We'd like to do it.

I think you know that's what we can do.

I have some of these.

I just think that's what I mean.

I just want to do it.

Okay.

Okay, you can't not really.

Oh, okay.

I'm just saying.

I know where.

I age B.

Okay.

The website, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yep.

Okay.

Appreciate you.

I don't have to go to the right now with that.

But thank you.

This is the easiest I've ever gotten.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good evening.

If everyone could take their seats, please.

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

We have approval of the minutes this evening.

The May minutes are in your packet.

Any corrections, comments?

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

Thanks, Mike.

Thanks, Anson.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We have no old business and no new business, so we'll move to the public hearing portion of the meeting.

And before calling the first case, let me read the or let me introduce the commission members and the staff and read the rules of procedure for this evening.

On my right is Anson Keller, Commissioner, myself, Bill Brown, President, David Baker, Vice President, Susan Williams is secretary.

Mike Bivens is our is a commissioner, and Ann Jeanette Silvilich is a commissioner.

Our staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, Chris Steinmetz, our legal counsel, Emily Jarzen, our principal architectural reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Morgan Marlejo, our architectural reviewer, and our recorder, and Carolyn Emmanacer, our architectural reviewer, and Miriam Burkhart is our preservation planner.

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

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

Anyone wanting to get notice the decision made by this commission has been appealed?

They may fill out a notification form within five days of the decision.

Those forms are available and can 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 commissioners, which is contact relating to a matter before the commission outside of this uh public hearing process is prohibited.

Each case this evening uh will be heard in the following order.

We'll first call for the applicant to make their presentation and then we'll also ask for support of that application.

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

Then I will uh ask for objections or remonstration, which will also be allowed up to a maximum of an additional 20 minutes.

Then we'll request uh staff comments and then we'll get questions from the commissioners and then the applicant will have a last word or rebuttal of up to a maximum of 10 minutes, and then I'll ask Meg for a staff recommendation before calling the first case.

If you're going to speak to any of the cases this evening, if you would rise and be sworn in by Morgan, please do that for us, Morgan, please.

Please raise your right hands for me.

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

Say I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Morgan.

All right, we have requests to withdraw, continue applications.

We have one case to withdraw this evening.

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

Uh, yes, for 2025 COA 489B, Chadamarch, Massachusetts Avenue.

Address is 409 Massachusetts Avenue, and the applicant is Justin Kingan.

Uh, if you remember that request was for a solution for the trash cans enclosure in the right-of-way, they have a solution for that, and they're asking for that request to be withdrawn this evening.

All right, so we'll note that it's withdrawn and glad that there was a solution arrived at there.

Thank you.

So we'll now move to the expedited cases.

We have two cases this evening, one of which I'll recuse myself on.

Meg, do you want to take us through those two cases?

Sure.

And just as a reminder, I'm going to ask for a vote on the COA and also a second vote for the variance.

For 2026, COA 147 Heron Morton Place and 2026 VHP 006.

Address is 1708 North Pennsylvania Street and the applicant's Julie Zent.

The request is to expand a parking lot, improve that lot.

A variance of use to allow a commercial parking lot in a dwelling district.

Variance of development standards to allow less street frontage trees than required.

And the second case is 2026, COA 156, Heron Morton Place.

Address is 2142 North New Jersey Street.

And the applicant is Melissa Ayanucci.

And that request is to construct a single family residence, a detached garage, in ground pool, and a crude law.

Alright, thanks, Meg.

Is there anyone in the commission wants to speak to any of the cases on the expedited cases?

Anyone in the public wishing to speak to either of the expedited cases?

Okay, seeing none, I'll take a motion for their approval.

Susan, thank you.

Thank you, Anneette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

And I'll be recusing myself on that on that vote.

And then we'll take a motion for the variance on the one uh one case 2026 VHP 006.

Thank you, Susan.

Get a second, please.

And Jeanette, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

And I'll be recusing myself on that vote as well.

So they both pass.

Uh thank you and good luck with your projects.

All right, we're ready to move to uh applications to be heard which have been continued.

We have one case this evening, 2026 COA 054 Heron Morton Place, address 1933, North Talbot Street.

Nicole Quint and Brock Jackson are the applicants.

So please come forward, state your name and address, and present your case to us this evening.

Nicole Quint, 1933 North Talbot Street.

Let's see.

So we are seeking approval to expand our 2.5 garage into a three-car garage with a carriage house.

Um we have supported a letter of Bob Bosney, the council of district 12 has supported a letter on our behalf.

Um since our last meeting, we have incorporated the changes that are recommended by staff.

These include removing the decorative siding on the west wall, which was only visible from, which was not visible from the street, was only visible from the back of the home.

Um we have enlarged the dormer as requested.

We've also created more gradual 10 transition or a step out from the addition to the existing building by moving the new addition one foot closer to the alley as requested.

Uh we've made several significant modifications from our original design, and feedback has been received throughout the process.

After careful consideration of recommendations, we are going to kind of hold firm on this current design and looking for approval to move forward.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Ready for a staff comment then, Morgan, please?

Uh staff believes the applicant has addressed the majority of the commission's comments and concerns from the previous IHPC hearing, and staff is recommending approval of the request, and I can answer any questions that you guys may have.

Alright, thank you, Morgan.

Questions from the commission?

Everybody good?

Okay.

Uh, any final comment from the applicant?

Nope, looking forward to build.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, Meg, ready for staff recommendation, then please.

For 2026 COA 054 Harry Morton Place, staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to convert a two-car garage into a three-car carriage house per the nine stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Could I get a motion for the staff recommendation?

Is read, please.

David, thank you.

I get a second, Mike, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Okay, we will now move to applications which are new this evening.

Uh, the first case is 2026 COA 009 ransom place and variants 2026 VHP 008, address 1010, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street, Joe Calderan is the applicant.

And I'm gonna see a substitution for Joe because I don't see Joe.

So name and address, please.

Good evening, uh, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

My name's Chris Greisel.

I'm a partner at Barnes and Thornberg, 11 South Meridian, substituting for my colleague Joe Calderon tonight.

Uh, and we're happy to be before you here representing the applicant super jams to LLC.

I have members of the um Super Jams team here as well as the construction and civil engineer here to answer any questions that you may have.

We apologize that we weren't able to get the presentation before you up on the screen, but we did pass out materials before the meeting.

You have a copy of the PowerPoint and application packet, as well as some enlarged uh photos of the site plan and renderings, which we'll uh walk through throughout this presentation.

Uh we're before you here this evening to request a certificate of appropriateness and a variance of the development standards to facilitate the redevelopment of 1010 Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street as a grocery store.

We were here before the commission in February for a preliminary review of this redevelopment opportunity where the commission and staff provided great feedback, all of which uh has since been addressed, and we'll discuss that later on in the presentation.

We're back before the commission last month in May, where the commission approved the rezoning required for this proposed redevelopment, which has since been recommended for approval to the City County Council by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission.

The certificate of appropriateness includes a site plan containing a proposed uh commercial building and related improvements as well as the architectural design of the building.

The variance uh is to allow the building to be placed one foot from the right-of-way on the eastern side of the property along Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street, which is consistent with the property to the north, the apartment building, and we'll get into further details of that.

If you want to flip to page three of the PowerPoint, there's a nice kind of overview layout of the parcel, which, as the commission knows, is currently on a vacant lot on the northwest corner of uh 10th and Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

It was last used as a service station that was demolished in the early 2000s.

So we're excited about the opportunity to provide the city with a meaningful uh redevelopment opportunity here tonight.

On page uh five of the PowerPoint, and also included in your enlarged materials, you'll see the depiction of a site plan, and we're seeking approval to construct a one-story commercial structure at the southeast corner of the parcel.

The grocery store building is approximately 7,120 square feet.

There are approximately 18 parking spaces along the western edge of the property with various landscaping around the project site.

If you turn to page six, you'll notice that both of the curb cuts for this proposed project are existing today, but we're not modifying any curb cuts.

There's an existing curb cut along 10th Street and along uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

The entrance uh on 10th Street is a left-in, left out access only, so it'll flow with the natural traffic pattern along 10th Street.

Based on comments and feedback from the commission and staff, the developers agreed to make the curb cut on Martin Luther King Jr.

Street a right in, right-out, exit only.

So again, that'll uh flow with the natural traffic pattern uh going south down Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

Parking on the site uh currently meets the ordinance requirements and the required setbacks.

The parking lot is positioned on the western side of the lot with 18 parking spaces, and this proposal contains the required landscaping and screening.

You'll notice in the northwest corner of the site plan, there is a proposed uh dumpster enclosure that will be installed and screened.

On the southeast corner of the project, there are bicycle racks that have been provided convenient right along the store entrance.

Sidewalks are present on both uh frontages, and there will be marked pedestrian pathways to the store.

Indigo has requested uh that the developer install a larger bus stop pad uh near the existing stop, which is uh currently on Martin Luther and King Jr.

about halfway up uh the project site building location, and the developer has agreed to do that as well.

If you turn to page seven, you can get a better understanding of the uh landscape renderings.

And as I mentioned before, the landscaping meets all the applicable requirements to date.

There's a combination of various deciduous and evergreen shrubs along with ornamental grasses that have been placed both along the building as well as the parking site.

With respect to the building design, um the building design uh has certainly evolved uh since getting original commission and staff feedback back in February and even before then.

If you look at page nine of the elevations, that that's perfect right there.

You can see that the elevations of the building are certainly less top heavy than what they were originally presented.

There's a flat form roof that's segmented by pilasters with decorative brick detailing.

On page 10, there's a rendering that depicts all the windows that are now transparent.

Previous iterations of the design plans had spandrel glass and clair story windows that have based on feedback since been removed.

So now we have clear and transparent glass throughout.

You'll also notice that the developer has agreed to clip the southeast corner of the building to comply with the clear site triangle regulations, so we're no longer in need of a variance with respect to that issue.

The project now includes all brick masonry.

The glass materials, as I mentioned, are more authentic, and the individual letter wall signage, which is included in that depiction before you.

With all the adjustments made by the developer, the building should now be considered compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood.

On page 12, and also in your enlarged pictures, you'll see a depiction of the intended floor plan.

Just a few things that I'll point out here.

Starting from east side of the building and kind of working our way around.

We have the aisles of the grocery store lined out throughout.

There is a freezer in the northeast corner of the site plan.

And then going from east to west, you have restroom, storage, office, and a cooler.

There are three entrances and exits into the building, the main one being at the southeast corner of the building.

There's also an entrance on the southwest side as well as the northwest side of the building.

With respect to the variance matters, again, we've worked with staff to make significant changes to the building.

As previously mentioned, the developer has agreed to clip that southeast corner of the building to provide for the clear site triangle compliance, which has eliminated our need for a variance with respect to that issue.

So our only variance request before you tonight is simply to deal with the building setback on the east side of the development.

If you want to reference the site plan going back to page five, it shows a one-foot setback from Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

As the commission knows, the ordinance allows the minimum requirement front setback to be reduced to the average setback derived from the established front setbacks of the lot to either side of the subject property.

But because this is a corner lot, the average is derived from the established front setback of the nearest improved lot to the north, which is right on the right-of-way line.

So it's about zero to one feet.

And the setback established by the ordinance, which is 10 feet.

So the average of the two is a five foot setback.

The developer is maintaining that five foot setback from the 10th Street right away.

And as previously mentioned, they've cut a portion of the building on the southeast corner to meet that clear site triangle.

So this request to permit a one-foot setback on the east side of the property, is consistent with the apartment building to the north, and it allows the developer to maintain and maximize parking to the west.

We believe that the variance request meets the required findings for a variance because adequate site distance from the certificate of appropriateness and the setback will be compatible with other buildings on the development standards.

This rep recommendations based on many design changes that the development team has made in response to the various thoughtful comments that have been generated through the commission and staff interactions.

And we believe we've the developer has certainly taken those comments very seriously, and we hope you see that they're reflected in the plans before you here this evening.

With respect to the neighborhood engagement, we had a virtual meeting with Ransom Place Neighborhood Association on April 29th.

At that time, the neighborhood requested zoning commitments, which would prohibit certain uses, and uh we all agreed to that prohibited use list, which we included in our zoning packet last month that was before the commission, uh, before your approval.

With respect to traffic, uh, which has certainly been the largest point of contention uh from the neighborhood, we've provided all pertinent information to DPW, and our proposed use does not meet DPW's threshold of proposed traffic to warrant a traffic impact study.

So DPW uh is not requiring a traffic study, nor are they requiring any additional improvements to be made to the site due to any proposed uh traffic.

The packet that I provided to you tonight uh contains our traffic consultant's opinion regarding the redevelopment and proposed use of the site.

In the report, our consultant's opinion was that when the traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed grocery store is compared to the traffic on the adjacent roadway system.

The proposed store will not have a detrimental impact on traffic due to various factors, including the new trips estimated to be generated by the grocery store are projected to increase daily traffic by only approximately two percent.

The total volume of traffic that will be generated by the grocery store will be reduced by those pass by trips for those who are traveling and stopping into the grocery store uh to buy groceries, and then the access drives on the store provide flexible and efficient access to the store with limited impact on the adjacent roadways.

Any grocery store traffic will be distributed to the area roadways through the two proposed access drives on both 10th Street and Martin Luther King Jr.

Street again.

10th Street is a left-in-left out to coordinate with the flow of traffic, and the development team has agreed to make Martin Luther King Jr.

restricted to right in, right out access only again to flow with the traffic.

The adjoiner to the West uh wrote in that the site cannot handle truck traffic.

The development team's uh civil engineer uh ran an auto turn program with the largest truck servicing the site, and there are no irreconcilable conflicts.

So, with all the information that we have, we believe that the trucks are going to be able to service the site without issue.

So, with that, we feel any concerns regarding traffic uh have been mitigated by thoughtful planning and commitments made by the developer to improve traffic flow, and certainly we don't believe that the proposed use will detrimentally impact traffic.

So, in closing, uh the proposal has evolved and has addressed what the developer believes have been all comments and concerns raised by commission and staff to date, and based on these comments have made significant changes for the betterment of the project.

The proposed project should now be considered to be compatible with the ransom place conservation district plan as well as the existing built environment.

We're proud to have obtained staff's positive recommendation tonight on both the certificate of appropriateness and the request for variance of the development standards.

And with that, we thank you for your time and consideration throughout the entire process and respectfully seek your approval tonight.

Um, after everybody has spoken, we have members of the development team construction team civil engineer team, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Alright, thank you.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Okay, anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance, please uh come forward one at a time.

Uh name and address, please.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Candice Offitt, and my address is 847 North California Street.

I am the president of the neighborhood association, Ransom Place Neighborhood Association, and I am a fifth-generation resident of the neighborhood.

I want to begin by clearly stating that our opposition is not rooted in resistance to development or lack of interest in neighborhood serving retail.

Ransom Place has consistently supported thoughtful, well-planned investment, projects that strengthen walkability, preserve our historic character, enhance safety, and support long-term residential stability.

We welcome development that aligns with those values.

However, we have significant concerns with this particular proposal.

First, we have traffic and safety at 10th and Martin Luther King.

It's already a major issue.

The intersection is one of the most congested in downtown Indianapolis.

