But it seems really kind of out of place with the uh with the character of this garage, in carriage house.

It just feels I don't know, it feels like it doesn't belong, and would suggest that maybe you I guess revisit that.

You know, obviously the existing garage door is kind of where it is, and so forth.

I I will say that the improvement has been made for sure.

Uh I think it just needs uh maybe a little bit more work, uh, and then maybe we can get over the finish line here for you.

But I guess those would be be my comments.

I I feel like you're getting there, but it's just not quite there yet.

So if you can continue to work with staff, I think maybe one more uh shot at this might get it done.

Okay, so I guess I'm just a little confused.

Are we concerned with the roof design or now you were talking about the back paneling?

I was not aware of that last year.

Yeah, but the I guess it's yeah, which side is it on?

It's the uh the west elevation.

Yeah, it just I don't know, it just feels a little odd.

It it just doesn't seem to settle in very well, and I know what you're trying to do, but I I think I'd revisit that a little bit more if you can.

Yeah, I mean that that's the least of my concerns there.

This is it's obviously a surface treatment.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, we just put that there because it was on the home and we are trying to make that cohesive, so that's um yeah, that is of no concern.

Yeah, I just don't think it's adding to the architecture uh or the quality of the of the building.

So if we were to just take that away and then make it, you know, the plain siding is that then of concern.

Is that yeah, my sense would be is you know, I don't, you know, obviously you've painted a different color as well, and uh I don't you know uh I'm just talking about taking that away completely and then it would just all be siding.

Yeah, I think I think if as you do that, you might also look at the first floor and see if you need to pop in a couple of windows or something so that there's some you know treatment of the first floor.

Uh but uh short of that, I think that you know that would probably start to work.

I do think that the the roof line and so forth is is much better.

It's unfortunate that the uh the one garage door is now not centered with the with the windows.

I don't know if it's possible to move that or not move that.

I don't know exactly what your restrictions are there, so that that would be the other comment.

Yeah, I unfortunately don't think that would be possible.

Yeah, that's the reason I'm bringing it up.

If you obviously you had dealt with that differently in the previous uh iteration and had sort of this kind of odd extension which you've gotten rid of, which is a better move uh for sure.

You know, I don't know.

Maybe there's maybe if you added a I don't know, maybe a small window on the the side of the garage door.

If it's possible to do something like that to balance the asymmetry or something like that might be a strategy.

So are you talking bilaterally then or just adjusting?

Yeah, just you know, something to help balance the fact that this elevation isn't very symmetrical.

It's feels kind of odd and it's an existing thing and so forth.

Okay.

Okay.

And then as for the roof, then so.

Yeah, no, Mike.

If you want to, I don't know if you want to clarify what you were maybe talking about specifically.

When I look at the plan, not the elevation, but the actual plan, it looks like the existing, I want to say the east elevation along the alley.

Um, it looks like the addition lines up with the garage, the existing garage wall.

And I think if it were either, you know, a foot or two closer to the alley or farther away from the alley to give a little bit of distinction rather than becoming this giant wall mass that uh you know the roof creates articulation, but the uh the actual walls themselves seem to be pretty the continuous wall itself seems to be kind of overbearing.

Maybe that's what what's kind of throwing it off visually for me.

And the other uh thing the the new roof uh shed dormers, I'll call it on the existing garage.

Uh I see where you the previous design showed that structure going through to the second floor of the new addition, and you in this iteration you've got topic made it less uh massive.

So is that work in our favor then?

Or I think I can go back and forth depending on the uh I don't think that's a big uh hanging point for me.

I think if it were maybe if that wall were advanced toward the outer wall more, or if it's a maybe a shed dormer, maybe it was two traditional dormers.

Something that just um breaks up that uh that mass a little more.

Um I know I'm not gonna be the best uh detail, but so the addition then is perpendicular to the existing roof.

Is that a concern?

Um no, I don't think so.

I think it's fine.

No, I think the overall mass is much better.

I you know, I I you could look at a couple dormers, but I'm actually the fact that it's disconnected, I think is better than having it connected.

So I think that's a a good strategy there.

So if you could take a look at what the wall that Mike is talking about, yeah, please.

Uh, and then just work with staff.

I think you can we can probably get there.

Perfect.

Okay.

All right.

Any final comments?

No.

Okay, all right.

I'll take a motion to continue the case to the June 3rd uh meeting.

Oh, thanks, Susan.

Thanks, Mike.

Any final comments?

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

Aye, any opposed.

Okay, thank you.

We'll see you next month.

Appreciate it.

Okay, the next application is 2026 COA 033 uh Fletcher Place.

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

Mark Crouch is the applicant.

Please come forward, state your name and address.

My name is Mark Crouch.

My address is 521 Stephen Street Fletcher Place.

Um, the proposal today is for improvements to an existing alley.

The removal of there's not very much improvements there from the northern alley, but removal of any type of aggregate that's there, any type of concrete material that might be there in reference uh what was originally there, and the readjustment of the sidewalk and the replacement uh removal of a curb cut on the north, and the sidewalk to go there in accordance with the specs uh from um Department of Metropolitan Development or DPW.

Um I think I have we work with the neighborhood to get their uh approval for this portion.

We have a commitment that we won't develop along that southern property line, which maybe doesn't have much to do with the case, but we wanted to make out of record today, and we will file that with the recorder's office, so that's in place that we won't do any improvements within five foot of that southern uh alley, the northern line of the southern alley uh with a fence uh or a structure.

It is within the side yard setback, so I don't think it would we would get that approved anyway.

But we're certainly it was a recommendation from the neighborhood for their support.

I think they want to speak uh to that today.

Um, with that.

I think we have a remonstrator.

I did get an email from him uh about 52 minutes ago.

Um, he might want to just save my time for anything we might want to speak to his concerns.

Okay, all right, fine, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Please come forward, name and address, please.

Yeah.

Hi, uh Jeff Miller, 558 Fletcher Avenue.

I'm on the land use committee and just wanted to report that we've met boy it feels like for at least three years on this project because it's come before you a couple times for design and things like that.

Uh, we really appreciate the petitioner and the petitioner's agent working with us to figure out the best way to address these weird alleyways, as you've probably seen from the plans.

There's an alleyway to the north that's just junk.

Uh, there's an alleyway to the south that's even worse.

And so working with the plat committee as well, we figured out the best way is to vacate that middle alleyway, move the plat north, and that's been approved by the plat committee.

Also, we got a letter support from that property owner to the north that they did not want their five feet.

They donated that, if you will, to the project, so then that could push down to the south and extend the southern alleyway.

And uh currently, at least one of the properties, the barn historic barn, which I know we all really care about, seems to at least according to the city reside maybe a few inches in the right-of-way.

So by moving that alleyway north, we'll get it out of the way.

And maybe one of the other properties, the the garage, if it's not in the right-of-way, it's right next to it.

So this really addressed a ton of important issues.

Uh also we did get letters of support from four of the property owners to the south, and most importantly, the barn.

They were very the two owners of that.

We're very, very happy.

Uh likewise, it was then taken before the neighborhood association.

As Mark mentioned, uh, one of the things the neighborhood asked was to not develop in those five feet, mainly to help with uh clear sight.

Because it is going to be a one-lane alleyway like most alleyways in the city, and therefore there's gonna be people coming off of college avenue and then people heading towards college avenue.

So having a lot of line of sight is important.