Residents regularly experience long backup, extended signal wait times, and dangerous turning conditions.

This is driven by a combination of interstate access traffic, hospital traffic, freight movement, and commercial vehicles, and now the closing of the 16th Street Bridge.

Introducing a high traffic commercial use at this location, especially one that adds new curb cuts and turning movements will further strain and already stress intersection.

Residents have noted inconsistencies with prior decisions along this corridor where curbs were cut and discouraged or removed for safety and aesthetic reasons.

We believe this proposal warrants the same level of scrutiny and consistency.

Second, we are concerned that no updated traffic study has been required.

The traffic conditions have significantly changed since 2022, and I think that's when the last one was done, and reliance on outdated or pandemic era data does not reflect current realities.

Additionally, the closure of the 16th Street Bridge will divert even more traffic into our neighborhood for at least the next 24 months.

Given these factors, we strongly believe that a comprehensive current traffic study should be required and publicly shared before any approval is considered.

It is also important to note that there is an existing location of super jams a little over 2.5 miles from the proposed site.

Given that proximity, it raises question about the necessity and appropriateness of introducing another high-impact location in such close range, particularly within a historic residential neighborhood that has very different characteristics and expectations than a more commercial corridor.

In the original letter, I included pictures of the 16th Street location and items such as bright neon lights hanging in those clear windows now that they're proposing, large cigarette advertisements, hanging flags, LED signs, and exposed trash containers to show how their closest location looks and how it does not fit into the historic character and atmosphere of our neighborhood.

Third, there are serious concerns about compatibility with the surrounding historic residential neighborhood.

The current site design appears oriented towards high volume automobile driven and more consistent with highway commercial development than an urban historic district.

Residents are also concerned how the business will operate on a daily basis based on the current plans.

It is unclear how delivery trucks and service vehicles will safely access and maneuver the site.

The limited space raises real concern about congestion, safety, and overall functionality.

In addition, the proposal includes a 24-hour operation.

This is a significant concern for our community surrounding businesses in the area closed for some period of time, and we do not believe a 24-hour operation is appropriate in historic residential neighborhood.

Around-the-clock activity can introduce increased noise, light pollution, loitering, and public safety concerns, ultimately impacting residents' quality of life.

We also have questions about the environmental history of the site and prior remediation efforts.

Residents are simply asking for transparency so that the community can better understand any remaining risks and limitations of service issue associated with the redevelopment.

I want to emphasize again, we are not opposed to redevelopment of this site.

Many residents would welcome a thought, a thoughtful design project, one that is appropriately scaled, pedestrian oriented, and aligned with the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

There's an opportunity here to do something that contributes positively to a long-term health of this corridor.

Based on the information currently available, we do not believe this proposal adequately addresses the real concerns around traffic safety, site design, neighborhood compatibility, operations, and transparency.

For these reasons, the Ransom Place Neighborhood Association respectfully requests denial of the proposal development at 1010, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

Oh, you're talking to me.

Yes.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Paula Brooks um addresses 948 Camp Street.

Thank you.

As well as 1042, Dr.

Martin Luther King Street.

And I passed out a letter and some attachments or exhibits concerning the traffic study.

We believe that the petitioner intentionally manipulated the data, the data that was used to determine whether or not a waiver was given was during 2022, during the height of COVID when the traffic counts were depressed.

And in this letter, you'll see that in 2023, there was a 30% increase in the traffic volumes.

Right in, right out.

There's a blind spot there, there's a residential driveway there that is used by everyone in that block.

Death, given the number of accidents on that block, the MPO has designated that block as a high injury network corridor.

There has been a 200% plus increase in accidents since 2022.

And I want to make sure that everyone has a lot of time.

Thank you.

Oh, and the last thing I'm asking for a stay until DPW um responds for the request for a review of their decision because there's a decision is not meeting their standards at all.

Okay, thank you.

Next, please.

Uh name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Carlette Duffy.

I live at 1329 Fall Creek Parkway East Drive, historic Flint House neighborhood.

Dear Commissioners and IHPC staff, Medic is the umbrella community association for this area.

We support the views of each of the three neighborhoods under the umbrella.

This proposed site has been subject to several different development proposals over the years.

However, the main issue remains the same, which is the traffic.

It is one of the most dangerous intersections in the city.

We have had car accidents when cars were sent in the air into the backyard of property owners on Fayette Street, as well as many accidents at the corner of 10th and MLK, Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

The only appropriate development would be a pedestrian only type of business.

Green space or possibly overflow track parking for the existing businesses and apartments.

IHBC, IHPC has to not only follow the plan for an area, but it needs to make sure a project or change will not be detrimental to the area and have a negative impact.

If you have a plan in place, it is not only important to maintain the history and character of a design or of a designated area, it is important to maintain positive elements in the area and only allow developments that would uphold standard.

A business that proposes 24-hour operations, neon bright lights, and highway gas station appearance without pumps is not appropriate for a community that is made up of three historic neighborhoods.

This is not only the historic character of Ransom Place, Historic Flutterhouse Homes or Fayette Street.

It is it is actually a slap in the face to the distinguished hard-working educated neighbors neighborhoods that make this community shy.

There are three full service named brand grocery stores that serve this community.

There is a Kroger, Needlers, and Whole Foods within 10 minutes of each of the neighborhoods.

Also a funding dollar, which is has a complete pantry, dairy, and frozen food products within a five-minute walk.

This community is not in a food desert.

Super Jams is not a business that is needed and it will not enhance the community.

It will actually have a negative impact on the community by increasing potential crime and negatively impacting property values.

The property values across the three historic neighborhoods currently range from approximately 200,000 to 400,000 plus.

We do not want to see this community be impacted by the wrong type of development.

IHPC should not want that either.

We ask that this proposal be denied.

This letter was prepared by the secretary because the medic president was required to recuse herself.

It is being entered into the record and read by Carlette Duffy, a resident of Historic Flairhouse Homes.

Sincerely, Lindy Montgomery, Medic Secretary, Historic Fayette Street, 906 Fayette Street.

I would also offer that since the development and opening of the split, all traffic from Westbound 70 that could previously exit on Pennsylvania to go to downtown areas now has to exit at this particular uh corner.

So a traffic study from DPW that incorporates the added traffic from the Westbound 70 flow and also now with this building within the closing of 16th Street would definitely be needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

My name is Meg Starrow, 576 East Vermont Street, Indianapolis.

I'm here representing the Massive Cultural District and supporting the historic neighborhoods, but I also wanted to make sure the applicant knew that NDOT has issued a request for qualifications to hire an engineer to redesign the monster bridge, it's called the Meridian Street Bridge, and that interchange.

So it's likely that as soon as that engineer has his drawings approved, that whole area will be shut down for two to three years.

Just wanted to make sure that was in the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

Yes, I'm uh Matt Brown, 9563, Irishman's Run Lane, Zionsville, Indiana.

I'm here representing Westside Development.

West Side Development owns the four-acre shopping center immediately west of the proposed location for Super Jams.

Um, I was the one that wrote in about the 18 wheelers and the box trucks having difficulty.

And uh I want to at least address the issue.

An 18-wheeler requires a 50-foot inside turning radius, and that is not able to be accomplished on the site plan without crisscrossing lanes.

So, with that being said, the other thing I want to talk about, the biggest issue is, you know, Vop came to me about six years ago requesting he couldn't get across the street with his family to the shopping center that we own.

And uh, and so he wanted a a traffic signal at our westernmost entrance onto 10th Street, which solved that problem, but that's six to eight hundred feet west of this location.

And if you could only imagine a car exiting on the southbound and trying to get across two lanes to turn right to get onto Dr.

Martin Luther King, after a whole people have gone through several traffic signals at Martin Luther King, it's just not a good idea.

It's not practical.

Um, it's it's gonna cause additional congestion to an already uh dangerous intersection.

Uh I don't know if the current building um is still underparked, but um, given the fact that we own the shopping center, and and you could even look on the site plan that you've got the the servers at Lincoln Park on the very west side of this uh uh of this proposed location, and uh I'm just concerned if if you're underparking a site and it's busy, um, they're gonna park on our property.

And if you're having difficulty getting an 18-wheeler in and out of this product property, I know what they're gonna do.

They're gonna park on my property, and that's gonna cause problems.

So I uh earnestly ask that uh the commission deny this request.

Thank you.

Oh thank you.

Uh name and address, please.

We've got about uh three minutes.

I can do it.

My name is Lynn Johnson, 923 North California Street, which is half a block away from this proposed location.

I echo everything in virtue that Ms.

Ovis has said.

I don't think I need to go through those comments about traffic, which you have heard extensively.

I don't think one thing has been mentioned very well, and that is that this is a major intersection for ambulances to move through, and now we have the is it called health care corridor that's just just to the east of this, which impinged on this, which makes it a good site, perhaps.

But we've seen so many ambulances trying to get their way through here and not able to because of traffic, even as it is today that we don't need to see anymore.

Um the nature of this building with the bright lights being a 24-hour thing and uncovered trash that we see at the other locations is a major concern, and the complete absence of need given the other places that we have for groceries makes me think this is not a benefit to the neighborhood, which the neighborhood needs.

We have other groceries, and there's not a need that needs to be addressed here.

The 24-hour nuisance is a great concern because I know that people will be increasing foot traffic in front of and behind my house, and probably increasing automobile traffic in front of and behind my house day and night, 24 hour seven.

I would like to extend the statement.

I'm not uniformly opposed to development of that corner.

It needs to have something, no doubt.

But it seriously doesn't need to have this, and I'm surprised that a developer feels like it would be a good place for store, and I would be appalled to think that the commission would feel like the traffic would really allow that to be a safe and reasonable thing to do.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh name and address, please.

Got about a minute, minute and a half.

Thank you.

I'm Steve Nelson, 839 Paker Street.

Um, I do live in this neighborhood.

I'm gonna just keep it brief.

Um, I don't agree with this um proposal for the scroll store again, like what everyone else is saying.

Um, just today I drove here from work and traffic as a nightmare right now.

This is going to double that issue and problem.

Um, we also have a high school over there, there's also kids around, believe it or not, that are in this area that would increase the danger for them.

Um also for just the residents of this neighborhood.

I just don't believe this is business is a good fit.

Um, like um one of my she said, um, we're not opposed to any development, but I just don't think this particular one will be right for my neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have just a few minutes.

We'll suspend the time for Councillor Osley.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

President, members of the commission.

Uh Vop Ossilly, um, District 12 City County Councillor.

This particular site is in my council district.

I'm I'm here in support of the residents of Ransom Place and the Ransom Place Neighborhood Association in their opposition to petition uh 2026 COA 009 and VHP 008.

Concerning this property located in 1010 Martin Luther King.

The their concerns are well founded and rooted in lived experience and directly tied to the preservation of both the character and the day-to-day livability of this historic neighborhood.

Ransom Place is already bordered by two of the most heavily traveled uh corridors in the urban core, West 10th Street and Dr.

Martin Luther King Street.

And these roadways routinely experience congestion, high vehicle speeds, and complex traffic patterns and traffic movements associated with hospital access, downtown commuting patterns, and regional through traffic.

Neighbors have consistently raised concerns about safety, cut through traffic, and the cumulative impact of incremental development on streets that are already overburdened.

The this proposed project would introduce additional vehicle movements onto both 10th Street and MLK Junior Street, two corridors that are operating at or beyond their functional capacity, any increase in turning movements, curb cuts, or driveway access along these arterial risks, compounding existing congestion, and further degrading safety for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and residents who rely on these daily.

These concerns are not speculative.

They reflect long-standing traffic challenges in this area.

Ransom Place is one of the of one of Indianapolis's most historically significant African American neighborhoods, and its preservation depends not only on architectural stewardship, but also on maintaining a safe, stable, and livable environment for current residents.

The neighborhood's request is simple and reasonable, that development within the district respect the constraints of its transportation network and avoid introducing new hazards or burdens that undermine the community's quality of life.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the commission to give substantial weight to the concerns raised by Ransom Place Neighbors and the Ransom Place Neighborhood Association, and to deny the petitions as submitted.

Their position reflects a thoughtful commitment to both preservation and public safety.

And I thank you.

Thank you, Counselor.

And we have just a little more time.

Anyone else switching to speak in remonstrance?

I just wanted to follow up.

Carlette Duffy, 1329, East Fall Creek, Fal Creek Parkway, East Drive.

So just this past week, as a reflect as a in regarding the semis.

Um there was a semi that came off of the highway and had to go to the middle lane of 10th street in order to make that right-hand turn onto MLK.

Because it was at nine o'clock in the morning and it was heavy traffic.

Um there was a pedestrian that had to back every car up in order for it to turn right, because the it was going to hit the car that was there in front, and that car couldn't back up.

So that's something that's going to be an issue if this is not um at least investigate now thank you thank you okay we're virtually out of time here so I'm gonna go to staff uh comment shelby do you want to offer your thoughts about the case please yes so this evening staff is recommending approval um for the uh requested new construction site improvements as well as the setback variance um in regards to the traffic study um we did speak with DPW about the site and the proposal um and the uh proposal does not meet their minimum requirement for a traffic study and they did not express concerns otherwise to staff um and so we're just deferring to that on their determination um and I can otherwise answer any questions okay shelby thank you uh questions from the commission please no yeah go ahead questions from the commission answer please go ahead yep um this site uh was a since uh the 40s I think was a filling station um and then that was torn down around 2006 so for the past 20 years the site has been vacant is that correct to my understanding yes that's correct has the site been remediated of the filling station tanks and contamination um I'm if the development team would like to come up here and speak come on yes yeah you'll need to come to the podium and state your name and address please.

Yes my name is Paul and I'm the owner of Super Gems and I'm just here to uh answer a question that yes the tanks have been removed and the side is clear site and uh the phase one and phase two did come clear we have the study.

Thank you.

Go ahead and um I I think I I just have uh a couple of concerns about the design but the I think there are problems here that are larger than a single site um can take responsibility for I think the problems have come from you know the bifurcating our cities with interstates uh you know in the mid-century and that's not something that we can burden a single site with I think uh it is unfortunate that you know everything kind of coalesces right here for you know the exit and and when what uh West Street was extended to the interstate in the 70s um that didn't help anything for for your neighborhoods and I do empathize with the the neighborhood as far as their um their problems at this intersection because it's it's not uh an ideal uh traffic plan by any means um but but again I'm not sure that we can as a commission burden a single site with all of the traffic problems of the neighborhood um I do think that the the design has come a long way since the original uh um implementation uh I think that there's nothing that I would really see that would say that it's inappropriate um historically I wouldn't I have some concerns about the this it's a five-sided building design um and the side that is most prominent has the least uh detailing and the least um amount of uh design attention and I think that that's a mistake I think the the side that is the shampered corner that faces um both streets and is that the most visible probably needs a little bit more attention design wise I'm not really sure why the pilot pilasters were um uh omitted from that facade and and the the additional brick detailing um some of the there's some other things that I think are smaller.

Like I'm not a huge fan of the the utility brick at the base um as a is a change of material I I don't think it's effective.

I think you could do better with like uh maybe a um a change of coursing or something, but uh as far as the the size, just changing the size, I think that it it just is gonna look strange, but that's just a small design critique.

I'm not sure there's anything else though that I could say damages or is deleterious to the historic character of the neighborhood.

Um I think that uh you know a 7,000 square foot grocery store probably isn't gonna have the impact of you know, say the the shopping center to the west.

And uh you know, like I said, to say single out a single property owner and make them responsible for all the traffic problems.

I'm just not sure that that's uh a decision that we can make as a historic commission.

Um so I think those are my comments and yeah.

Thanks, Hansen.

Other comments from the commission, Susan, please.

Yes, um I agree with what you're saying about making them responsible for the circumstance, but the circumstance does exist, and we we think about rush hour uh it's always rush hour at that intersection because of shift changes in hospitals and all the stuff that that goes on.

I've been there dip many times of the day and it it's the same.

It doesn't nothing changes.

Um my feeling is that they're not gonna create as much traffic as one of the bigger stores or whatever, but I fear for the safety of their um patrons and the pedestrian uh piece, thinking about that is I can't even imagine anybody wanting to cross that street or being able to cross that street.

So that's a problem for me.

A bigger problem is that um I visited the location on 16th Street, and um putting it kindly, um, it's not neighborhood friendly.

And I don't know um of course the signage and so forth is uh absolutely not something that belongs in a in a residential neighborhood or historic district, but it was it's just the general look of the place and the general way that business is being conducted there that I think um we we need to think about.

I don't know what to say about that, other than it I would have to hear a lot more about a lot of things before I agree that this is something that's going to enhance the neighborhood.

Um the pedestrian concerns, the safety of the drivers, um, the delivery trucks, and the and the one point that I thought was pretty amazing as I sat here and thought about it is if the traffic study was done during COVID, how valid can it be in today's circumstance?

And I I think that's a legitimate issue and probably the most profound one that we've heard tonight um as we think about it.

You know, we hear 2022, and but I didn't put those two things together, and I think that's a very important piece that we need to um consider very carefully.

Thank you, Susan.

Other comments from the commission?

Yeah, Angette, please.

Um, was your client aware that they were gonna be doing can um road construction in that area in the next couple of years?

Are we aware of that?

Yes, yes, okay.

Um, because I have seen um they're working on I think it's the red line now out on the east side.

I have seen so many businesses closed just because of that.

Um and I'd hate to kind of see a brand new um facility going in and then the construction coming right behind it and everything kind of falling apart on them.

Um I agree with everything that Anson has said, and um also with what Susan has said about the traffic study.

Thanks, Angelette.

Other comments, questions?

Mike, go ahead, please.

I have a question not about traffic, but rather the uh, excuse me, the the lighting and the overall uh upkeep of the property.

One of the things that excuse me, one of the things that I think uh that I'm picking up from the other stores, that the glare coming from the building would be uh not good for uh vehicular traffic right uh against the uh that site.

So has the applicant thought about light levels, uh glare, nighttime light shielding, things like that to prevent light trespass.

Yes, since the one second, before you answer, can I get your last name and your address, please?

Uh my address is 10534 Oak Bend Boulevard in Annapolis, Indiana 46239.

My name is Paul Moheet Kumar.

All right, Paul, let Mike finish and then we'll let you let you answer.

Go ahead, Mike.

Just real quick, the other question I had was the the items like the um, I'll call them temporary advertising signage kind of stuck to the outside of the building and the ice machine.

Are those things that are planned for this site?

Yes, so the answer to this question would be that the location on 16th Street, it's in a different neighborhood, and they didn't require at that time um everything that's been changed according to IHPC.

If you look at the building in the in the PowerPoint, that there's no signs at all.

Everything is engraved, there's no lightning exterior, it's way different.

It's not the copy of the design that I have on 16th Street to here, it here is actually uh what it's been asked, and it's been adjusted by my contractor and the IHPC uh people.

It's not the same location, it's not going to be the same location.

It's gonna be completely different in construction, and everything will be under whatever is approved from IHPC, as far as the signage and the lightning goes.

Right, are there going to be any kind of vending machines or ice machines?

No, not outside, not at this location.

Okay.

Yeah, we're gonna have an indoor freezer for that.

Okay, thanks, Mike.

Any other comments?

David, please.

Well, I'm struggling with it because of all there's probably absolutely no use that could ever go on this site that isn't gonna be a traffic problem.

That doesn't justify it, it's just a dilemma because I can't even imagine anything other than a park where everybody would say, Oh, it's not gonna be a problem.

Um I also have not heard really any uh problems with the other than the front door with the architecture of the building per se or anything like that.

Uh we hear a lot about the traffic, which is absolutely legitimate, and also about the business itself, and that makes me a little uncomfortable.

Um sitting in judgment of how a business is run.

On the other hand, uh having worked on the staff of the commission for three decades before I did this, um, one of the continuous problems we were always having and probably still are, are businesses that all of a sudden we get calls because they've slapped all kinds of neon signs and uh banners and stuck machines out front and all that sort of thing.

Um remind me, staff, um, if, for instance, this got approved, uh, the way it is, um, and and I will admit I've never been to a super jams.

I did see the photographs that were provided us, and it's pretty messy.

Uh and you've seen the photographs.

Maybe I don't know, staff.

Have you been to uh Super Jams?

Or just looked at the photos?

We saw the photos.

Okay.

If that started to show up, do our guidelines address that.

So, yes, we do review some signage and rates in place, being a conservation district.

I don't have the exemptions pulled up right in front of me, but any like extrenuous signage, things like that, might be also a zoning code issue.

And then I think the ice machines and that sort of thing would also be probably considered outdoor operations, which I don't believe is allowed in C3.

So that would be not only something that we would need to review, but then would be the signs attached to the inside of a window, maybe not.

So I believe the parameter is within two feet of a window, it's considered outdoor signage.

So if it's within that distance of a window, it would still be subject to review as outdoor.

I was going to ask the applicant, but in a sense, he's already responded to how they're planning on managing, even though I'm not comfortable judging how a business is managed, because we approve a commercial building anywhere that can be sold, and the next owner could not be a good business runner.

Uh person who doesn't run a good business.

So I don't think I have anything else to thank you, David.

I'll offer a few comments and then we'll uh get some uh response from the applicant here.

Um, you know, I guess a couple questions for you to think about and answer is the you know the 24-hour aspect of this is I think a legitimate concern.

I know that uh, you know, that the 24-hour use in convenience stores and gas stations does in fact create a challenge for neighborhoods, and would like to know if there's ultimately any flexibility uh with that.

Uh certainly all of this signage is gonna be a really important piece that uh is somehow controlled, either through uh, you know, sort of stipulations easements or whatever's needed, so that it does not look like what is it 16th street.

That's just not going to be acceptable whatsoever.

I would also add, you know, the the comment about uh the RFP that is out for NDOT is in fact very real, and uh my understanding is that they're gonna be looking at this intersection pretty significantly relative to the traffic, whether this is part of that project or their project or not, uh they're trying to solve uh this intersection and this traffic in a way that is going to hopefully relieve things significantly.

Uh that process is gonna certainly take some time and its construction will take some time, but I believe they're going to be addressing this in a much more aggressive manner than uh than what's been thought about uh in the past.

Uh I don't know specifics, but I know enough to know that they're at least trying to think about separating traffic and doing a number of things that is gonna I think improve the 10th and 11th street intersection with the interstate in a way that's gonna presumably solve uh the traffic.

Uh they're well aware of the problem uh in the neighborhood, and so I just at least my understanding is that that's going to get addressed.

Uh that doesn't solve it, you know, relative to tonight, but ultimately, as that is being considered over the next couple of years, I believe this is going to get addressed.

Um relative to the architecture of the building, I I do feel like there needs to be a better solution at the corner.

You know, whether there's the whether the small canopy gets to be, you know, a more pedestrian scaled kind of canopy across the across the corner, sort of addresses the front of the building and makes it feel like it's an entrance.

I know there was a comment made about not having an entrance on on uh excuse me, Martin Luther King, but the corner entrance is going to be addressing both uh streets.

I just think it needs to be more pronounced and and clear that we're really trying to relate to the pedestrian aspect, notwithstanding Susan's comment about you know the it's not a super pedestrian-friendly environment right now.

You would like to hope that as this intersection gets resolved from a vehicular standpoint that that might be able to change uh in the in the future.

Certainly, you know, the signage is really um really concerning when you look at the photographs and you go by the 16th Street uh facility.

It needs, you know, I don't know if the branding you know has to be exactly the same or whether there's an opportunity to do a slightly different brand treatment versus you know orange and red and things that are sort of big and bold and all that kind of thing.

So I know that we're trying to uh approve signage this evening, but it might be in the interest of the applicant to maybe revisit the signage with the staff and come back another time, which we do on many, if not most projects of of any commercial size.

Uh we end up looking at signage as a separate thing and and probably work with staff to sort of get that.

Uh I I agree with Anson's comment about the you know the pilasters and maybe the base of the building needs to be some more cast stone or some things like that to try to just get it to excuse me fit in a little bit a little bit uh a little bit better.

Um, you know, without a doubt, I certainly we we saw the number of letters, excuse me, that we received from you know the neighborhood and various organizations relative to the remonstration.

You know, at the same time, you know, this site obviously has been used as a commercial site, it's been vacant for a while.

You know, to David's point, this is a challenging site.

Um, ultimately, you know, getting some things on these properties is a positive thing.

And I know that the neighborhood has said they're not opposed to uh development, but I'm not sure what kind of commercial development is going to, you know, be the right answer here.

Putting single family residences is probably unlikely on this site, and so we're probably generating some level of traffic with some kind of commercial use.

So I think that gets to be something that I think is going to be inherent with this property.

If you fast forward and say that the traffic is solved, you know, then is this an inappropriate use?

And I think that's a reasonable question for the commission to be thinking about because we're obviously looking at now, but we're also looking at how things are handled in the future in neighborhoods.

And I do believe that there's gonna ultimately be a solution for the traffic because if there isn't, it's a bigger problem.

It's not just the problem of this project, as Anson points out.

So I I think those are my comments, and I'll turn it back to the applicant to let them have an opportunity to answer some of the statements and questions that yeah, sure we can continue.

Sure.

David, go ahead.

Um is it possible at all to tie some kind of commitments to this, um, that would uh perhaps ideally, maybe dreaming here, uh, be worked out with the neighborhood, um commitments regarding uh hours of operation because 24 hours.

Right, we've done that in the past, friendly.

So, um, and also uh the signage and how how you handle all of that and lighting, things like that.

So we have in writing some commitments.

Um I'm just a suggestion that and I think we would uh the applicant would certainly be open to it, and I'd defer to staff here because throughout the process and throughout the zoning, as you may recall, we've made some commitments with respect to signage and lighting and to address some of those elements.

So I know some of those have already been addressed, and to the extent that there's some open-endedness to some of those commitments, we can certainly look to further address those with staff.

Okay, and Anson, I think you had a question.

Go ahead, please.

Well, I that was one point that I forgot to mention was the eliminated signage on in the windows and then the advertisements in the windows or something that is an ongoing living in Fountain Square, it's an ongoing concern that I have that does have an effect on the historic neighborhood, and we I would love to see a stipulation that that the uh commitment from the owner that said that you would not do any of those things, especially in the windows.

Um, the other thing, just to mention uh uh kind of Susan's concern, um, and if that you know traffic study was done in 2020, you know, the validity of it, but I would also say that if it was done now when 65 is under construction and a lot of the southbound streets uh uh in Penn and Shelby and all those are under construction and closed.

I don't know that it would be accurate now either.

And so um to burden the petitioner with uh an inaccurate one then and an accurate one now when they have no control over that situation.

I'm not sure that's something that that would be wise, but that that's I think my final comment.

Okay, all right.

Any final comments from the commission?

Okay, I'll turn it to the applicant.

You've got 10 minutes, and uh we'll try to answer questions if you have questions for us.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you very much.

I I really appreciate your time and the the comments um from both the commission uh and from the public comments that were made.

Um we can start with traffic here.

Um, I think it was well said by a lot of the commissioners uh to the extent there's a traffic issue out in this area.

Um I think the only thing that we can definitively tell you with the information that we have is that our proposed use is not going to be a significant detriment, adding to that traffic concern.

We've been very thoughtful about those issues throughout the design process, which is why we've adjusted the right-in-right out access only to MLK, the left in, left out access to 10th Street.

Uh, and again, we're talking about 18 uh proposed parking spots, so we don't expect this to be a high volume traffic area.

Uh the traffic that would be going along 10th Street or MLK would be um potentially reduced by those folks who'd be visiting the store uh making their trips on that.

Uh but we we don't um it's not something that's out of sight out of mind for us, and so we respect the conversation and the issues that you have.

Um, the site has been vacant for a very long time, and we have an applicant in here who's ready to make a significant investment into the community with a significant use, and we're really excited to support that.

Um, and I think the applicant has worked really well with the commission and the staff to adjust the building design.

Um we appreciate the concerns that were raised by the other buildings.

I think what the applicant would tell you, and and certainly uh can tell you is that this building is separate and distinct, and the neighborhood is separate and then distinct, and we'll commit to making sure that the architectural and the renderings that you see here are going to be upheld and that the property is going to be upheld to the standards of the to the renderings that are before you here today.

Um there was some conversation about truck traffic, uh just to briefly address that.

This is not a large grocery store, just a little over 7,000 square feet.

We are not having 18 wheelers uh proposed to service this truck store uh this grocery store.

There'll be 30-foot box trucks that are currently proposed to access the site off of MLK to the northern end of the building to deliver in the storage unit, which is located on the north end of the building, and to either drive through to 10th Street or to make a circle turn around back out on the right out to MLK.

And we've performed those uh movements and and don't see any issues with that to date.

So I wanted to address that.

Uh with respect to the RFB, uh, we appreciate uh the commission bringing this up and to the commenters bringing this up.

Um we are certainly aware of it.

We know it's an issue.

Uh, even more worthwhile that you have an investor here who's ready to invest in the community despite those construction issues and those pending um detriments to the area.

Um with respect to the design building, uh, we appreciate the comments, and again, we'll look to work with you on the signage and and make some of those adjustments to the frontage.

I hope that the commission understands and appreciates the position that we're in from the start of this conversation in February, where we've made several adjustments for the betterment of the property and the project site, and we think the proposal that's before you is uh significant improvement and certainly complies with the plans that were here today.

Um Paul, would you like to come up and address um the 24-hour operation comment and the convenience store comment?

Our civil guide explaining the situation with the truck and everything.

Sure.

Yeah, that'd be fine.

Name and address, please.

Thank you.

Uh my name is John Nirzwicky.

I'm with Contour Land Group.

We're the uh civil engineer working on the on the project.

We commissioned the traffic study.

I'm at 984 Logan Street.

Um so just with respect to the truck turning uh movements.

Again, um, as was mentioned, their box trucks is what the developer has told us is going to be circulating the site.

Um, and we haven't been able to make those movements work.

We've been able to make the movements work where it stops to unload on the north side of the facility and can still allow car traffic around.

Um so we do not see uh internal circulation concerns um with that respect with respect to the um restricted uh driveways.

Uh the right in right out on MLK and the left and left out on 10th Street.

Those do comply with DPW requirements for width of restricted access points and radii.