So uh there were discussion about making the alleyway even wider, but as we all know from urban alleyways, this is actually going to be wider than most.

It's wider than my alleyway with the expansion.

So, sure, in the perfect world it would be even wider, but that just wasn't possible to develop the two properties on that site.

So, yeah, it has the neighborhood support and the land use committee support.

So, thank you all for all you do for the city.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Please, name and address, Jim.

Jim Lingenfelder, 525 Lord Street.

I'm a neighbor.

I use this alley.

When the project was originally presented to us, um the suggestion was to combine the two right-of-ways at the south because Lord Street dead ends into Cincinnati Street.

We have the uh Mexican console, we have two apartment buildings that serve that alley serves as their major access.

We wanted the 20 feet of right-of-way to the south because that's there's a significant load on it.

When we uh realized that the plan had changed to, oh, we're going to only give you 15 feet.

We asked for five feet of non-developed area so that we have don't have a fence right up against this 12-foot alley that's serving.

Uh we weren't able to get that into a form of uh recordable history because uh I would like to have it with the IHPC.

I don't want to have to be down there trying to enforce the fact that there's no fence.

We met with Mr.

Crouch.

We agreed, and we are in support of that.

We I'd like to see it though some way of finding a way of enforcing it through the IHPC.

And Mr.

Williams, when you were talking about the other garage on this alley, you emphasized the neighborhood, the need for neighborhood support.

And we have neighborhood support now on this project with that five-foot uh no no build zone, so that we have a 12-foot alley that's going from rough construction to being paved.

I don't want it to be a racetrack, and I don't want a fence going up there that's going to get demolished.

So they have agreed, but I would wish that we could find a way to insert it into our IHPC um uh regulate our IHPC commitments.

I'm sorry, so that it is an enforceable thing that is brought in front of you the next time somebody wants to do something on 323 South Cincinnati or 324 South College.

But other than that, with that, we s with the five foot no build zone, we are in support of this uh proposal.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Name and address, please.

Thank you.

Counselor Kristen Jones, 714 Shepherd Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46221.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this on your behalf today.

Um I'm here just to support the neighborhood and the homeowners on this um situation today.

As I go about the community, I I knock doors year round and 10 to 1 infrastructure is what I hear about and alleyways are a top priority and not only in my district but in Marion County.

And if you talk to the agencies in the city of Indianapolis, they will say alleys are actually my trigger word.

So we are trying to get more more dollars and more funding for alleys.

So I am I am humbly and graciously asking for your support on this project, and I appreciate the diligence that they put with getting the homeowner support and talking to the neighborhoods, and I'm always here to advocate for the neighborhood support.

So thank you very much for for listening to this today.

Thank you for coming this evening, Counselor Jones.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Yeah, please come forward, uh name and address.

This is in support, so yep, okay.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Matthew Winpeak.

I'm the president of the Fletcher Place Neighborhood Association.

Why don't you come and reiterate what my neighbor Jim Lingfelter stated about our support and we uh appreciate working with uh the Crouches and with the property owner to establish uh the uh commitment for uh no further development along the south uh property line.

So just wanted to reiterate that and uh mention that the Fletcher Place Neighborhood Association reviewed this at our April neighborhood meeting, and we reached consensus and support for from the neighborhood association as well.

Thank you.

Can I get your address for the record, please?

My address is 714 Noble Street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Yeah, please come forward, name and address.

Ari Lepinski, 951 North Delaware Street.

I represent Jay Bradford, the owner of the properties at 614 and 622 Fletcher Avenue.

And we are respectfully requesting that the commission deny the petition for certificate of authorization.

Any hardship resulting from a denial would be self-imposed.

The owner would not be deprived of reasonable or economically beneficial use of the property if it's denied, and the proposal would harm the Fletcher Place District's historic integrity.

I brought hard copies of exhibits A through D, which I asked to be admitted into the record.

Exhibit A is the Yeah, just please give it to staff and then staff can get it to us.

Exhibit A is the full compilation of materials that were submitted to the plaque committee in support or in opposition, excuse me.

Uh to 2025 PLT 046.

Exhibit B is Mr.

Bradford's formal written objections to uh the written objections letter to the Plat Committee.

And exhibit C is the official Excel a record uh for the 2023 certificates of appropriateness, uh showing both certificates were marked expired and void.

Uh exhibit D is the formal objections letter that I transmitted to the commission today uh on Mr.

Bradford's behalf.

It's pretty late.

Um and I apologize to to Mr.

Crouch for sending the sending him those documents on such late notice.

But uh as shown in exhibit C, the certificate of appropriateness of appropriateness for 2023 COA 110 was marked expired on June 6, 2024, and the certificate for 2023 COA 11 was marked expired on July 5th, 2024.

And IHPC procedures page 11 states that any certificate of appropriateness shall expire and be void after one year unless construction has begun and is substantially completed, about 80%.

And no construction has occurred here.

Stacks staff's recommendation relies heavily on those 2023 uh now void approvals, and because those underlying certificates of appropriateness are void, the commission cannot lawfully grant a certificate of authorization and reliance on expired approvals.

Petitioner must file new petitions for certificates of appropriateness and comply with the full notice and hearing procedures.

Also, the petition seeks approval for major public works alterations to the alley system, including grading transitions, utility relocation, alley alignment, and circulation improvements.

Yet the submitted materials do not appear to include engineering plans, specifications, or analysis prepared by or under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer.

An Indiana Code Section 25319B prohibits any official charged with enforcement of laws related to the design or construction of public works from accepting or approving plans or specifications that have not been prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer.

The commission is charged with that responsibility, and the absence of proper and the absence of proper engineering documentation renders the application incomplete under the IHPC procedures, page four.

The Fletcher Place Historic Area Preservation Plan expressly states that, quote, the uncommon pattern of angular streets and alleys should be retained, end quote, and that further street improvements must recognize and respect original materials as contributing to the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

And that's on page 108 of the Fletcher Place Historic Area Preservation Plan.

This proposal completely removes the Northern Alley and reconfigures the southern alley.

These changes materially alter the historic circulation pattern that has existed since at least 186 1887.

Staff's insubstantial effect finding does not adequately address the cumulative impact on the on the district's historic character.

And for these reasons, Mr.

Bradford respectfully requests the commission to deny the petition for a certificate of authorization.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

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

Shelby, please.

So these alley changes before you are needed for the construction of the houses and garages we just saw at old business for the final construction drawings and those extensions.

We are recommending approval of an authorization based on insubstantial effect.

The alleys don't maintain historic materials and they're currently just gravel and dirt.

We do believe the northern alleys removal and the southern alleys alterations have overall insubstantial impact on the character of the district, and that the increased width of the southern alley seems to be positive for more maneuverability of the sites around.

And I can answer any questions.

All right, Shelby.

I guess I'm going to look to Chris and Meg to see if you could offer some comment for the remonstrators discussion relative to the expiration of the COA and that sort of stuff, please.

Sure.

So Mr.

Lipinski is correct about the policy or excuse me, the procedures talking about the certificate being void if after that one-year time period, but your rules of procedure also allow anyone to apply at any time for an extension.

So and of course you granted those extensions just a few moments ago.

So I just wanted to clarify the distinction.

So if they were were 80% complete, the certificate is considered completed, so they wouldn't need to do that.

But since they haven't started, they went ahead and applied for their extension.

Okay.

So we're fine from a from a legal standpoint relative to the procedure.

Okay.