Um we meet the site triangles for the driveways.

Um we also modified the building to meet the intersection um site distance requirements for uh the intersection.

So we are meeting code uh requirements uh as established by the city of Indianapolis DPW.

Uh we've also had um several um correspondence with um Jill Palmer, the traffic engineer for the city of Indianapolis.

Uh we've spoken at length about uh the trip generation uh for this project and it it does not meet any threshold of what would require a traffic impact study.

What that is saying is the impact is so nominal that it's not going to affect the streets surrounding.

And I know that a point was made about the increase in um traffic counts.

I believe our traffic engineer used what was publishedly published and available on Indy MPO.

Um if it's 30 percent higher, the percentage of our impact is lower.

So if we're two percent at 22,000 vehicles between 10th street and MLK combined, if it's 30,000 vehicles, our impact is even less.

It's in the one percent range.

So I understand that there may be a regional um situation here between the medical uses and the neighborhood and all of the surrounding uses.

It's it's actually um it's good to hear that there's going to be a regional study.

Um I would recommend you know, if the if the neighborhood organizations are this passionate about the traffic, then they can commission a regional traffic study.

They can speak to DPW.

I think several of them have spoken to uh the traffic engineer at Indy DPW and have gotten the same response that it isn't warranted at this location because it's going to be a nominal impact to traffic.

So wanted to clarify just a few of elements.

I am a professional engineer licensed in Indiana, so I've been closely looking at all of these design elements related to the site, and I just appreciate the concern and happy to answer any other questions that may come up.

All right, thank you.

And then you want to address the uh I was hours of operation, please.

Yes, so when I first thought about the idea of putting a grocery store at this site, one of my concerns was because I used to I have my daughter like a couple of years ago in this hospital in Skinazi in downtown, and at the nighttime I stayed with my wife a few nights, and I had to had to go get stuff for her sometimes, and I would come down, and there's nothing open after 10 o'clock.

So I thought since the traffic's actually lower after at night time, some people could actually shop and get back to their house before it actually this traffic fresh would come in in the mornings.

And uh as far as the signage and all the neon slides go, I did not start my first project in downtown.

You know, I wasn't that rich.

I started from neighborhoods in Washington Streets from Warmen to 16th Street.

I'm moving my skill way up, and as I go, I do not I do know that I I have to adapt myself to where I built.

So in this case, uh I it happened to be with IHBC, and I'm willing to make any changes that's required that makes sense that could uh possibly go wrong for the neighborhood on and and traffic I cannot touch but since my guy here just said that it's the impact is is so low that doesn't make a big difference and any other changes that could a potential effect I am willing to assign uh uh agreement with you guys and and and make any changes that's that's probably needed okay all right thank you any final uh comments then please we appreciate your time and consideration throughout this process and uh look forward to hearing all right great thank you my my sense is and I and I'd look to the commission is that we've got some architectural changes and maybe some commitment issues that we might want to continue this to the next month and then let staff work with the applicant and perhaps the applicant work maybe with the neighborhood to talk about some of these commitments and see if there could be maybe a little bit closer kind of understanding between the two.

I don't know that we'll get to an agreement but it feels to me like that may be a strategy I don't I'll look to the commission to see if that feels appropriate from everybody's standpoint.

Okay so I'll I'll take a motion then to continue the case is a month uh sufficient for you to move to the July first uh meeting I'll take a motion for that before you do that I just have one thing I want to say okay both um 2023 figures were available they just decided not to move them.

Okay well yeah that's that that's fine again I you know I wanted the other thing I wanted to say is that we're going to not be able to address this traffic issue.

I mean that's not part of our commission's responsibility we have an understanding for sure and an appreciation we know that in dot and DPW are looking at this very issue way beyond this project and I don't know how we're going to address that any differently regardless of the 22 or 23 information but thank you for making that clarification for us.

On the building looks like a travel platform we should not have yeah okay all right all right let's okay with the the the testimony is over with and thank you very much for your input but we we need to we need to close this out this evening.

Thank you.

Can I just make a no you no I no I'm sorry we just need to we need to stop we have we have certain time frames we're trying to work with try to give everybody the right opportunity and we we appreciate your your time this evening but that's I understand you had 20 minutes as well so it's I know but this is important.

Well ma'am we're we're going to continue the case till next month we'll have public testimony next month and there'll be an opportunity for you and others to speak again so it isn't over with this evening okay all right thank you.

Mr President just for clarification here are you uh making a motion to continue both action items the the variance on the setback as well as the certificate of approval I I think we have to do the variance with the case.

I I'm not hearing any real issue with the variance with the commission so and that's fair yeah I think that I think ultimately that's probably not much of an issue for you.

And with the continuation next month are we going to be just focused on the architectural and the signage again I think the traffic issue I think we've debated it heard it plenty about tonight we're not going to be able to solve that as a commission so I I think we want to look at the operational issues and the architectural issues and signage issues and I and I think if you can work with staff and also then have some dialogue with the neighborhood and maybe get to something that might might actually work here.

We'll set the traffic issue, I think, to the side because I think it's just going to be solved by other people.

I agree.

So, Meg, I think uh any com any final comments from you before I get uh move with the motion.

I think you covered it.

I just want to make sure everybody's clear that the expectation when they come back next month is to have talked through this commitment on the hours of operation.

Yes.

And so if there's any if the applicant has any questions for staff in regards to that, we can chat through that if we need to have a prepared commitment before the commission prior to the meeting.

We can also do that.

So just stay in contact with Shelby and we can talk through those things.

Yeah.

And certainly want you to hear the architectural comments as well with regard to the design.

Okay.

I'll take a motion for the continuance of the case to the July 1st meeting.

Thank you, David.

Get a second.

Thanks, Anne Jeanette.

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.

Thank you all for the testimony that uh this evening.

Thank you.

Alright, we'll uh we'll now move to the next case, which I'm gonna be recusing myself.

And so David will be handling uh handling this case, and then I will come back after that case is heard.

Please, David.

So the next case is 26.

Uh 2026 COA 009, ransom place, and 2026 VHP.

David, I got the wrong one.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

The next case is 2026 COA-057 wholesale district.

231, 235, and 239 South Meridian Street.

Jennifer Milliken is the applicant.

Will the applicant please come forward and make the presentation?

Name and address, please.

Mike Baylog, owners rep 11312 Hazledale Parkway in Carmel.

Uh we came before the commission in April to give you the initial uh overview of this project, which is at 231 and 235 South Meridian Street.

Um it's gonna be a new restaurant, bar, and live music venue.

Uh at the time, commission had asked uh who the operator was gonna be, and at the time, uh we weren't able to state it, but on April 29th, we did announce that it was going to be Opry Entertainment and Blake Shelton's uh Old Red concept.

This will be the seventh old red that'll be opened in the country.

We're planning to merge the 231 and 235 buildings into a single usable uh interior structure while maintaining the existing distinct facade appearances and cornice treatments of the three buildings.

This will help us to revitalize these historic buildings by restoring the existing facades, updating the remainder of the building, and the plans will put it into a modern use and help reposition it for the next hundred years.

This will also be a catalyst to help improve this section of the warehouse district.

If you can flip through to uh page three, so these this building, this block was originally a set of five uh single bay units, 225 through 235 South Meridian Street.

225 and 227 were demolished in the mid-20s and rebuilt as the current span company loft building at 225.

So 229, 231, and 235 South Meridian are the remaining pieces.

229 and 231 were merged into a single entity in the past.

It's been referred to both as 231 and 233, so you'll see that in different portions of the documents.

Uh portions of the interior brick divisions remain, but uh portions of them have also been knocked through.

235 is remained as a separate unit, although it may have been used jointly as each of these buildings were joined and separated at different times based on their usage.

Uh most of the buildings were built as a front section and then later added on to with a rear section that extended back to Mechanic Street now, now Cioto Street.

We're gonna uh for simplicity's sake, we're gonna refer to building 229 as building A, 231 as building B, and 235 is building C, so that we match staff comments in your report to make it a little bit easier to follow, hopefully.

In December of 1909, buildings A and B had a serious fire that caused significant damage.

Newspaper reports indicated it was used as a wholesale house and a liquor storage building.

Both water fire and also ice damage occurred to the buildings.

They were quickly rebuilt and brought back into use.

The A and B buildings also were covered in a cementitious mixture in probably the late 50s, early 60s, matching a trend that had been done to try to take older buildings into a more modern look of suburban shopping centers.

This appearance remained in the 1990s wholesale district plan report.

The image appears with this building having the concrete facade over it.

The uh facade reduced the windows, both in quantity and in size for the second and third floor, and added an entirely new storefront to the units.

We believe that the changes were removed around 1998 based on building permit dates, and we also believe that behind the paint on 231, there could be damage to the brick where the cement was attached to the brick surface.

Go to the next page, please.

On the south wall of building C was this was originally an interior wall for the majority of the unit.

So building C was built, it was later added onto.

For a few years in the late 1800s, a small portion remained as an exterior wall, but the 239 building, which was demolished in 1939, was attached here.

You can see floor joist pockets on each of the floors.

The rear section that at one point had been briefly an exterior wall, became an interior wall of a five-story addition to 239, and that was in place by 1898.

So that the entire wall for a long portion of its life has been an interior wall.

The remnants of the wood joist pockets are visible both on the main portion of it and the small portion on the X on the back, and you can see Joyce pockets on the first floor and the third floor, indicating that that building did actually attach into that.

The bricks are failing, many of them are missing, and modern windows have been cut into this wall.

Go to the next page, please.

The historic uses for this building, typically the first floors were sales offices and retail offices, and then the upper floors were typically used for storage.

They were typically bare brick walls or an industrial plaster in a couple of spaces.

The recent uses have been a bar on the first floor.

The upper floors of A and B buildings basically house the AC units and storage.

The upper floors of building C, and actually the entire building C is currently unused.

We are currently having a construction office on the upper floor there.

Passageways have been cut through these buildings at various times so that they could be used jointly with an adjoining building.

Portions of the buildings have deteriorated due to neglect on the second and third floor, and bracing is in place.

Our vision for the future is conduct convert these buildings to a productive use and maintain the character through restoring the primary front facade and extending the spirit of this facade to the south facade.

We want to change the character of the street, and this is the first of several projects.

We're making a over 40 million dollar investment in this project, keeping the character of the three unique buildings, with their upper cornices, parapets, and bringing windows and other features back in a more historic detail.

Our historic preservation architect Ashley King is going to cover the details and identify some of the changes we've made, both through taking into account your comments from our April presentation and your discussions and meetings with staff to match some of the staff's requests.

Individually, each building would need two means of egress that would result in for this particular structure, four separate stairs since buildings A and B have been functioning as one building for some time.

Four stairs takes up a large number a good bit of the available footprint of the ground floor and the usable upper floors.

This is one reason why we are proposing combining the three properties into one.

They do not meet current structural live load requirements for any most inhabited uses, especially for supporting the live loads that are required for a restaurant and event space.

Per our structural engineer, the original joy system would need to be increased in strength by four to five times and stiffened by 16 to 80 times.

As you can see in the provided package, the of regarding the existing separate regarding the existing conditions, these particular buildings have varying degrees of deterioration due to long-term water infiltration, termite damage, shoddy modifications to incorporate mechanical systems, and then also years of deferred maintenance.

Is that it's technically and economically infeasible to both repair and restrict and strengthen the systems to meet current live loads?

Therefore, we're proposing to replace the existing floor and roof structure with a new structural system.

And in order to achieve this, we're proposing to remove the south wall, as Mike mentioned, is in poor condition, along with the other interior masonry bearing walls.

Once, so I apologize if you can go to the next slide.

Once the new floor system is installed, the south wall would be rebuilt, like in kind with new bricks that match the west facade.

Unfortunately, the east facade is also in poor condition due to multiple alterations during the history of its life and again deferred maintenance.

That too would be rebuilt like in kind.

Luckily, the west facade is a little bit better condition and has gotten a little bit more love over the years.

I wouldn't say a great amount of love, but a little bit more love.

Some of the wrongs of the past.

All non-historic openings will be removed.

If you want to go to the next slide, please.

Oops, and keep on going.

Sorry.

We can go there.

Yes, so all non-historic openings will be removed.

The arched openings will be rest will be restored to the ground floor of building A by removing the existing steel beam and raising the headers.

Working with staff, we have updated our approach to the upper floor openings in lieu of the originally proposed mix of casement and hung windows.

All new upper floor windows will be wood-clad hung windows set back from the front facade approximately seven inches.

The division of lights would be similar to those found in the historic photographs.

The third floor openings will be operable, and the second floor openings will be fixed.

Similar style openings will also be inserted into the south, the south facade.

They will have square heads instead of arched openings in order to distinguish between the historic facade and a new facade, so not to create a false sense of history.

Again, working with staff, we've updated our approach to the ground floor openings.

We will remove all non-historic aluminum storefronts.

The existing wood transoms that are found on 235 will be retained and used as used as a precedent to for replacement transoms at building A and building B.

I'm sorry, 235 is building C.

Below the transoms, there will be operable wood clad bifold openings on buildings A and C, and then fixed wood clad openings of a similar style on building B.

Next slide, please.

Again, per staff recommendations.

We have updated the single entrance on building A to a pair of openings.

The pair of openings on building B remains as originally proposed, and a new pair of fixed doors will be added to building C to distinguish between all three buildings, building A pair doors and building C pair doors will be painted black.

Building B will have red doors to distinguish that as in this entrance.

All of the existing decorative eyebrows and vent frames on the upper floors will be retained, cleaned, and repaired as needed.

The ground floor cast iron elements will also be retained, cleaned, repaired as needed, and painted.

And this includes the next slide, please.

Um sorry, it uh previous slide.

Um this includes the arched uh fascia above the openings on building B and C, the cast iron pilasters, um, and columns uh on each of the buildings.

We do have a few areas where there's an existing cast iron base at a few of the pilasters.

Those remaining pieces will be used to cast new cast iron bases where missing along that facade.

Um the new arched openings on building A will receive a new metal arched facade.

Um, and again, next slide, thank you.

Um, given the commission's feedback during our preliminary hearing two months ago, we did work with Prosecco, which is a national chemical company to explore removing the paint from building A and B.

Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful after we tried a couple of different solutions and a couple of different um wait times.

Uh what the you know, building B has been painted for quite some time, as you can see in that photograph, which might have contributed to the difficulty of removing the paint.

Um therefore we are proposing to once we repair and repoint all of the facades, we are proposing to repaint building B and a red accent color in a similar vein as it exists currently today.

Building BA will get a complementary but lighter color, and building C will remain exposed brick.

So again, sort of furthering or emphasizing these as three separate buildings, and then I'm gonna turn it over to I'll try to be brief here.

Um I kind of keep score of these things, so uh just wanted to quickly go through the changes again because they they have been substantial from the first hearing we had.

Uh and they are based on working with staff, but also significantly the input that we received from the commission back in April.

Those include changing the third floor windows from casement windows to hung windows to match the historical uh nature of the the historically the nature of the windows that were there.

Um we've uh set them back seven inches to match the historic characteristics.

The south facade windows have been designed to mimic the front facade.

That's three, four.

We tested the paint, uh tried with an expert to figure out ways to remove that to restore the natural brick color.