And Shelby, I guess I had a question.

Could you speak a little bit to the comment of the fact that we're combining two alleys and some of the history and so forth there?

Yes.

Let me scroll up to the staff report here.

So both alleys, as far as I can see on sandbar maps, we're at 10 feet.

I'm not seeing anything different from what is existing now, which is that 10 feet.

Um the alley on the north side would be completely removed and absorbed into those new lots.

Um, and then that southern alley, um the right-of-way itself would be expanded to the fifteen feet, and then 12 feet of that would be paved, so it would the right of way itself would go from 10 to 15 on that southern side.

Okay.

And and a question I guess for you, Meg, are we able to put let's say a five-foot setback on the property uh to you know from the from this alley?

Is that something we can identify as a part of our approval?

The more appropriate place to have done that would have been in the replant petition, replanting, yeah.

It's pretty unorthodox for the commission to up to include a commitment like that.

Um, it's not to say you can't, but there's just really no precedent for doing that.

And we discussed this internally and it it seems to us that this is not the body to be doing that.

Um, but if you have questions about that, I can't so with the applicant sort of you know recording this.

I mean, are we comfortable that that's sufficient?

Yes, in fact, I I had actually spoken with Mr.

Lingenfelter and and suggested that this was more of a civil matter and that they do that um with the applicant.

Uh the other issue, of course, is enforcement and IHBC staff just doesn't have the capacity to do that.

It probably makes more sense for it for it to be between the neighborhoods so that they can uh keep a watchful eye on that and um manage that much better than staff would be able to do that.

Okay.

Thanks, Meg.

Questions from the commission.

I didn't mean to sort of just take over there.

The comments, questions?

Mike, Susan, nope.

Okay, all right.

Any final uh comment from the applicant?

Would you like to address any any comments?

Excuse me.

So I I do have with us the agreement that the owner made with the neighborhood, which I would be happy to provide could go into the record.

Sure, it's not legal binding, but at least it's in the record.

Uh-huh.

That'd be fine.

Um, and then um, you know, they say the road to hill is paved with good intentions.

Today it's paved with asphalt and concrete.

So we have work with the neighborhood to come up with a solution for a terribly maintained alley.

People are driving willy-nilly everywhere.

Um so we have it in record that the remonstrator has been driving across our property for 20-something years.

They're thinking he had the right to do that.

Um so we've argued that our continuance that that they put on us just for the one client alone, has cost us a significant amount of money and time.

We wouldn't have needed to apply for uh the the extra and paid the extra fees for the continuance.

So um we've tried to do the best for the neighborhood.

I live in the neighborhood, half the neighborhood of my friends.

I want to keep it that way.

Uh so um we we made as many comments to try to protect the neighborhood and do what is in their interest.

We've agreed to everything that they've asked us to do, uh, and we certainly don't have a problem with the five foot.

Um so if with that, but I'd have nothing else to add.

Okay, all right, thank you.

All right, Meg, I think we're ready for a staff recommendation.

Then please.

For 2026 COA 033 Fletcher Place, staff recommends to approve a certificate of authorization to remove the vacated North Alley material and grass over, enlarge and pave the South Alley, relocate power poles, realign concrete sidewalks and curb cuts, all per submitted documentation is subject to the four stipulations in one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Any uh any comments for the commissioner?

If not, I'm ready for a motion for the staff recommendation as read, please.

Kristen, thank you.

And a second, please, Mike.

Thanks.

Any final comments for the commission?

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

Aye, any opposed, same sign.

Okay, it passes.

Uh good luck with your project.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Uh we have one application uh to be heard, which is new this evening, and that is case 2026 COA 112 ransom place and zoning 2026 ZON036, address 1010, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

Joe Cauldron is the applicant.

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

Thank you, uh President Brown, members of the commission, Joe Calderan uh 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis, uh representing Super Jams 2 LLC.

I have representatives of the uh uh the true applicant uh with me uh this evening.

I would like to hand out a short, I wasn't anticipating having to use it because we were on the expedited list, but we have a uh short hard copy of a PowerPoint and attached to that are commitments that uh were referenced in the staff report.

You may recall that we were here um in February presenting a redevelopment opportunity for uh 1010 uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Junior Street, which is the northwest corner of 10th and Dr.

Martin Luther King.

It was a preview opportunity.

We appreciated the comments.

Uh we also asked at that time if if it might be palatable for both the commission and a staff if we proceeded with the rezoning separately from the COA because we are under contract to buy the property, and the rezoning has two additional steps beyond tonight, and to kind of sync it, it makes sense for us to kind of bifurcate.

And in this case, because what we're asking for is directly uh in compliance with the ransom street plan as far as the zoning that we are requesting, we think it makes sense no matter what.

Um so my uh brief PowerPoint presentation largely mirrors the staff report.

We are seeking a rezoning from CBDS, which for those of you who aren't familiar with CBDS, there's a few of them downtown.

Uh it's basically the central business district version of a commercial plan development, and that was uh what this property was rezoned to back in 2015 uh to contemplate, I think, for multi-family, but it also allowed for retail and some different commercial uses.

Uh we sat down with your staff back at the end of last summer to talk about uh whether we would qualify under the CBDS.

They felt that because the 2015 rezoning preceded uh the rewrite of the zoning ordinance in quote indie rezone in 2016 that they felt more comfortable uh just going with a C3 zoning classification, whereby our proposed use, which is a small grocery store, would be explicitly uh permitted.

So that's exactly what we did when we filed the rezoning petition.

Uh this uh parcel was vacant.

You can see kind of the remnants of the hard surfacing from the last use, which was a service station that was demolished uh quite a long time ago.

Uh there have been other proposals as I understand it.

I have not been involved.

Uh, but this is the first one I think to get this far.

Uh and our presentation just kind of walks through the history uh and shows the current zoning of CBDS, and then uh kind of the background uh information that I just went through regarding our meeting with staff and the rewrite of the zoning ordinance.

So C3 zoning for those of you since you don't always get to do rezoning cases, is basically the neighborhood commercial district.

It has a variety of uh kind of lighter retail uses.

It's really if indoor type of uh retail opportunities, does not include nightclubs or anything of entertainment uh-wise.

Uh C3 allows both for in the use table, grocery stores as well as light general retail.

So what we're asking for is consistent with what was in place today and with the uh current use table and uh intent of the neighborhood commercial zoning district under C3.

Probably the most important thing is uh just so that we're all staying in this on the same page and in the same lane is that the ransom place conservation district plan, which has been around for almost 30 years now, hard to believe, specifically calls for this parcel to be C3.

There's a couple pages devoted in the PowerPoint that show uh the parcel in question.

Uh on page eight, you can see the parcel, the subject property is in area C.

It talks about uh in the text of the conservation plan, uh sub area C retain the existing zoning districts, which back in 1998, this parcel was actually C3.

And you can see that on page 10, uh the the corner piece uh kind of matching up with the C3 commercial zoning.

So uh we did have a meeting uh virtually with ransomplace folks last week.

Uh we talked a little bit about the rezoning, it talked a lot more about the uh plans that we uh have tendered for certificate of appropriateness will be in front of you uh next month.

Uh and there's clearly some more negotiation to do, however, uh ransom place did ask us to consider a list of uh uses that they felt were not appropriate, and we went ahead and put those onto the preferred commitment form that gets recorded with rezonings, despite the fact that this evening at five o'clock, I got an email that Shelby forwarded that ransom place is opposing the rezoning.