It's just not possible.

Um the bricks are in uh are just not in good enough condition, and that the paint just can't be removed without physically damaging those bricks.

Um five, we agreed uh that building C would not be painted as was originally proposed, so the natural brick that's there will be maintained.

Uh six on the first floor, we retain and replicate the wood transoms.

Uh seven, the retain and replicate the knee wall design uh from building C.

Uh eight installed double doors on all three original buildings, nine replace single um entrance door with with a pair of doors, and then 10.

I think significantly as we've been able to uh identify that we can in fact replace that cast metal across the entire store frontage on the first floor.

Your time, the light understood.

So if you can we would be very happy to answer any questions that the commission might have is there anyone who wants to speak in support of this project?

Is there anyone who wants to speak in remonstrance?

Good evening.

My name is Mark Delassi.

I represent Indiana Landmarks.

Our address is 1201 Central Avenue in Indianapolis.

I was just sitting here listening to the presentation, thinking about the number of times I've been here before the commission.

Not that often really, but most of those about a dozen or so times were related to demolition requests.

And unfortunately, that's what this is tonight.

History is not made in a facade, history is made within buildings.

And while I appreciate the work that uh the applicant presents to you tonight, uh I believe that these buildings and the justification given through the report that they provided is inadequate at this time, that I don't believe that the entire entirety of these three buildings need to be removed for the purpose of uh one structure behind the three facades.

Um it makes me think of referencing coming to other meetings of the commission before about uh facade ectomies and or demolition requests of a request that uh came before the commission a number of years ago when Jim Kinley was uh chairing the commission for demolishing three or four buildings in the Fountain Square Historic District uh commercial buildings, that uh they were going to leave just the facades and I believe build apartments uh structure much larger than the two or three-story buildings behind it, and the commission denied that application.

Um I realize that this project that is proposed is right in the heart of our downtown, and it has advantages from an applicant willing to invest 40 million dollars into the heart of our community.

It will bring a liveliness to the downtown that we always say our downtowns need, and that our historic buildings can uh provide to a community.

Um but the loss of the historic character and and integrity of these buildings, I don't know that that's a fair trade-off as to where we are at tonight.

I think when I sit and listen to Ms.

King reference some of the things she did, I agree with some of what she's talked about and some of what's needed here, but I also think that there is still more work to do.

And so uh tonight I think what I would try to encourage the commission to consider is continuing this case for another month, uh, while further discussion and I might even suggest that Indiana landmarks may even be willing to uh fund additional uh analysis uh from a structural perspective of the buildings to see if the historic masonry uh load-bearing walls in the building can be retained and still meet the needs that that the applicant uh presents to you tonight.

So thank you for your time.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this?

Um staff.

Um, I don't have any other comments for the commission at this time other than what's in the staff report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, I've actually got quite a bit to say, but I'm going to wait.

Um, so commissioners.

Questions, comments.

Susan.

Um this is a very exciting project.

There's no question about it.

And a few of us took the opportunity to take a tour of the building, and although we're not engineers and can't evaluate structure, it certainly was eye-opening where we could walk and where we shouldn't walk, and and uh and I in the first meeting was really an advocate of uh retaining the south wall or part of the south wall, or trying not to lose that, but that it was pointed out and very evident that that brick was never meant to be exterior brick, it was interior brick.

There was a building right next to it, and the brick is failing.

I mean in terrible condition.

So that was eye-opening too for me.

Uh I just had a few um relatively small questions, and I think we've got a bigger issue, so I'm just gonna save my questions for a while to see what happens.

Anyone else?

Go ahead and see.

Thanks, David.

Um, first I just wanted uh to um start off by saying we appreciate the attention to comments that we made in in previous sessions, and um at least attempting to run those to ground.

Um I think overall the the facade um treatment is appropriate, and I don't I don't know that we're gonna find a lot of um objections to that.

The one the one comment I would make on the main facade is or at least first a question.

Um so you have hung windows on the third floor in the arched openings, but fixed on the second floor in the same openings, they're hung, so they would but they're manually fit.

They're non-operable, but they have the same dimensions and the same.

Yeah, so all third floor and all second floor openings will be hung openings, so they have that setback of the plane that you would find in a historic building just in terms of their function, how they physically functioned, only the front third floor openings will be operable.

Thank you.

That that was one of my concerns.

Uh, and I'm I appreciate that that that attention was uh paid to that.

Um one of my other major concerns is the way that the windows wrap around to the south facade.

Um you take the front uh rhythm, the front window openings and kind of wrap them around the south facade in a way that I uh it feels inappropriate to me.

It's not a facade that wrapped around to the south side, it still doesn't wrap around to the south side.

Um but you have the same window openings as you would see on on the front.

Now there are some buildings downtown that that do wrap around and they they continue the facade around the the bit the corner, um, but just having the identical window openings wrapped around to the south side um makes it feel like the rest of that facade has been stripped away.

Uh does that make sense?

The rest of the the elevation, the detail, the the uh uh headers, the sills, all those things are gone uh from that south facade.

Not that it would be appropriate to put those back in verbatim, um, but I think my point would be that you either need a different window treatment, or to make some sort of facade statement uh with detail around those windows because without that, it just looks like you punched you took some leftover windows and put them on the south from the front.

So I think those are my major concerns.

I um what's what's the the width of these lots again, the the separate buildings we're we're on record, so I'll come up here.

Um it ranges from 21 to 25 feet per building.

And the length is 100.

195 feet.

I planned a lot of businesses and and layouts of different uh kind types of um commercial uh businesses, and and I'm not really sure I could find one that would work well in a 25 by 190 foot building.

Um, this was a different type of this was built for wholesale uh and which doesn't exist anymore in in Indianapolis, and so um I I think it would we would all uh be good to remember that that the way that these buildings functioned just isn't a function that that works anymore.

The the structure doesn't work anymore as it was originally intended, and beyond that, the the deferred maintenance on these buildings has rendered them nearly inusable as as Susan kind of had mentioned on on some of that south facade.

So while I'm loath to to demolish a historic structure, um, the these aren't there's no history, there's no work of a master.

There's none of the criteria that would that would we would say um require it to be saved.

And so I think I'm in I'm in favor of most of the things caveat, you know, the the treatments that that I mentioned on the the South Facade, and I I think that'll end my comments.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Okay, I guess that leaves me.

So I'm gonna ask you to bear with me because I have quite a bit that I want to say, because I have a long history with this area, and I've done a lot of studying of the project.

Um, so I've got some notes I'm gonna read from because I wanted to make sure I hit everything and got it right.

I want to point out that I did attend that first meeting at Ratio Architects.

I'm not quite sure even now what that was about, uh, but we were not talking about the project itself, but the concept of what they were trying to get into, uh, and there was a whole lot of discussion of crime and how this was going to solve a crime problem.

Um I did attend the tour and went through the buildings, two of them anyway.

I missed the preliminary review, um, but I have since watched it online, so I watched the whole thing, heard everybody's questions and the whole thing.

So I want to start with a history lesson.

Let's go back to before Circle Center was built.

Um the project site included many historic buildings, and portions of the site were in the in the wholesale district, which at that time was on the National Register, it had been placed there in 1982.

When the city and Melvin Simon Associates were developing plans for Circle Center Mall, their intent was to clear the entire site of all buildings.

But when federal funds uh were sought to assist in the project, uh the city was then required by Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to take into account the effect of this project on historic resources.

That was done by entering into a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding how all of these historic resources would be handled.

The memorandum of agreement was negotiated between representatives of the Simon Organization, uh the um state Historic preservation Office, the city, and a consortium of three local historic organizations, but at that time, the wholesale district was not designated by the IHPC.

So the IHPC was not a party to those decisions regarding which buildings would stay, which would be demolished, which facades might be kept in place, and what facades might be moved to another location.

The advisory council had concerns that Circle Center Mall would result in indirect development pressures down the road that could affect the surviving historic commercial buildings in the surrounding National Register District.

Therefore, the city agreed to protect the wholesale district over the long haul by creating a local historic district under the IHPC.

When the IHPC completed the designation in 1990, it accepted all of those decisions that it didn't participate in, but all of those decisions about the buildings in the mall area.

And then we applied our traditional guidelines to the rest of the wholesale district.

So that brings us to today, 36 years later, and we're charged with protecting the surviving historic commercial buildings in the wholesale district from the direct and indirect influences of new development.

I'd like to comment here for a minute about the criteria, the four criteria that we use when we judge demolition.

And if we approve demolition, we need to find that one of the at least one of these base it on that.

First, the buildings pose an immediate and substantial threat to the public safety.

I don't even think we need to talk about that.

These do not second, the buildings or parts to be demolished do not contribute to the historic character of the structure or the district or the context.

I don't believe it meets that test.

These buildings are among the oldest in the wholesale district and in Indianapolis.

These buildings have a history, not just their facades.

The buildings cannot be put to any reasonably reasonable economically beneficial use for which they are or may reasonably be adapted without the approval of demolition.

Now that has been argued, but I don't buy it.

And I don't buy it because I'm going to tell you a story.

So many years ago, the four buildings on the north side of this very block were vacant for sale and in very bad condition.

I was the IHBC staff administrator at the time.

So a developer sat in my office, told me he wanted to buy them, tear them down, and build a parking lot, which in his mind was much more needed than a bunch of derelict buildings.

He then sat there and listed for me all the reasons that these buildings could not or were not suitable for redevelopment.

And we've heard them all at the preliminary hearing, we've heard them here, it was like deja vu.

Deterioration, unworkable floor plates, and the worst damnation of all, the floors don't line up.

I told him that I didn't buy his arguments, and that there was no way the staff would ever support the demolition.

He decided not to go forward, so we didn't have to fight that one.

Today, and for many years now, those buildings have been beautifully restored, and they're presently occupied by and have been for a long time by Kilroy's Bar and Grill, Meridian Lofts where people are living in them, and homeward suites.

Very successful.

Which, in the commission's opinion, is of greater significance to the preservation, that's the word, preservation, of the district than is retention of the buildings, and I am not tonight convinced that we make that.

One, the demolition of the oldest, I'm not seeing I'm not convinced that the demo one, the demolition of the oldest building serves as preservation, and two, I'm not convinced that this project is impossible to accomplish without without such radical demolition.

But more on that in just a minute here.

One, now tonight we didn't hear about crime, but we sure did hear about it at the preliminary review and at that meeting earlier.

What bothers me is the attempt to blame the buildings for their own deterioration and for the crime associated with past tenants.

This argument's wasted on me.

Poor maintenance and crime are not the building's fault.

They're solely the responsibility of the building owner who controls maintenance and leasing.

It also bothers me that what I see is a somewhat cavalier approach to the buildings.

I've seen no evidence that the owner cared anything about the buildings when they were acquired, other than their location and the land they occupy.

There's no evidence that I've seen of any effort being given to adaptively reuse the buildings or find suitable uses, but that's not why they were acquired.

They were acquired because they were in the way.

What precedent does it set for the future?

We've been told that the owner controls the building to the north of this site.

And they've told us that this is only the beginning of the owner's plans for the area.

Will it become a model for other development?

Will much of the historic districts simply become new buildings with historic facades pasted onto them?

So I don't know as we sit here how my fellow commissioners will vote on this, but you clearly don't have my vote tonight.

Since there are only five of us here, and you need all five to vote for it, um the staff's recommendation of a continuance is probably a good idea.

Now, is there any hope of getting my vote?

It's going to be difficult.

It would take radical change in the project, one that respects the buildings and their role in the context of the district.

I would need to see evidence that a real attempt was made to save more of the buildings.

Now it's not my role to design your project, but I want to just share two obvious options that come to mind that I think might be worth exploring.

The first, at the preliminary review, which I watched online, Commissioner Bivens threw out a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

He asked if you had considered retaining the front portions and removing only the later rear additions.

It was immediately dismissed.

But if you study those sandborne maps, you see that the it's the front half of those three buildings that were originally three stories.

By 1887, there was still no addition on building A, and only a one-story addition at the rear of B and C.

There could be some rationale in my mind for saving only the front half of the buildings, the oldest and original portions, for perhaps some appropriate uses, and then using the cleared rear half along with the vacant site to the south for the new music venue.

Secondly, and I'm almost done.

Something that struck me almost immediately, since your client has control over the vacant land to the south.

Could uh staff, could you hand this out?

There's enough for the commissioners and the applicant.

What I've done is a quick and dirty drawing, simply to show that the footprint you're proposing for this new building that's located behind those three facades, could be accommodated in a new building on the vacant site.

Perhaps only using building C for some of your back of house and your bar and things like that.

Rather than maintaining that gap as a for using it as a service drive-thru, which is what I heard proposed at the preliminary review, and probably the last thing that we need added to the streetscape.

So it's now time for you to have the final word, unless a commissioner has something else to say.

Um two things.

First, um, there I missed this in my initial comments.

There are some metal plates on the front facade between what was 229 and 231.

Um, so they look like they're in some of them are in varying conditions of, but they they seem to be indicated to be just staying there on the new.

Um I don't think I would support, especially the one that's all crooked, um, any of those really staying if they're not being used because they're just not part of the historic facade.

Um just uh those are uh existing brick ties that were you that are being used to sort of shore up the upper facade, and it's a sort of as a standard masonry repair response.

We can look at sort of trying to straighten them if possible during the repair of the upper facades, so they're they weren't there for signage, they were they were there to stabilize the interior masonry wall.

Yes, because they're they're connected to a tie rod that extends back into the building, and is that attached.

So yes.

Was the facade delaminating or what was the structural?

It I mean it's very typical of buildings of this age, um, especially when you have the where the fac where facades that are running parallel to the floor structure they send to peel away from um from those other facades because they're not tied in.

Um, you know, the the four joys are running north and south, and so those east-west facades have a tendency to bow, especially when alterations are made to the exterior openings that further weakens the strength of those facades, and so it's very common for them to bow out, and a typical treatment is to use various types of brick ties to kind of like essentially just sandwich and bring them back in together.

Yeah, I've done a lot of that.

Um it it seems like they chose probably the worst, the worst-looking solution that they could have shockingly, yes.

Sorry.

But any improvements that could be made to those would be uh helpful.

Okay.

The other one uh is really just more for my edification.

Uh David, you have so much more experience than you know, probably all of us in this regard.

And I'm just this is really just me trying to understand your point of view to see where I ultimately will end up.

Um I'm trying to understand uh why say the CSX building that was also historic, it was the work of a local master um as far as design goes, probably construction as well, although the the workmanship itself probably would not be considered um artisan why that building was because the structure was in far greater, uh far better condition, you know, it was far more usable as far as the floor plates go than these uh so I'm trying to understand why that building was okay to, I mean, you know, acceptable to demolish, and why the backs of these buildings that are in pretty poor condition, you know, are pretty run of the mill as far as you know design goes and and not the work of any particular um vault and master uh and the craftsmanship is neither is not something that that would be um you know hailed as as artisan either.

So a lot of those are the criteria that I that I understand to be things that that um really elevate something to uh the the historic uh designation.

So can you help me understand what the difference between those two things?

Well, and I did vote in support of that, but it was painful for me.

Um but after listening to all the testimony and looking at the evidence, um I found it in my mind it's a it's a different situation.

Um I don't want to go on forever about it, but the things that come to my mind immediately are um I think the fact that it was big compared to these smaller buildings is immaterial.

Uh in fact, that's sort of one of the problems with it.

That where that building was was just like where these buildings are, those buildings were all like like the buildings we're talking about tonight.

So that was uh uh actually not so that building was not so characteristic of the historic wholesale district, even though it was an old building, and even though you know it had some architectural merit, I also found the uh there were a lot of constraints to reusing that building that were I think real, particularly being as huge as it was.

But the fact that the this is these buildings are simple and not in good shape, uh oh my gosh, I wish I could take you in over my 35 years of going in and out of buildings along Massachusetts Avenue when they were all in bad shape.

Uh I saw I've seen buildings of way worse shape than that we saw.

Yes, they're they're not in good shape, and they'll would require a lot of work, but uh the fact that they don't have decoration is part of what their history is.

They are what they are, and uh if it were not a historic district where we're trying to keep some kind of trueness to a history, uh I would lament the loss, but I you know I would understand it.

But we're in a designated historic district where we're trying to save and reuse as much as we can, and I just think that there's more to this pro these buildings that could be saved and still accommodate this.

I I'd love to have them continue this and continue and reconsider, look into it.

Maybe I could be convinced that it wouldn't work in any other way.

I don't know.

But uh they didn't look at the buildings, I don't believe, and say what can we put in here to make them useful.

They had this project and they wanted it there, and the buildings were in the way.

Because of us, well, we'll put keep the facades on, you know.

And of course, you look up the street and you see that that was done at Circle Center Mall, which is in part why I uh brought that up.

Uh those were not decisions this commission made, and they were very complicated.

Um not going to go into all the background of that.

Um at the time, all the preservationists that were involved with that were concerned that somewhere down the road, people would point to them and think, uh that's a good way to do it.

So that's if I don't know if that helps you at all.

I at least my thing.

But again, I would this is just me trying to understand your point of view since you've been doing this for so long, and I appreciate you you your explanation.

So thank you.

Anybody else want to add anything?

Like, just to clarify the answer, attempt to answer Anson's question, perhaps the reason the other building was um we felt justified in in voting for demolition was that uh the one category you mentioned, which was the removal would help support the uh the preservation of the district.

Uh it would be hard for me to imagine the district without these buildings, just the facade the building.

I don't know.

Um I'm struggling with that, but with the other larger building, I it was such a uh huge size that the use of it was precluded uh the size precluded the uh viability to most developers, which we talked about at length.

Well, and that that's exactly my argument here is that you know, 25 by 190 I mean I've planned a lot of of different uses and I mean about the only thing that I could think of that would fit in that footprint is like two 2500 square foot condos facing each direction and then you're gonna have to sell a 2500 foot condo facing an alley to somebody that only has windows on one side which they tried just up on one eleven North Meridian and had fair to middling success.

So that's that's my big concern is that these these are half the size of the ones that were turned into the homewood suites and half the width you know so they don't have the the footprint individually that would make them useful to to just about any any viable um sort of business or or or uh commercial use it would take a very creative architect but they do exist I'll try not to take that as an insult well the other thing is maybe maybe you chop the building in half and demolish the back half and all of a sudden it becomes viable to certain types of developers maybe not this group I'm not trying to discourage anyone but um I think there are distinctions and I don't want to I want to make sure that there are distinctions so as to avoid the um the appearance that we're setting precedence.

Well I just I look at at projects like um the circle tower where we chose not to protect some undeniably historic interiors of that building and in there you know if if anybody walks in there and say and and it was oh yeah I understand why we protected this and then but I I just I can't say that I could walk into these buildings or walk a lay person into any of these buildings and say this is what we've protected I mean there's there's nothing that it's just brick you know even if you if you can even see the brick and and wood that's been replaced a thousand times over it's you know sort of a ship of these almost on the on the interior where is it is it even what it was to begin with you know so I I don't know I I just I'm having a hard time with protecting two walls and some floor plates that have no historic character whatsoever.

You know that like that's that's the thing that and and you know some of the walls being shared it that that's the thing that I just can't quite get my head around on why we chose not to protect some of those other you know arguably more significant and and more impactful things and then this is what we hang you know we are the hill we're dying on.

Well just circle center we were actually invited to do that.

It's a little different than when we go out to do a district a whole district you know but um yeah anyway um well this has been a really good discussion and you and I are the only people that were around back in the day and remembers you remember obviously more deeply than I do um and what you presented as an alternative is quintessential David Baker you know here's a problem here's a good a possible way to solve it and I thought that was interesting too nonetheless the most germane point that you made was they need all five votes and they don't have them and so um uh having said that I think I'm ready to make a motion for continuance okay let's let uh the applicant have his final word.

Uh it'll be very brief because I was going where uh Commissioner Williams was going, which is uh a continuance, but two things very very quickly.

One, I can assure you that when this building was purchased, it was purchased without a use in mind.

Uh and the use was found based on what was what we thought the building could be put to in terms of a reasonable use.

That I can tell you.

Um, so um uh I I want to make that point too.

Um, in terms of precedent setting, yes, um, the same client has two twenty five, two thirty-nine, two forty-five, and two forty-seven.

Um, we did extensive due diligence on all of those buildings before we purchased them, but we purchased them recently.

We're not, we it's not my clients' fault that these buildings, particularly the ones we're dealing with tonight, were not well maintained.

Um, and what I could tell you is from our perspective, these are the worst of the worst.

The other buildings, um, for a variety of reasons, including their maintenance, are not like these.

And so, in terms of at least from our perspective, in terms of the buildings owned by this uh by my client, uh, this is this is not intended to be precedent setting.

Um, but with that, um uh I want to thank all the commission members for the discussion.

It's helpful for us, and uh, we certainly would uh agree to the request for a continuance, okay.

Um and I would really encourage you your team to give some thought to lightning up on the impact on those buildings and and filling in the gap, because you've got the huge from my perspective, a huge opportunity.

It would be a big preservation plus because we don't like gaps in the streetscapes.

Uh so uh do I hear them?

Yeah, Susan.

Okay, thank you.

Do I hear a second?

Mike.

All right.

So uh do you want to continue it to next month?

Yes.

All right.

So here a motion to uh continue it to uh July 1st.

All those in favor, opposed.

All right.

We'll see you in July.

Thank you.

All right, uh, thank you, David.

We'll now uh go to the next case, 2026 COA 143 Chathamarch, Massachusetts Avenue, uh the uh applicant right of way intersection of Massachusetts Avenue, North College Avenue, and East St.

Clair Street.

Matthew Prisbyla is the applicant is and uh is anyone here from DPW to speak to this this evening?

Yeah, okay.

Name and address, please.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

Uh my name is Matthew Prisbella.

I am here as a representative of DPW this evening, uh, with a couple members of our design team here as well.

Okay.

Uh I'm here to speak on our project, which is the completion of the resurfacing of College Avenue post-two-way conversion in conjunction with Bottle Works.

Uh initially, this project began as a continuance and completion from East St.

Clair Street to 10th Street on College Avenue.

Uh there is some there they were wrapping up construction of those buildings on the northeast corner.

Uh, and then in response to a fatal accident uh a little under two years ago now, uh we tacked on as part of this project safety improvements for the pedestrian areas and facilities adjacent to the cultural trail.

Uh sorry, following an accident at the uh southwest corner at 45 degrees, the restaurant.

So I'm here tonight to discuss the seven day notice.

Sorry, I lost my place.

Waiver.

Yeah, the seven-day waiver of notice and the installation of curb extensions.

The curb extensions are being included to guide traffic southbound on College Avenue, traffic calming and guide them away from heavily uh populated areas.

Do we need to deal with the seven-day waiver before we hear this?

Yeah, I assume.

Just give us a second here.

So, Meg, why don't you explain explain what we need here?

Yes, if the commission is willing to make a motion, the applicant is requesting a waiver of seven days.

Uh I believe can staff help me with the reason was for that delay.

I'm forgetting now, but we'll need a motion for that first before we hear the case.

Okay, Emily, do you want to speak to that?

Yes.

So the applicant did send a notice on time.

However, staff only put in one intersection in the notice form.

DPW did include the entirety of the project.

However, we needed to clarify the boundaries, and then some additional property owners needed to be notified on those additional intersections.

So essentially they had to send out two notices.

So some people got two and some people only got one.

So that is what happened.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions for the commission?

David, please.

So the people that didn't get the notice first.

How far ahead did they get the notice then?

They still would have gotten it about two weeks ago.

Two weeks, two weeks.

Yeah, because it had the notice was post-the second notice was post- postmarked May 18th.

Okay.

Okay, I'm comfortable.

Any other questions?

If not, it'll take a motion to approve.

Oh, sorry, answer I didn't see you.

Has there been any uh uh feedback from the community uh regarding that did receive the notices?

I've had a couple of folks ask to see the plans, um, and so we did have some folks asked to see the plans and we sent those to them, but I haven't heard anything else.

But no remonstrators or or objections or no, I do believe there may be some folks from the neighborhood who are here this evening, so maybe we'll hear some new information.

Um, but people were definitely getting the notice because they were definitely asking for the information.

Um, and then you did receive that uh letter from the Massab Cultural District today, day up.

Okay.

All right, okay.

Uh any uh any other questions?

So I'll take a motion for the waiver.

David, thank you.

Get a second, please.

Anson, thanks, and Jeanette, either one.

Uh any final questions?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead and present your case then to us.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President, and thank you, Emily.

Appreciate it.

Um, so yeah, the second part of uh my presentation is in regards to our curb extensions on this project.

Uh, the primary goal is improving safety for pedestrians and vehicles uh entering this six-way intersection.

Uh if you zoom in a little bit on the plans right here, the meat and potatoes would be the truck apron and curb extension inside the inner in the in the intersection coming off of the west end adjacent to the firehouse union.

Uh that is intended to be permanent concrete, uh truck apron similar to a roundabout uh that you could see just about anywhere in the city.

We proposed stamp concrete with a lot of flexibility on aesthetic with a goal to match the uh existing area.

Uh and then the other piece there on this page is a curb extension on southbound College Avenue.

On the right-hand side.

I believe the cursor is right on top of it right now, if I'm not mistaken.

Uh it is that gray area uh on the right-hand side of the page right there.

Yes, thank you so much.

Um, yeah, in the intention being to reduce the number of lanes southbound entering the lot, and you can see on a sketch on an upcoming slide what the intention is to guide incoming traffic away from where the accident occurred.

Alright, anything else?

Regarding the aesthetics here, let's scale.

Next slide.

Yeah, there are several other locations that we want to include similar curb extensions that will that are designed to slow traffic down on approach southbound.

In addition, there is a speed table at 9th and College Avenue.

We want to extend the incline, the length of the incline.

It will be less steep and it will uh calm traffic a little bit further.

Uh these curb extensions, similar to the one that is not the apron over back at college, uh, are intended to be uh semi-permanent bolt-down polymer uh uh installations.

They will aid in drainage in the area.

They are semi-permanent with a lot of aesthetic options that we are very open to coordinating with the Massav uh merchants association and the cultural trail in kind.

Um next slide, please.

I think it'll show the last uh the last curve extension up at the 10th Street intersection.

So it's it's about slowing traffic down coming southbound from 1213 from north of downtown as they approach the bottle works district.

And uh next slide, please.

Uh yes, this this the uh the first image is the sketch that I was discussing.

This is a POV of Southbound College approaching the six-way intersection.

You can see the green curb extension coming off of the curb.

It kind of directs the traffic away.

You can see we call them chicken feet, the markings going through the intersection, that direct traffic, and the truck apron is also present to guide small traffic away while still allowing larger trucks if necessary to make that right turn onto Mass Av.

It is reinforced concrete, it's built to withstand any heavy loads that accidentally go over it.

Um, and then further we have a couple typical applications of the truck apron uh just at standard roundabouts.

We again have a lot of options when it comes to the design and aesthetic of the apron itself.

Uh the rolled curb is uh less steep, less uh invasive as far as accidentally making contact for a vehicle, uh, and it will also provide good visual for cars to move away.

Uh we can keep scrolling, please.

So this is a vendor we have identified that will supply that is able to supply the polymer uh curb extensions.

Uh if we can zoom in a little bit, it's a very good representation of what the island will look like.

The only difference I want to call to attention to is our curb extensions are on the outside of the road.

They are, or excuse me, they're on the outside side of the road, like the right hand side along existing curve lines.

All of our uh curve extensions are within existing paving limits.

We are not affecting any structures adjacent to the uh like buildings and structures adjacent to our project site, and we are not uh extending the existing curb limits.

So, just for example, the image on the right, our edge boards for these curve extensions will be white in accordance with the Indiana M U T C D.

And that is just a, we can scroll down and then keep going, please.

Yeah, this is this is excellent.

The um so the edge lines, the edge boards will be white as they are, exterior uh curb limits, and then the filler boards.

This is where I would like to uh open it up and answer to the MassApp Merchants Association.

We are interested, they they expressed concerns about uh the aesthetic and the materials.

This is where I kind of want to call attention to the we the fact that we have the ability to pick filler boards that can match the aesthetic as best we can uh while maintaining drainage and safety in the area.

That is about all I have.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Please come forward, name and address, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Meg Staro.

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

Generally, I would like to just outline, in addition to being board president of those two organizations, I'm also a professional certified transportation planner, certified community planner, historic preservation consultant approved by DNR, and a licensed landscape architect that has done many streetscape projects, park projects, and innovative planning, such as the cultural trail, which traverses Mass Av.

So I've been examining Mass Av for many years from a professional design perspective as well as a community perspective.

The last time I believe that Mass Av had any significant investment by the city was in the sidewalk renaissance program.

And I wish Susan was still here.

I believe that was in the early 1990s.

Otherwise, it stayed the same.

That's when the bump outs were put in, that's when the 90-degree parking was put in.

Um we had some improvements for uh decorative crosswalks for the Super Bowl, and since then it's just been repaving.

So this is a significant project for us, and it also establishes a template for the other proposed uh one-way to two-way conversion projects that DPW has funded and is that are in design.

Now, Mass Av um wants to support this project with some conditions, and the the part of it is to help DPW achieve a successful project that works for the context of Mass Av.

It's not clear in the presentation from why the bump outs or the modular curbs would be temporary.

If they're proposing them as polymer elastic temeric, I'm not sure of the pronunciation, but basically plastic, um, hopefully snow plows wouldn't chew it up, but the real purpose is safety, and we applaud that safety design.

We think it will align the traffic away from alignment with the cultural trail where the pedestrian was killed.

So we would like to see those bump outs or medians uh permanent, and we think they should be compatible with the Mass Av materials that IHBC has traditionally requested other applicants to meet, which would be uh brick or either historic brick or modern versions of brick, concrete uh concrete or limestone or granite curbs.

The other uh component is the curb apron uh in front of the firefighters while we have comments about traffic and the success of that proposal.

I know in the IHBC context, you're not interested in our opinion about the traffic, but um we do find poured concrete stamped or it doesn't say it's stamped, it just looks like it's scored uh with a red colorant to be a totally new element on Mass Av and not appropriate to our context.