So nevertheless, we gave them our word.

Uh these uses are uh fine for us to restrict against the property and provide for some additional voluntary protection uh in terms of the zoning.

I think the staff report basically will track what I reported to you.

Uh with that, we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

We really don't want to get too much into the site plan details because that's going to be fully vetted by the time we get to you next month.

Happy to answer any questions that the commission may have.

All right.

Thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Please come forward and state your name and address.

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

Good evening.

My name is Silva Zhang, and my address is 821 Camp Street.

Um I lived in Ransom Place for 11 years.

Um we did submit a letter for in February with our opposition.

So I'm surprised that it was a surprise that we were opposed to the development.

Um, and we did reach out multiple times asking to have a meeting with the developer, uh, and only I think last week or the week before we're able to meet with the lawyer, but not the developer themselves.

Um, so I'm here on behalf of Ransom Place Neighborhood Association, and we would like to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of 1010 Dr.

Martin Luther King Junior Street to C3.

Our opposition is not rooted in resistance to development or disinterest in neighborhood serving retail.

We've consistently supported thoughtful investments and projects that strengthen walkability, historic character, neighborhood safety, and long-term residential stability.

However, we believe this particular rezoning request raises substantial concerns related to traffic safety, site design, compatibility with surrounding residential uses, and the broader planning context of this corridor.

First and foremost, the intersection of 10th Street and MLK.

It's already one of the most congested and difficult intersections in the area.

As residents, we regularly experience backups extending multiple blocks and long signal wait times.

I've sat at that intersection through four light cycles before without anything there.

There's also dangerous turning conditions associated with the interstate access traffic.

The number of citizen alerts I get on my phone for recs at that intersection is surprising to me.

They're often semis there.

The pavement, it goes like this, where you sit at that light from when semi-sit there for a long time and it's like wavy to go across.

The proposed development would introduce additional turning movements and access conflicts at a location that is already operating under significant strain.

Of particular concern are the proposed curb cuts and egress points in close proximity to heavily trafficked intersections and existing access points.

As residents were troubled by the apparent inconsistency between this proposal and prior IHBC decisions in the corridor where curb cuts and access points were discouraged or removed due to safety and aesthetic concerns.

I think Paula will speak to that more because she was there during that time period.

We're also concerned that no updated traffic study has been required, despite widespread acknowledgement of worsening traffic conditions since 2022 when we really were still in that COVID period where schools and hospitals were not at their regular capacities.

The residents and prior planning efforts have worked to encourage in ransom place and surrounding neighborhoods.

We want to emphasize the neighborhoods not opposed to redevelopment of the site.

Many residents would welcome a thoughtfully designed mixed-use or neighborhood scaled project that better fits the historic urban fabric, reduces reliance on auto-oriented circulation, and contributes positively to the long-term health of the corridor.

However, we do not believe the current rezoning request sufficiently addresses the serious concerns outlined above.

For these reasons, Ransom Place Neighborhood Association respects f respectfully requests denial of the proposed rezoning request for 1010 MLK.

Thank you.

You want to speak?

Name and address, please.

Paula Crooks, 948 Camp Street.

And I'm here just to reiterate reiterate what Silva has said and also to give a little bit more context.

That block is the block from Hill.

You probably remember back in what was that 2013, 2014 when it was rezoned.

And that happened, and it the but the builder was not able to build because of the congestion.

He abandoned it.

And that's the reason that that particular parcel has been vacant because of the configuration of the intersection.

You have MLK going south.

You have MLK Y going north, then you have the interstate, West Street, which is four lanes, um, mere feet, just mere feet from that from that intersection from that corner.

It's not a suitable location for a grocery store.

Um, I also had given the attorney to give to his client some suggestions of what would be good, and it was smaller scale.

Um the other thing that I want to point out is is that we're looking at grandfathered egresses or cut or curb cuts, as well as um uh alley that has been vacated that is used.

Um that site distance on that alley is um you have to pull almost all the way out in the street to be able to turn.

So I'm not sure how people are gonna access this grocery store.

And um, you know, the the zoning, I understand that it was previously commercial, but um today I'm not sure how people are gonna get in and out um safely that that's really the issue with this rezoning.

So um I would like um if the commission cannot deny it to at least continue until we look at the entire project because that will give you just more context as well.

But again, that block is short, so you're gonna end up having traffic backing up to the north towards Flannerhouse homes, add its kids, you have the state people coming from work, going to work, you have IDPY, and the hospital people all converging right at that intersection, and we're looking at adding more traffic in and out.

And I just wanted to speak to the cup, um, the curb cuts.

I was not able to get a clear answer, but I remember distinctly IHPC forcing two egresses in a 900 block to be filled in um based on safety and aesthetics, and now we're maybe 10 years later, and you're looking to allow um constant traffic in and out on these um old curb cuts.

We're just a no with that.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

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

Then uh Shelby, please.

Staff is recommending approval for the rezoning of the site.

C3 is the recommended zoning classification per the district plan, and it is a residential neighborhood focused commercial district, so it's one of the um less impactful commercial districts as far as the numbers of those go.

Um, and just to note the proposal for new construction and site design um is docted for the June hearing, so that will be back before you in a couple of weeks.

Um, and I did just also want to note um the commitments um that the applicant passed out, those were also in your day of packet, so if you saw those, those were there as well.

Um, and I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Just one quick question.

I presume that this particular development use is not possible in the CBDS.

Is that correct?

So CBDS is very specific to what was being proposed at the time it was rezoned, and in that time grocery store use was not included in that development.

So I checked with current plannings team, and their advice was just to rezone just to clear that all up.

Um, and that would then permit the desired use.

Okay, thank you.

Questions from the commission, Susan, please.

So, what would be allowed under the current zoning?

If I recall correctly, it was going to be a mixed use, um, residential commercial.

But I'd have to adopt a double.

So the traffic issue is still the traffic issue.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

Well, I I expressed concerns when we saw this some time ago, and I happened to be at that intersection this morning, and was lucky to come away with my life.

Um, so it it really is an issue, but it's gonna be an issue for anything that that goes there that has people and requires cars to move around.

So I'm not sure that keeping the zoning where it is or changing the zoning is gonna have any impact on that safety issue.

It's it's a bigger bigger issue than a zoning change, and so um they still have to bring the project back.

We still have to look at it, we have to see how if there are any clever ways to make that work without creating more hazard there, but I don't think the zoning is is really the issue.

It's the design and the and the development of the project, which we're gonna see next month, right?

Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Susan.

Other comments, questions?

Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement with Susan.

I I certainly appreciate the comments of the remonstrators without a doubt.

I've been through that intersection many times.

You know, my understanding is that there is at least something being considered relative to the interstate rebuild there, and there may be some change to that intersection at some point.

I don't know exactly what the plan is with NDOT, but hopefully that will begin.

If in fact they do something, it will begin to address this issue regardless of what the use is.

And I and I agree, I don't think the zoning is gonna one or the other.

I mean, it's still gonna continue to be an issue, and we need to look at the project, whether it's in CBDS or C3, I don't think matters.

I think it's a matter of how we look at the at the project.

So I I'm supportive of moving to the zoning because at least we have someone who's interested in developing the property.

I think the property should be developed appropriately without question, but having it just sit there is also not been a very positive thing for the neighborhood either.

So any final questions for the commission?

Any final comment from the applicant?

Thank you for your comments.