We think it will be hit by snow plows, the three-inch curb bump out component actually makes the far curb less safe because it cars can roll up on that and then they can actually go over that three-inch curb right into the bike share parking area more easily.

So we we're not convinced that's a good safety measure, but we're not here to debate that with DPW.

We're also not convinced that the proposed bollards are the right solution in front of the 745 restaurant plaza area or the corner there.

The bollards that have been selected don't have any crash ratings shown on them, which would help, in our view, the the bollard should be to provide um uh provide a safety device for pedestrians, not allow a car to push them over.

Um what happened, what does not have that area doesn't have any protection right now, and those orange barriers are filled with water, but they have been frequently moved, and um it's very important to us that pedestrian safety be the most important criteria.

So today we are asking for conditional approval of the project with a better selection of bollards that match the mass av context and provide the safety factors that we're looking for.

We're asking for permanent mediums that meet we would prefer to see them landscaped with some bollards in there to protect the landscape, but green and extending the character, the tree character of Mass Av up College Avenue.

We agree that they will so they will slow the traffic.

We also have other comments in our letter about lane alignment, the proposed rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and other concerns that we would like to address with DPW directly to keep the project on schedule.

We suggest that we have an immediate meeting to discuss these concerns.

We were never um consulted on preliminary design, and as far as I know, I didn't even know.

I was I've been searching for the drawings and reaching out to DPW, and apparently I had a misspelling, so it's on me, but it was very difficult to find out where this design originated from.

We've had um verbal meetings with DPW over the last two, two and a half years, but um never saw any preliminary drawings, so these were kind of a surprise.

So we have um a great the request for from a from Mass AV is conditional approval.

We think the project is important, it's the first investment in Mass Av for over 30 years in infrastructure.

Um, but we want to do it right.

We also want to capture DPW's attention to do it so it's a template for the other six-way intersections.

That's very important to us.

I think it will cause some congestion, and we understand that this is a system-wide improvement that until the other one-way conversions to two-way happen, there's going to be congestion, and that has not been explained to the neighborhood, I don't think adequately, and that understanding of what will happen to the overall network needs to be explained better so that they can accept some temporary short-term pain while this project happens.

The other um thing that we think that has not been addressed is better interface with the neighborhood streets.

This is just focused on college.

As you now 10th Street is going to become where people will speed up.

The gateway really happens to the neighborhood where traffic needs to slow down is at 10th Street.

And college now being very slow is now becoming more of a neighborhood street.

But that that also that larger discussion about the network, how it interfaces with the neighborhoods, what's the primary purpose of Mass Av, how does it reflect pedestrian safety?

Those discussions haven't happened with DPW.

But then again, we don't want to stop the project.

So we're asking for conditional approval and for um DPW to meet with ourselves and whoever else in the neighborhood would like to be part of it.

I know there's quite a few stakeholders here, that we work through these issues so that they can come back to you with a modified plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

Come forward, name and address, please.

Been sitting for a long time.

Richard Sullivan, 860 North College Avenue.

I live at Ninth of College at the location of what's come to be known as the Bottle Works Bump.

It was a speed table that was installed in 2021 with zero neighborhood input.

Um the Chatham Arch Neighborhood Association voted unanimously in 2022 to request its full removal.

The goal of the bump was safety, it's achieved the opposite.

I sit in my office with a camera uh facing the intersection, which I put there to make my case.

Used to be the cars could platoon as they went up and down the street.

Now they uh speed up and slow down at four different rates.

Since the bottle works bump has been installed, six of the lampposts on that corner have been knocked down.

Uh they put a seventh one up and then finally came and removed it, left the cones, they've been there for a year.

Uh it's been just a chaotic uh chaos creating thing.

I regard it as design malpractice, uh, which I think is evident by the fact that within weeks of it opening, uh, they came in and and uh ground it down and added asphalt.

Uh and I the first time I sat on my porch to uh after the intersection was closed for months, the first car I saw going over it lost not only its license plate but the license plate holder.

Uh it launches ambulances into the air to this day.

They ameliorated it somewhat.

Uh my house shakes hundreds of times a day.

Um I'm a pretty not scared guy, but I wince multiple times in my house because of this thing.

Uh I regard it as citizen abuse.

Uh any proposal that doesn't remove this thing fully, uh, is not acceptable.

Uh that's all.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, we're ready for a staff comment.

Uh Emily, please.

Um sorry.

Okay.

All right.

Name and address, please.

Tom Schaeffer, uh 624 East Walnut Street, otherwise known as Mill 9 Lofts.

Um it is maybe the wrong way to say it.

I've got a six-year-old grandson, and we use the cultural trail and bicycles and such a lot, so I'm I want that to be a very safe intersection for sure.

And maybe this goes to the way the announcements made out.

I'm not aware of ever receiving anything.

We may have and maybe stuck in the mail.

Um, Meg knows I'm not shy to ask for drawings and stuff, but I'm also bright enough to download the stuff from your website.

And this is not intelligible to a senior citizen with bifocals.

I cannot read this.

We expand it.

I'm trying to figure out which way is north and south and where's the cultural trail.

And also the reason I think many of us are here, there was a recent flurry of emails that went out saying this is happening.

I don't think there's been any discussion with the Chathamarch Neighborhood Association, and I think that's very appropriate.

So I would like to see more work done on this with a larger audience.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay.

Emily, please.

So firstly, I do just want to make it clear that the elements that are triggering a review by the commission are the bump outs.

Exempt from review is any kind of repaving work exempt from review, is any kind of traffic signalization exempt from review, or anything including ballers placed in the sidewalk by DPW for traffic for basically to for traffic management.

So those are all exempt from requiring a certificate of appropriateness.

So I just want to make certain that everyone understands what the commission has to look at.

And so it is those basically the bump outs at uh 10th Street, 9th Street, St.

Clair, and Massachusetts Avenue.

So the Waddle Massachusetts Avenue, the largest one that is requested to be concrete.

There are a variety of stamping patterns, colors that are available to utilize.

So staff does have sign-offs on that uh based upon commission comments at at a hearing.

And then in terms of those modular ones, obviously the exterior is expected to be white.

They have proposed, gotten quoted, hunter green, but you can see in the packet that there are a lot of various colors.

Staff, you know, did indicate that the commission may only want to see something like this for a period of time, which I think is kind of what uh MassApp Cultural District suggested, which was to look at them and then reapproach it.

Um so I did mention that in the staff report.

Staff is recommending approval because it is not impacting historic infrastructure, it is not impacting historic materials, and it is removable in nature and can answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Emily, questions from the commission, please.

David, please.

Um I have to admit that I also had a little problem understanding the drawings that I was looking at.

Um, also this is gonna be a stupid question.

Are we talking about either or are they are both kinds of materials being used?

Uh both kinds of materials are being used.

Permanent concrete is proposed in the intersection adjacent to the firehouse union uh shown in pink in that image up there, and then the green is the temporary or semi-temporary polymer curb extensions.

So the pink area is the only place that would be the concrete as the plans stand now, yes.

Okay, I just didn't understand that.

No worries.

Happy to help.

Other questions from the commission okay.

I guess I I've got a couple.

Is there any reason DPW hasn't had the opportunity to talk to the Chattamarch neighborhood?

Uh were they on the mailing list for the notice?

Yeah, they would have they they did receive notice, they are on the registered neighborhood organizations.

So when DPW sent out the notice, they were on it.

Yeah, okay.

I you know, we oftentimes request our applicants to make sure there's at least conversation with the neighborhood organization.

It would seem to me that hearing the testimony, and obviously other commissioners can weigh in here, it seems to me we need to have you need to have more dialogue with the neighborhood and the mass avenge's association.

What you're trying to do is a good thing, for sure.

Uh we just want to make sure that it's done appropriately and properly uh relative to sort of the historic character of the neighborhood.

We don't have a lot of these, I'll call them temporary looking kind of traffic situations in the neighborhood in the historic districts.

So I would suggest that you know we continue the case, let you have the opportunity to meet with the Massav and Chatham Arch, neighborhood groups, business groups, have a conversation with them, and I guess to that end, is a delay of a month an issue for DPW.

The project is currently scheduled to bid on June 18th.

Okay.

So how does it okay?

So if it moves to July 18th, what is that due?

Name and address, please.

Yes, sir.

Uh good evening.

My name is Mark Mark St.

John.

I'm the chief engineer for the Department of Public Works.

Uh-huh.

Address is here at the CCB uh 200 East Washington Street.

Um, I would like to point out that this is a the origin of this was a resurfacing project on College Avenue.

And one of the reasons we're using the temporary uh plastic rubber curb is because um getting into the actual curb line, moving curb line is going to affect drainage or in a combined sewer area, and then the project turns into much more of a full-on reconstruction project.

And so we thought this was a good in-between between um adding additional traffic calming and pedestrian safety and safety improvements to the intersection uh that fit within our scope budget and what we had available to us to do without fully reconstructing the project.

So that was one of the reasons we used um the temporary infrastructure along college avenue.

Um arguably we could accomplish we're essentially turning that outside lay to college avenue into a parking lane.

Arguably we could accomplish that with pavement markings and signage, but we thought this was a much better effect and had a much larger impact at calming traffic and creating a safer condition at the intersection.

So is if we were to approve this, if you and I'm not saying we are, but if we were to approve this as a temporary sort of solution, what would be when could the permanent solution be implemented from a budgetary standpoint?

I could not give you a specific date tonight.

I think we would be happy to come back before this commission in in a year in a given time frame and have another conversation about how the bollards and the temporary infrastructure looks and how it fits within the uh nature of the historic district, part of it being uh bolt down installable infrastructure, is we we can remove it at any time.

Right, right, understand that.

You know, rain gardens and things that can be done with curbs and whatnot to solve those kinds of things.

Obviously, that takes time, takes more money, understand that it just feels like there needs to be a broader conversation with the with the Mass Ave and neighborhood, particularly this is not the only six-way intersection along Mass Ave.

And if these kinds of things are going to be implemented along the way as we're as you are all doing the you know the two-way street of uh of East Street and Alabama, you know, etc.

Um it seems like this is going to become something that's needed to be solved, not just here.

Obviously, we've had an incident here, which is most unfortunate, but we want to have good solutions that are you know gonna work for the neighborhood in the long term.

And I I guess if if there if it's possible to put a time frame on this temporary use, then maybe we can sort of find ourselves there.

I don't have to ask the commission what everybody thinks.

But if this is trying to be a permanent solution, I don't think it's gonna work.

Uh so I think we need to think of it in the in terms of it being some kind of a time frame, and I understand that you're not here to identify what the budget is in 2027 or 2028, but I think we need to try to think about that if we possibly can.

I know Massav is looking to be supportive.

We just need to find a way to make this work for everyone, I guess.

Do you have any any thoughts about timing?

You said a year from now, for instance.

Would that does that seem reasonable from DPW's standpoint to be able to commit to that and then work with the neighborhood over the course of the year to come to a more a permanent solution?

Um the year I proposed was more to evaluate um how the temporary infrastructure functioned and how it looked.

Right.

Don't want to commit to replacement with a major capital project and a permanent infrastructure in the next year.

Okay.

When do you do not or I could not commit to that?

Yeah, so what I guess, you know, we want to work with you here, and you know, yeah.

We're trying to find I'm trying to find a solution that you know could work here so that you can we want it to be safer, we also want it to be, you know, right at the end of the day.

Is there, I mean, is what what do you think you could live with and then let the commission hear that?

If we're thinking about a temporary solution, what do you think you could commit to?

Typically, when we resurface a roadway, we would not want to come back to it and cut it again and add permanent curb in the next five plus years, right?

So, I mean, you paved part of Mass Ave.

You haven't paved the whole thing, you paved the driving.

Yes, right.

So, I mean, is is that what you're saying?

It won't be five, it'll be five years before you do anything again.

It's not currently in our five-year capital program, I can tell you that.

Okay.

Let me ask this: it would it be possible for you to proceed in with this temporary solution and then work with the neighborhood and work with staff and work with your internal group to then come back in say a month or two months to come back with a commitment of time as opposed to trying to guess at something this evening?

For a permanent budgetary solution.

We we could take a look.

Do you talk to your leadership and others within the city?

Does that seem like a strategy that could work for you?

Um yeah, we I'd be happy to have that conversation.

Um I think the other option again is to just resurface college avenue and not include the temporary infrastructure and mark it with pavement markings and signage.

Right.

Understand that.

I guess, you know, from uh obviously from the commission standpoint, we're wanting you to do something because of the safety situation.

Um I guess you know we can we could let you do one of these two temporary solutions, and then if we if you could identify whether it would be a month from now or two months from now, that you come back and say, hey, we can commit in year, whatever, that we can do these things in a permanent way.

I think that would go a long way to getting something, you know, resolved.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I'd be happy to come back in uh in a month and have the conversation on on have a more specific answer for you on when it would fit within our capital program.

Okay, I think that would be helpful.

I I guess you know, I don't know what's better for you to put the temporary uh solution that you're proposing or to just stripe it.

Obviously, striping is cheaper for sure.

I think the solution we're proposing will have a greater impact on on traffic safety and compliance at the intersection than just striping and signage.

Okay.

Well then let's let's propose this as a temporary solution and give you uh let's say it's a year with the idea that you'll come back next month and tell us whether it's a year or two years or whatever it might be, and then try to set up time to work with the neighborhood to see what a permanent solution also could be, so that there's a good understanding of where what a path forward might look like.

Does that seem reasonable?

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Um yeah, please name an address.

All right, Hunter West, I represent the design firm WSP at 115 West Washington Street.

Um, based on the line of questioning, thank you for all being here so late.

Based on the line of questioning, I just wanted to clarify that the truck apron within the six-way intersection is a permanent solution.

And I person I think based on analysis, that is the the barrier between cars angling towards that corner where the fatality occurred, along with the boards protecting it.

So the temporary solutions heading up college do angle the cars away and kind of create that parking lane and bring us down to one southbound through lane, which is great for traffic calming, but that that permanent solution, kind of the truck apron blocking cars from after leaving that southbound stop bar drifting back towards um back towards that corner is what we're hoping to get um, I think get approval on as well.

Right.

Yeah, I guess I guess what I what I'm saying is that I think we may be able to get to an approval of what you're proposing, recognizing that you may be thinking it's permanent, but we may want you to think about doing that particular piece maybe differently, you know, in the next iteration, that's all.

And maybe that causes you to rethink whether that wants to be permanent or just more of another temporary solution for it now until we can really get to a really good permanent answer.

Not to not to try to tell you how to do your business by any means, but just trying to think about how we could step through this and not necessarily end up with something that isn't really, you know, working for the the neighborhood, I guess, as much as anything.

Okay.

So the the neighborhood opposition to the truck apron is something that needs to be discussed further.

Yeah, I think it it just seems to me that if we're gonna do something temporary, let's make sure it is still working from a safety standpoint for this period of time.

Let you come back obviously with DPW and and say, okay, here's here's a permanent solution.

We've talked to the neighborhood, we think we could do this in year, whatever it is, and then we can extend the temporary use you know use time frame to whatever that is if that makes sense.

Yep that makes sense thank you.

Okay sure yeah Tom go ahead.

I'd be very briefly um it I just want to make clear sorry Tom yeah Tom Hannafi 664 East Arch Street.