Uh we did reach out to ransom place multiple times personally from myself to Ms.

Sang as president of their organization as soon as we filed our revised packet towards the end of March.

We couldn't see you on the rezoning piece until your staff felt we were further far enough along.

So we're not ducking our responsibility to work with the neighborhood.

We've added the commitments that they themselves suggested to provide some additional protection.

We're not asking for curb cut approval or anything else tonight.

That'll be up for consideration next month.

Um and we will be prepared, and we certainly are going to take the comments that we've received to date and and look at some things to make sure that what we propose is going to be safe and compatible.

And we have been working with Jill Palmer from DPW on the traffic.

So we're not just going it alone and and winging it.

So just so the commission understands that, but we appreciate your favorable consideration at least of the rezoning piece tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Meg, please go ahead.

Sure.

I wanted to just real quickly address some of the concerns that were brought up from the neighborhood because staff did have some pretty lengthy conversations with DPW about those issues.

The first thing is we did ask about a traffic study, and with that, the response that we received was that given the amount of traffic that's currently generated in that area, the size of the structure that they are proposing would generate a very minimal amount of traffic compared to what's already there.

Uh so not necess necessitating the need for a new traffic study.

Uh, this has come up, as you all know, with the previous proposals for the site.

We've been talking with DPW about traffic studies for quite some time.

Uh the other thing that we discussed and was brought up this evening is the light signals.

Um the downtown, according to DPW, is on a sequence, so you can't change one intersection without negatively impacting the other intersections.

Uh the downtown has a coordinated signal system, and all the signals are on a 90-second cycle with rare exceptions.

So they they want to keep the timing pattern for safety reasons.

Um, and then we also inquired about truck traffic, because that's also uh gonna impact the site.

We asked that question because that's very different than just standard vehicular traffic, and so we are gonna have the applicant uh show how that traffic flow will look like on the site with the proposed structure and how deliveries will be received and where they're coming in and out of the site, so that we can better understand that.

So we'll hear that part next time they come in.

Okay, all right, thank you, Meg.

Any other comments by the commission?

Okay, I think we're ready for staff recommendation.

Then Meg, please.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to rezone the subject property from CBDS to C3 per submitted documentation.

Okay.

Get a motion for the staff recommendation is read, please.

From okay, thank you, Internette.

Thank you, Kristen.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We'll see you next month.

Okay, we read the zoning.

I'm sorry.

Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry, we got to take two votes.

Uh do you need to go ahead and make a recommendation on the zoning?

Sorry.

Staff recommends staff makes a recommendation to for approval to the Metropolitan Development Commission to rezone the subject site from CBDS to C3.

Okay, thank you.

Uh take a motion for the staff recommendation on the zoning change.

Thank you, Jeanette.

Thank you, Susan.

Any questions?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

We're now ready to uh move to the preliminary review case this evening.

Uh 2026 COA 111 Fletcher Place, address 501 East Louisiana Street.

Rick Hahn is the applicant.

Uh just to remind everyone uh preliminary review.

We will have the applicant uh offer their presentation, and then we will get comments from the staff, and then we'll get comments from each of the commissioners.

Uh and that will be the limit of the preliminary review.

We will not be taking any public comment this evening.

Uh it once the case comes back to the commission for full public hearing.

Uh, we'll then be getting full full comments from uh from everyone involved.

So I'll let uh the applicant uh come forward and uh state their name and address and present their case to us, please.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Yeah, good evening, Mr.

President.

Members of the commission.

Uh, my name's Brian Tui.

My address is 9294 North Meridian.

And uh here with me this evening are representatives from Farm Bureau and the Buckingham Companies, both uh local companies.

I'm sure the commission is aware of them.

We're here uh respectfully seeking your comments and input in a preliminary review of a case at 501 East Louisiana.

Here with me this evening is Ryan Gallmeyer and Brett Davis of Buckingham, and also Matt helping and Suzanne Henderson of Farm Bureau, and again, thanks for your time this evening.

So I think there's a PowerPoint presentation.

If we could go to the first slide, that'd be terrific.

Thank you.

That first slide, members of the commission matches the first slide on your on your handout.

And we'll with your uh consent, we'll kind of divide up this presentation.

I'll start it off and then Brett Davis will explain more about the development.

I think it's worthwhile to give you a minute's history of this site.

Farm Bureau has owned the site since the late 80s, and it was developed as their headquarters in the early 90s, and their headquarters is directly across the street.

And this site is of interest for several reasons.

One being it's about 3.1 acres that's undeveloped, and it's bordered on four sides by four streets.

It's got Louisiana Street to the north, it's got E Street to the west, it's got college to the east, and Lord Street to the south.

And about three quarters, not the whole site, but about three quarters of the site is in the Fletcher Place Historic District.

About a quarter of the site on the west side of the site is outside of the historic district, but that part is in the regional center district of overlay of our zoning.

It also has an interesting zoning.

About two-thirds of the site is zoned C7, and about a third of the site is zoned I4.

And you might recall that C7, what they call that, that's known as a high-intensity commercial district zoning.

So things like truck stops and and uh car lots and things like that are the kind of uses you see in a C7 and a lot of outdoor storage.

The I 4 is our heaviest industrial zoning.

Uh it's it's for highly intense industrial uses, and so that's what this site is currently zoned.

I think is going back about the last use of the site that we could find about 19 in the late 70s was part of what was for a parking lot, and I think part of it may have been proposed for a yellow cab operation.

So Farm Bureau's Farm Bureau has had it for a long time.

The Fletcher Place plan, which controls about three-quarters of this site, suggests D8 zoning when it was written back in 2000 or 1980.

D8 zoning for the commission's uh recall, which I'm sure you know, it was a a residential zoning that allowed single-family, two duplexes, three plexus, multifamily.

Its average density was in the D8 regulations was about 20 to 26 units uh per acre.

This proposed development by Buckingham and Farm Bureau is just over 18 units per acre.

The Fletcher Place plan, even though the site is zoned I 4 and C7, it calls for it to be zone D8.

And when we get back before you and back before the uh MDC, we've requested, again, after consultation with IHBC staff, uh a D9 zoning to allow for this specific development, which uh Brett will describe here in a minute.

So that hopefully sets the table for you, and I'll ask Brett Davis to explain further what the proposed plan is.

Thanks for hearing our petition.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

Yeah, Brett Davis, 941 North Meridian.

If we go to the next slide, so as we start any project, especially one in a historic district, the first thing we need to do at Buckingham is always take an inventory of the homes and the neighborhood to the south, the Fletcher Place neighborhood.

Um primarily paint a lot of emphasis on the street to the south, Lord Street.

So the first thing we when we hired our architect, uh Lord X Sergeant out of Atlanta, uh we did a full inventory of the homes that would be directly adjacent.

Uh primarily the homes are made up of mostly two stories, um, shotgun-style homes, generally because of the narrow lots, the lots generally are anywhere from like 28 to 36 feet wide.

There's some variances in there, some of the lots may be a little wider from an adjacent lot uh not being developed.

Um but there's primarily lap siding.

There's some some brick homes in the area.

There's there's some cedar accents, there's some detailing on the cornice and and trim work.

Uh the the other thing that for us to kind of keep in mind is to the north is Indiana Farm Bureau insurance.

So the the lot that um Brian was describing here is very much transitional.

So we have a large uh office to the north, stepping down to the south is the traditional two story homes.

If we flip to the next slide, when we partnered with Indiana Farm Bureau, it was very important that what we propose, we felt was very um reflective of what is happening to the neighborhood to the south.

So what we are proposing is a rear load town home, basically meaning that my front door or the proposed front door faces the front doors of the neighbors to the south, out to Lord, and then the front doors would face out out to Louisiana to the north and would face out to east on the west.

So what you see in front of you is the bottom image is primarily what you would see if you were on Lord East or Louisiana.

And what we tried to do is take these townhome concepts, which we are proposing in a three-pack, a six-pack, or a seven-pack variant, and bring down the scale.

So bring in some of that traditional shotgun style home that that faces out.

We are proposing that each unit is approximately 22 to 24 feet wide, bringing in some of that same architectural character, color, variation in color.

We can work with that detailing, we can work with with the group in the committee here, but primarily lab siding, some uh cedar shake accent, and then some masonry to kind of pull in all the elements from what we are seeing to the neighbors to the south.

And then on the back side, what we are proposing is an alley that runs down the central spine with a two-car garage uh in each unit, so that the residents are self-parked.

What we are proposing is a is a two-story development that's a at the height of the roof's pitch 32 feet.

As we look through grading across the site, we were gonna have anywhere from two to three steps up.

There is a there is some grading across the site, but most of that uh can be taken out or will be uh handled through ramps and and access through the the back side of the garage.

We flip to the next sheet, the slot is is a little unique from a traditional city block, it's long, narrow.

The block to the south, Lord to Fletcher is almost double the size uh of what the traditional block is in the neighborhood.

So this is about half the size.

So our thinking with this was that if we use something with a a little shallower lot size, such as a town home, that we would be able to again conceal the vehicular access central spine, hiding all the parking, and then having all the front doors facing to the north-south and west.

Additional concern that that we had and what we're continuing to work through with Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance is guest parking.

Uh, we know that parking is a concern for the neighbors to the south, and we've we've reached some agreements that that our guests can park in the two areas denoted in blue uh to the north side of Louisiana.

Again, we're currently proposing 58 townhomes, two stories about 32 feet in height, with the units about 24 feet wide, 22 to 24 feet wide.

So members of the commission, um, as we understand the preliminary review process, we've uh been coached by uh Emily Jarzen about how this would work.

We would certainly appreciate hearing from you all as to your thoughts about uh this proposed development and uh your uh your insight into uh uh the thoughts of the of the design and the units and the layout of this.

So thank you for your time this evening.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh let's get a staff comment.

Emily, please offer your thoughts.

No comments for the preliminary review.

I can answer questions uh about the process.

It's just a reminder since this is a split site, the commission will only hear the COA for any rezoning petition, and the rest would be taken through current plannings hearing examiner process.

And I can answer any additional questions.

Have you had any uh discussion with regional centers to whether they're gonna be deferring to us on their parcel or any of that sort of thing?

It is my understanding that they will be reviewing that.

There's like a dollar amount as to development.

Sure.

Um so it is my understanding that they would be looking at that portion of it, but I have been coordinating with them, and so we have been in current planning as aware of this.

We've been in multiple meetings with them with regional center and design review for regional center just to keep them in the loop of what is going on, and certainly after this preliminary review when we have commission comments, we will meet with them again.

Okay.

Yeah, just with the with the balance of the site, obviously in IHP C it seems logical that they would kind of defer to what we're thinking about relative to site planning and the architecture and that sort of thing.

But obviously, we can certainly work with them as we have in the past.

So that's fine.

Thanks, Emily.

Questions?

Uh we'll start.

What do we start with Kristen?

Offer your comments, please.

Um I appreciate the general design.

I feel like it definitely echoes what the homes in the area across the street look like.

I'm definitely familiar with that little stretch.

Um I was um happy to see that they're built to rent townhomes.

Um I think that's really important.

Um, being familiar with local real estate sales, um, a lot of townhomes are going up and just not selling.

Um, I feel like we're oversaturated.

So I'm happy to see that that's the intent of these, and it feels like a good mix between the um you know the business moving to the um the residents on the other side.

So um I think those are my initial comments.

Yeah, thanks, Kristen.

And Jeanette, please.

Um, I appreciate um how you looked at both um how D8 and D9, um, I do feel that uh residential um use is definitely better for um this plot of land and for the surrounding neighborhood.

Anything else?

Okay, all right, Mike, please.

I think it would be uh somewhat of an improvement if there were more of a mix of buildings, not just the three and the six and the seven counts, but maybe throw in a small area of maybe single family residences or some other mixes to so it's not so um commissioner visits.

Could you speak up, please?

Thank you.

Uh just uh maybe split it up so that it's uh or maybe make it more a little bit more diverse, uh might be a welcome thing, although I know it might be a financial matter, given the the business you're in.

Um the architecture I think is uh not inappropriate.

I think it's fairly conservative.

Um I would encourage future development to you know maybe reach a little bit more and maybe explore breaking up the giant uh ridge along the roofs of the longer um the longer the six counts and the seven count.

Um but uh as far as the window heights and um the scale and everything else, I I don't see any problem with that.

Um I'll hand it over to whoever is next.

Uh Susan, please.

Yes.

Um, it instead of trying to cram 50 plus units into this limited amount of space using it all up.

I'd sort of like to see a little more green in there.

Um I notice that you've got deep front yards, and it looks like you're calling for those deep front yards on Louisiana Street, which are very attractive, and that's nice green space.

Then when I look over to Lord Street, I see skinny little front yards.

Um it seems like you might want to flip that in or in deference to all the people that live on Lord Street that have been looking at green space for decades.

So I would look at that, and I would look at pulling out from somewhere, some kind of a pocket park or a green space that's common area for the residents to have some outdoor space and to give some relief, as Michael was talking about.

Is it of this block of houses?

And giving maybe you did give thought to condominiums and for sale properties, which I know there is a demand for in the downtown area that is not being met.

The architecture itself is not particularly inspired.

And I think when you go into a historic district, you ought to be looking a little bit more at detail.

Might want to do some uh diversity of design and style, and as a nod to these beautiful historic homes that are right across the street from you.

So that would be I think the extent of my comments.

All right, thank you, Susan.

Any comments?

Make sure your microphones on there.

I have a question on the guest parking that I'm seeing.

Is that currently vacant?

I think it's just lawn right now.

I think it's lawn.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

So is there just not enough room on the street to do the street parking for guests?

Yeah, there's some parking there today with a lawn around it, and farm bureau, I believe, parks there, maybe their visitors or whatnot there, and I think what's being suggested is that that would be transferred over for guest parking for this development.

Okay.

Okay, that's it for me right now, okay.

Thanks, Tisa.

I'll guess I'll offer a few comments.

Um, you know, I think once you draw the streetscape of either Louisiana or Lord Street, you're gonna see how just how massive this development is, and how if everything is the same, it's gonna be really sort of hard to appreciate.

Uh, I think to Susan's point and mine as well.

I think you really got to think about how this is going to feel more like a neighborhood where there's more variety and sort of more sort of uh inconsistency, if you will, just having these march along is really going to become monotonous in a hurry.

I think that you're going to likely find that this topography is going to affect how these how this ridge and how all this is gonna actually work, because I don't think you're gonna necessarily try to, I don't know that you're gonna want to create platforms for buildings kind of running down the hill here, because then you're gonna have these this kind of swale system between the buildings.

Um, you know, I think the idea of a pocket park makes all sorts of sense because this has obviously been a green space for quite a long time, and giving something back to the neighborhood, uh, I think is going to be important because getting support from the neighborhood I think is going to be valuable, you know, for your development.

I also think that as you look at, you know, particularly look at college, for instance, treating that the same as you know, another part of the site just doesn't make sense.

College obviously has its own sort of character of buildings running along uh the uh the west side of it, and just to have sort of an end of an apartment complex, you know, sort of completing that block, I think is you know, we just obviously heard about the alley and two more homes coming in, and the fact that that's a fairly dense streetscape along college would seem to me that you'd want to have some relationship, you know, to that.

You know, whether the you know whether the drive is coming out there, whether the drive comes out to Louisiana, and you can get you know more of a rhythm finishing along college.

I think that that should be looked at uh for sure.

Uh obviously the parking issue that uh Brian you brought up is going to be important, and understanding how this guest parking works.

If I'm in the furthest unit, is my guest actually really going to park that far away and walk walk to me.

I think that's something you really ought to try to understand.

Um, and I and I do appreciate any development of always trying to get the greatest amount of density at the same time.

I think there's a balancing point of how many units and what the ROI is and what's appropriate for the context of the site and so forth, I think is the other thing that I would at least start to think about.

Uh certainly the idea of townhomes uh for sale and lease, you know, I think is appropriate.

Uh without a doubt, you know, there's a demand for for sale.

There's a demand for you know for lease.

Uh so I you know, I know to Kristen's point.

I mean, I know the market shifts a bit relative to purchasing, but you know the market as to what you can lease and what you can sell to as well as anyone, so you know what the price point is that actually would would in fact work.

Um I I really feel like you need to have a little bit more imagination with the site plan and just the architecture in general.

I mean, I and I know you're you this is a beginning point for you, and obviously Lord Akin Sargent is a very good firm, they're capable of doing good work.

So I I just would, you know, maybe give them a little more freedom to think about the site plan, think about the architecture, and try to do something that is gonna be, you know, if you will, transformative for this parcel, uh, so that it really has, you know, something that everybody in the neighborhood and obviously with the commission and yourselves could be extremely proud of.

I think that's that's what we're gonna want to see.

I don't think we want to just see uh what I would describe and not being uh uh negative here, but just a cookie cutter kind of building just kind of you know plopping itself along.

I think you really uh you guys have done some wonderful developments.

Just I think bring that bring a little bit different kind of energy to it.

I think I'll get you much further.

So any uh I'll let uh Brian any final comment um and then any thoughts about when you might want to come back uh to the commission.

Thank you.

Probably not next month.

I assume as much, yeah.

Go ahead, that's why.

Uh last final comment uh to address the parking issue.

Actually, that parking is there.

It's uh it's a parking lot at Farm Bureau both on the west side of the Farm Bureau building and on the south side of the Farm Bureau building.

So it's paved and it's striped, it's it's an existing parking lot.

That's that's what we'd be using.

Um I think uh uh certainly we've uh I scrambled to write down all the comments, which we greatly appreciate.

I think we could probably make your July meeting.

Um because I think the notice is about mid-June, so maybe we'll we'll want to meet with Emily again and Meg and her team and of course get with our team.

But uh, I think tentatively we could make that meeting.

So I'd like to shoot for that if we could.

Okay.

Yeah, that's fine.

You can make the application for that.

We don't have to continue or anything to that case, do we, or to that time this evening?

No, I would just encourage the applicant to get with Emily on uh deadlines for the July 1st hearing.

We do.

Right.

And and relative to the the comments, obviously, this is all taped, so if you need to go back and do that, not to spend your evening doing that, but you can you can do that as well.

Okay, thank you very much for your time.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Commissioner Brown, I don't want to interrupt the meeting.

Well, you are with comments about the project.

Okay.

Not addressing comments about the project.

I do think it's important tonight that this commission recognize that there is a historic plan in place for Fletcher Plan.

We are highly aware of that, Jim.

And you you should not encourage can I interrupt, please?

Yeah, Jim.

Yeah, this is really inappropriate.

So we had a conversation, and I expressed to Mr.

Lingenfelter that there will be a public hearing where public testimony.

Yeah, we have plenty of time for public testimony on this.

So we don't we don't need to jump into it this evening.

We received many letters from the neighborhood, acknowledged that in the day of packet, and we certainly will hear this case at a very high level with anyone who wants to speak within the obviously within the rules of procedure.

Okay, uh so we'll now move to the last case.

Uh this evening applications to be heard, work started without approval.

Of the case 2026 COA 090 B St.

Joe, and the address is 1040 North Delaware Street.

Gavin Railing is the applicant.

Gavin, if you want to come forward, state your name and address and present your case, please.

Good evening.

Excuse me.

Good evening, my name is Gavin Realing.

Uh, address is 1040 North Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Uh, it is the Wyndham on Delaware apartments.

We um purchased the building in December of 2023, um, with there was a parcel pending or parcel acceptance locker out front.

Um it has come to our attention that is, and it was installed in 2022.

I'm sorry, and it has come to our attention that it didn't have a COA.

Um so I want to make it clear that we did not do this work without approval in working through this to remove this box and also or to move it.

In the apartment industry at the moment, parcel pen or package acceptance is not an amenity anymore.

Um this property receives 30 to 60 packages a day, and it's a 40 37 unit building.

Um so this is no longer an amenity, it's it's a necessity for this.

Um the door it is a uh secure building, so the vendors do not have access to this.

We don't want packages left outside for theft purposes.

Um for us to move this.

The lot is a tight lot with the parking that's restricted there as it is.

Um there's really no area for us to move this to.

Um, it is not in front of any of the historic facade of the building, so you still can see it from the street.

Um, and we are looking just to be able to leave it there and we'll allow our residents to continue to use it.

Okay, all right.

Uh question.

So you just clarify you did not install this.

Correct.

We did not install this.

Okay, who installed it?

The prior owners.

I see.

And it's been here since 2022, you said?

Correct.

I have the contract from parcel pending that is the uh provider of the service.

Okay.

And you said that it had a COA to it did not.

We did not, we were not aware of that.

Okay.

Uh just clarifying and we make sure I heard properly.

Okay.

I'll ask for anyone wishing to speak in support of the application.

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Ready for staff comment.

Emily, please.

Yes.

So it is uh this deed has not been transferred.

Corey development purchased the partnership.

Um wendham is still listed as the owner of the property.

Wyndham is the applicant that brought the parking lot expansion in front of this commission.

Uh patio work, and the restoration of the building and the replacement of all the windows.

Staff is recommending denial of retention of the parcel locker in its current location.

The best way for us to look at this, because obviously daily deliveries of packages was not a thing when the St.

Joseph plan was written, is a piece of mechanical equipment or an accessory building.

It's certainly about it's not the depth of a shed, but it's certainly about the size height and width of a shed.

And if an applicant came and asked to put a large HBAC unit in the front yard, the answer would be no.

If they asked to put a parcel, if they asked to put a shed in the front yard, the answer would be no.

In fact, other apartments have installed parcel lockers and have relocated them to the rear of a building or someplace less visible, or have just not put them in.

And so we can appreciate that electric was allowed to run to this, has Wi-Fi in order to open it according to DBNS.

Likely an electrical permit would have been required.

There was no electrical permit pulled for this parcel locker.

And the other thing is they do have the benefit of a significantly larger lot than most historic apartment buildings downtown.

Um obviously the commission uh permitted them to um greatly expand the parking area a few years back, and staff does believe that there'd be alternatives.

So staff has two recommendations.

One is denial in its location, or if the applicant is willing to relocate, there is a time frame for relocation and a requirement for sign-off based upon any commission comments as to a uh potentially appropriate location for the parcel locker, and staff could approve um that if that is that is an option that the applicant would like to take, then I can answer any questions.

Emily, do you have any suggested location?

Or locations.

I mean, it's really a matter of from, you know, they're gonna have to run electric, and so you know, there did look to be some space in more towards the back, um, but you know, it's gonna be a way weighing of where there is an egress, and then also because there is an egress uh on the rear of the property, um, as well as you know, weighing what impacts probably the parking and and the rest of their site the least.

Okay, and then just to clarify, explain the ownership again.

Um, my understanding it's actually the same owner or some of the same owners, or could you I'll I can answer that.

Yeah, that's fine.

I'll let me get her.

It was a purchase of the partnership, and so the deed was not transferred.

I did have someone look into that.

The deed was not transferred.

The the ownership is still listed as Wyndham, which was the prior owner.

That is still the address that is listed, that's where all of the violation notices, etc.

have been going.

Okay, go ahead, please.

Come up to the come up.

We gotta be able to hear it because we're being recorded.

Yeah, the um the entity and the the partnership was purchased.

Um that is correct.

I just wanted to clarify that what the core redevelopment runs the property for the partnership as well.

And that's the if there's discrepancy between that, that's my fault.

I fill out the application.

Okay, okay.

All right, and regarding the space in the back, yeah.

Um, we have walked, I have I have walked this multiple times um and we're already being forced to lose two parking spaces due to another issue um from the prior owner with a gate or um they did not install an enclosure for the dumpster.

So that will take us to I believe 37 spaces in the apartment complex, um, which is the exact number of units, but there's also two bedrooms in there.

So losing any more parking um is not really an option, and the um where the parking spaces that are being uh vacated, we cannot put it there because there is a large uh uh AES transformer box, and also a um get the building's gas meter is back there as well.

It's in the back corner, right?

The car on the north the upper left in that area is where we're losing two parking spaces already.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Questions from the commission, please.

Yeah, Kristen, go ahead, please.

I'm just curious, is it impossible to put this anywhere inside?

Like maybe that's a bad question.

I've seen them in grocery stores, like I just I've never been in this apartment.

No, that's a great question.

Um, there is room inside, but we don't want to have like from a legal perspective, allowing Amazon access to the building, the delivery drivers, that's a safety issue.

Um, FedEx UPS, those all have one driver that we would know who is most likely coming in.

But when you have let's say 50 packages coming from Amazon, you could have 50 different delivery drivers.

Do you have no idea what is happening?

Right.

Because we've looked at that as well.

Susan, you had your hand up.

Well, I have a lot of thoughts about plunking this thing in the front yard.

But the biggest thought that I have is why did it take so long?

It's been there for such a long time.

Why didn't somebody look at that and say, what in the world is going on here?

Who approved that?

I mean, well, nobody approved it.

You can't miss it.

You can't you can't miss it when you drive by there.

Sure.

I don't use that street very often, but I was driving around there today, and I thought, holy cow, how how did I miss this?

I must have driven by it once or twice.

Go ahead, Emily.

Yeah, my understanding there was a citation made by DBNS a while back, but it wasn't it just wasn't dealt with at that time.

Was it the year or two ago that they were cited for this and some illegal signs that had been installed, and it simply wasn't dealt with, and then they've come back for some signs, and therefore it's it's come back up again.

We we were working through a lot of that trying to figure out what the issue was.

Um, I I agree with you as far as if it's been there for so long, I don't know what, because it was there for almost two years before we bought the building, um, and now we're being penalized for this, again along with other items as well.

Right.

I don't want any mistake.

Um I'm sympathetic.

Sure, but that doesn't belong in your front yard, and it you know, you're gonna have to have my vote, I think, in order to things.

I just like said it was just it I appreciate you bringing up that it's been there for like we it's just one of those um there is gonna be an uh if we are to move it or to uh find a new place for it, it is gonna be quite a few quite a bit of money to do that.

Yeah, I guess, you know, as I I don't know why someone thought this was a good idea to put it here.

I think even if you had moved it to the south along the same sidewalk or moved it to the west along the same sidewalk, it would have been better than where it is.

I don't know how somebody said, well, this is the best spot we could put this in.

It's just like, I mean, yeah, they didn't put it in front of the building, but they put it at the corner of the building.

I mean, I just I don't know.

I mean, I get it that people don't want to walk outside or that kind of thing, but everybody's walking to their car, so it sort of doesn't matter to me.

I think you're gonna have to move this, and I don't know that you have to lose a parking spot to do it.

I from my point of view, I if you got it to the side yard, and I'm looking at the little leg that is going west of the sidewalk, and if it was on the north side or the south side of that little notch, you know, next to the parking, and the end of this was facing Pennsylvania or Delaware, excuse me.

On the right street here, um, excuse me.

I think that would be better.

And you would just at least extend the electorate to that point.

I would be happier with that than, you know, I mean, certainly if you find a spot in the back, if there, I don't know if there's a back door to the building, and you can come out of the back door and get to it.

You know, I don't know exactly how the light of the land is back there.

But certainly where it is right now is a horrible place for this.

So that's my comment.

So I don't know if you want to continue this and work with staff, as opposed to just denying it so you don't have to come back and pay another fee.

It didn't add insult injury.

So I would suggest continuing this, work with Emily, maybe get her to walk out there with you around the property, see if there's another location that could make some sense.

I don't know if you have some electrical inside that you could extend and just abandon this and therefore make it a little less expensive.

I don't know all the particulars, but I guess that would be my suggestion for you this evening, and then have you come back either next month or the following month, whatever works for you as it relates to that timing.

And Commissioner Brown, please.

Unless the commission has a strong desire to see an alternative placement, or staff does not feel like the proposed re relocation is appropriate.

There is the alternative recommendation to approve the relocation of the parcel locker with a deadline of June 15th.

Okay.

Yeah, we could certainly do that if the staff's you know if the commission is in agreeable with the staff.

Yeah, that certainly works.

And and if you can't get to an agreement, you can always come back to the commission.

So I'm I'm fine with that approach.

Yeah, that would be good.

Is the applicant okay with that?

Sure.

Okay.

All right.

Uh Meg, you want to make a staff recommendation for us, then please.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to relocate the parcel locker per commission comments from the May 6, 2026 IHBC, excuse me, IHBC hearing.

Relocation to a different previously approved place on the property shall be completed no later than June 15, 2026.

Once completed, owner must contact IHBC staff for inspection.

Failure to comply will result in the case being forwarded to the city prosecutor for enforcement.

And this recommendation does come with two sign-offs, one for approval of the new location and also for final inspection of the new location.

Okay.

All right.

Is that agreeable to the applicant?

Sure.

Okay.

All right.

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

Thanks, Susan.

Thanks, Mike.

Any final comments?

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

Aye, any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

Meg, we have no old, we have no other business, I don't believe.

No, I just wanted to remind everyone that we do have a scheduled special meeting, the tour for 235 South Meridian on Monday.

So just keep that on your calendars.

If anybody has any questions about that, please let me know.

All right, thank you.

We stand adjourned, thank you all.