I just want to be clear these changes are are I think is all great.

I appreciate that I'd say you make an effort for safety but have this has these things have an impact on the historic neighborhood yes and that's all I want to be clear because I'm in my alley and because of that traffic tie up there all of a sudden 12 people running over my hose.

It has an impact broader discussion would be helpful.

Thank you very much.

Okay thank you Tom and no wait a minute I'm gonna if we're if we're going to continue this and do some things here I think we're okay.

Meg, do you want to offer some comment about what I'm suggesting and then see what the commission thinks here I'm trying to find a solution here obviously.

So we actually prepared a recommendation that's very similar to what you're saying.

Why don't you go ahead and read that and then we'll see if that works for everybody.

Sure.

Um so I just would like for the applicant to listen closely here.

So it's very similar to the one that's in the actual staff report with the exception of a stipulation number two which would read modular curb extensions must be removed, replaced by concrete curb extensions or reapproved by the IHBC no later than I think I'm hearing June 3rd of 2027.

Right.

And we would come back and we would approve that so just adding a fifth stipulation in there and then um in the recommendation to approve a certificate of appropriateness for temporary curve extensions on North College instead of permanent.

Okay all right does that seem like a workable solution from the applicant's standpoint.

Yes yeah I think that's a workable solution um I guess my one question would would be could the curbs be removed altogether at a year if we can't come to a agreeable or uh financially prudent solution that's a more permanent solution could we leave that as part of the option as well too you don't need a certificate to remove the work but if there's any alterations that have to happen to the infrastructure upon removal we might need to review that part.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Yeah then I think that's amenable to us.

Okay and then just want to make sure that in the interim here that you're gonna get with the neighborhood and the uh business uh association so that there's some dialogue about how you could find a permanent solution yeah we don't typically have a lot of dialogue within a resurfacing program and this is a program due to something more um within our two-way conversion projects along East Street New Jersey Alabama we will have uh public information sessions at a minimum and quite possibly public hearing sessions on all of those uh and we do want to hear the feedback and be involved with the neighborhoods on that what's the timing of the of those is that within the next year or uh the earliest corridors will start construction in the summer of 2027.

2027 the public discussions is that what you're saying or the actual work construction is scheduled to bid and begin in 2027 so the public discussions will happen over the next uh year or so as part of the environmental documentation process yeah that's what there so it would be within this time frame I guess that was my point.

Yes.

Okay.

All right that seems go ahead yeah I'm glad you brought that up.

I think that the key to this is for you to engage the neighborhood now because it's gonna take time to develop a solution.

So it's it just makes sense to start that process now, even while you're working towards this temporary solution.

Correct.

And it did so did we have direction on the permanent concrete solution within the Massav intersection?

Does this fall under the same thing?

Yeah, I guess my thought would be is you might want to just revisit that as to whether that's a temporary solution as opposed to uh trying to be permanent so that it gives you and gives the neighborhood flexibility in trying to come up with a permanent solution if that if that makes sense.

Yes.

Okay.

David, I think you were you had a question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um so I suppose I could look at the motion, but I don't have it in front of me right now.

Is there a there's a wide variety of uh colors or something that this temporary solution can be chosen?

Um is there a stipulation that staff approves the the color that they use?

Yeah, it's stiff number three.

And I would say it would be my expectation that staff approves that in coordination with Chathamarch Neighborhood Association and the uh Massachusetts Avenue group.

Um so once everybody's pretty much happy with one of those colors, then you could approve it.

Okay, yeah.

Yes, and that's in the stipulations, it is.

I was just gonna say the two stipulations for the board color and the paper color all suggest to do that based on commissioners' comments.

So we'll follow you.

I just want to make sure there's consultation with the neighborhood folks.

Yes, absolutely, and and that's what I was gonna say.

You have some pretty fantastic expertise within the neighborhood to work through some of these details.

So uh I think between uh staff here and the neighborhood, I think they'll they'll find a solution here.

Okay.

I mean I guess the last thing, just uh I mean, we're not in the position to deal with the speed table, but you obviously heard the testimony about that, so let you guys, you know, if I could I could yeah, please make a couple of those comments.

So the the bollards that are proposed along the cultural trail are crash-rated bollards.

Uh so they are there to protect pedestrians from traffic.

They will stop a vehicle traveling at 30 miles an hour, is what I believe they're designed for.

Um, the speed table itself, the one that was built with the original portion of the bottle works Hendrix development, um, I would agree was a very bad example of what a speed table is or what a speed table should be.

Um, I think in the last five years, we as a department and maybe as a wider industry have learned more about what a good speed table should look like, and um I would say that what we've proposed in this project is a much more appropriate speed table.

Um part of narrowing the college avenue by making that outside lane a parking lane as we're proposing with that temporary infrastructure.

I think we'll also aid in in making that speed table function more appropriately than having two cars traveling at full speed across it.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So I think we're ready for the do you want to officially read the staff recommendation and then we'll we'll uh make a motion.

For the alternate recommendation, staff is recommending to approve a certificate of appropriateness for temporary curve extensions on North College Avenue between East Tenth Street and Massachusetts Avenue, all per submitted documentation and subject to the following stipulations, which I'll read really quickly.

Number one is for approval of final construction drawings.

Number two is for the uh temporary nature of the project.

Number three is for the color for the board filler board.

Number four is for approval of the infill paper color and stamping for PCCP apron, and number five is any changes to the approved design drawings must be approved by I should be set IHP C staff prior to starting work.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Do I get a motion for the staff recommendation as red?

Thank you, Mike.

Get a second, please.

Hanson, thanks.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your cooperation and thank you for the testimony from the uh from the neighborhood and the business association.

All right, we'll bring Susan back in, and we've got three cases that are gonna be heard all at the same time this evening.

And I'll read the read the cases here.

The first case is 2026 COA 144 cottage home.

Uh 2026 VHP 007, address 1204 Polk Street.

Micah Hill is the applicant, and that will be the same applicant for the other two.

The next case is 2026 COA 145 cottage home, variance 2026 VHP 007.

And the third case is 2026 COA 146, same variants 2026 VHP 007.

The addresses are 1208, also known as 1204 Polk Street, and 941 North Highland Avenue, also known as 1204 Polk Street.

So Micah Hill is here to present your these three cases, and we'll hear them all at once.

So name and address, please.

I'm actually Jason Wolf.

I'm with Love Design.

Our office is at 1617 Cornell Avenue, Indianapolis.

So yeah, this is three separate projects, but it's all currently part of one parcel, but it was historically three parcels.

So 2000, sorry, 1204 Polk is the part of the existing house at the corner, and then 1208 is to the east, and then 941 is to the north, and both 1208 and 941 historically had small houses on them, kind of pretty similar to scale of what we're proposing.

Um it looks to me like the homes on both 1208 and 941 existed until the mid-70s at least.

I think on the aerial images, I see them disappearing sometime between the 70s and the 90s.

All those images are a little difficult to see sometimes, but I think that that's when they were torn down.

And then on 941, sometime I think in the 90s, they built a small detached garage that would be demolished as part of this project.

So starting with 1204 Polk, the existing house, the intent of the design was to retain the character of the existing house while expanding it and adding some more useful space to it because it's a very small cottage at the moment.

At the back, there were a couple of kind of awkward additions that had been put on it.

I think in the 80s, potentially.

So we're looking at removing those additions and then expanding out the back portion of the house and raising the roof up on that piece to form kind of connector between kind of that the body, the front body of the house, and then the new garage edition that we're putting at the back.

Um and then that piece has a small dormer facing the street just to provide a window up in the bedroom on the second floor in that space, and then it's got a larger dormer on the back side just to provide kind of access and floor space from that side.

Um the existing house is all clad in insul brick.

Uh there's not a whole lot of evidence that we could see that there's existing siding underneath it.

We think that it was all torn off, but we're not 100% sure.

Um the plan at the moment is to strip all of that insul brick off and then replace it with hardy siding with a four-inch lap on the kind of the main house and then the connector piece as well as the bottom portion of the garage and then the upper portion of the garage where we're looking at doing uh pattern siding.

Um we've also got a small canopy above that garage door, just like helping to break down that facade and kind of minimize the impact of having a garage door facing the street.

Um then I did just want to clarify one minor thing I think in the package.

It shows board and batten sighting on the backside of the house, but that was just a mistake.

That's actually lap siding that continues around.

Um, I think it just didn't get swapped out.

Um, and then moving to 1208 Polk, so this is the house to the east of that.

Um, so we kind of looked along Polk Street, and there's a lot of different scales of houses along that street.

Um, but I guess directly to the east and west, obviously we've got 1204 Polk to the west.

That's that single story structure.

And then kind of the houses build up and scale as you as you continue to the east.

So we felt like a one and a half story structure, felt like it fit well with the scale of everything else that was happening.

We did look at adding a small bay on the front of the house to bring the scale down a bit more on that element, kind of bring that roof line in line with the porch of 1204 and with 1214.

And then the house steps up to a full two stories kind of behind that that front cable piece, which again, like you look down the street and there's much larger houses when you get down to like 1218 or sorry I'm not reading that far away, but as you get down to the much wider houses, they get quite a bit bigger.

And then across the street, they're also uh two story houses.

So we felt like that worked well.

Uh, we also felt like a side porch on this structure made sense with the two adjacent structures also having side porches, and that just helped us uh kind of maintain as much backyard as we could on the fairly small lot.

Um this house is primarily clad in uh pattern siding, a 446 pattern, and then we've got the the panel siding on that front bay piece.

Um and then looking at 941 Highland, because as we go north, we've got the the much taller house to the north of us.

We felt like a two-story structure made the most sense, and that also kind of helps blend what we're doing with 1204 into the scale of that house as well.

So we looked at a full two-story house on that piece.

Um, it's a little bit more transitional in design, but definitely trying to like uh look at the massing of the house to the north and kind of mimic that size and scale.

Um so this house is mostly clad in lap siding again.

We're looking at doing some shakes up in the gable, and then we've got the small side porch on this as well, which is kind of similar to the porch on 947.

Um as part of this project, we do have several variances.

The first variance is on 1204, and it's just to establish the existing fence that's in front of the house.

So that fence extends out to the right of way, which is pretty common, but we just wanted to uh to try and get a variance for that to legally establish it where it sits.

Um the second variance is providing less parking that is required on 1208 Polk.

So because parking is only on the south side of Polk Street, we can't count the street parking in front of that house uh towards it, and so we don't have any off on street parking that we can count for the house.

Um and then the third variance is on 941 Highland, and that one is just slightly smaller than what the uh the zoning allows for just the area of a property, but again, this was just a historically platted site.

Uh, it's exactly the same size as it was originally.

Um, Micah with compendium had met with a neighborhood.

They did, I think today issue a letter of support.

Um, and yeah, I think that they support the project.

We were made aware, I think in the staff report of uh concern with parking on Polk.

There's somebody I think across the street that just wants to make sure that they have street parking, and I don't know that we can directly do anything, but we would obviously support their getting an accessible parking space dedicated in front of their house.

Um I think beyond that, I think that we're aware that they're maybe somebody to remonstrate.

Um, but we just found out about that this afternoon, so we haven't had a chance to to be able to engage with them or do anything about it.

Um so I think with that, I'll turn it over to you guys.

Yeah.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Sure.

Name and address, please.

Heather Sullivan, 1114 East Ninth Street.

Um I'm the committee chair of the conservation committee in cottage Home.

And Jason is correct that as a committee, we did uh vote to support the project.

However, um a lot of neighbors have come forward, so I would like to segue into Joan's presentation.

I do have, I would like to bullet point the issues I'm hearing most about.

Number one, unfortunately, isn't historic preservation, which is my passion, it's parking.

Hearing about that a lot.

Um I'm also hearing a lot of concern regarding the understanding of our conservation plan.

And I know IHVC has been working to rewrite the plan to kind of be inclusive of all districts.

So at least that's what Troy said he was helping with.

I'm still in the dark on this.

If our plan trumps that or not, you can answer that.

Um, but there was understanding in some of the older residents of the neighborhood, including myself, one of the older ones, that corner properties were to be treated a little differently than other properties when it came to adding massing to the back.

So there's that, and then lastly, historic features.

Micah did a bang up job.

Um, you said that worries me that I am concerned about is that I feel the insel brake should be pulled off, and many times that siding is in excellent shape.

And that siding should be evaluated, and I heard you say replaced with Hardy, so I that worried me.

Um, but otherwise, I think it's a very responsible design.

One of the main reasons we voted to support it was because we know construction is expensive, and it's one of the first time a builder has presented smallish cottages really.

Usually we and staff have to work to really shrink them back into what we would call a cottage, and with that I'll right, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance, please, Joan.

Name and address.

My name's Joan Hostetler, 716 Dorman Street, Indianapolis.

And um, you know, I want to say there's a lot I really like about this.

Um, from the outset, I don't oppose development of the new houses.

Uh we generally kind of let the new housing go, and I like the the design of those.

Um parking is an issue, but I don't live that close to it, so I'll let those people speak to the parking.

Um, I don't have a problem with doing the garage and um the curb cut, um, and even with reluctance the demolition of what I believe is a late 1950s, early 1960s mother-in-law's quarters that was added to the back.

It's not there in the 1956 sandborne, it is there by 1962, or 56, it's not there, 62.

I do believe it is there in the aerial view.

But regardless, that's a little inconsequential building.

I'm not gonna fight for that.

My um we all know that this is a challenging corner because there is no alley either way, these the way they laid out this area is is really problematic.

But I do believe that the solution to a challenging lot footprint should not be a um to be to push a design that I think stretches the guidelines of our um neighborhood conservation plan.

Um, and just as background, in 2007, I, as many others served on the cottage home conservation steering committee.

Um, and we drafted our guidelines and spent hours discussing appropriate additions.

And one of the main concerns we had, we really stressed to Shannon Hill, who was our IHPC staff working with us, is our main concern was to prevent the dwarfing of our original modest cottages.

I mean, obviously, we like that we're cottages, we named it intentionally, cottage home neighborhood.

We like the humble scale, we like the historic fabric of these structures.

That's our identity.

Um, so anyway, one of the houses we like, and we've been waiting for ages for this Red Inselbrook to come off is this little house.

Research shows that it is was a six-room cottage built in 1871 or 72, which is to my surprise, this is recent.

That makes it one of the oldest houses in Robert Hannah's Air's edition.

I mean, I think this is maybe the third oldest house up in that area.

So I think it has value.

I mean, I think it's sort of like David said, maybe it's not a special little house, it's really rather plain, but it is representative of what was there in the fabric we want to keep.

So, anyway, my main concern about it is the size.

Our plan explicitly says additions, garages, and other large accessory buildings should be of a scale, height, size, and mass that relates to the existing primary building, which is this little six room building without the additions, and does not overpower it.

And so I think when we first saw the plans, we thought, oh yay, that doesn't look too bad.

But then when I really got looking at it, it looks like they're either tearing off the back third of the house where they're doing that connector, one and a half story connector, or they're adding back and up.

And if you're doing that, then aren't you essentially getting rid of the back part of the house because it's not the way it was built?

Um so if you all got my letter, I do.

You know, I have the area in blue that really shows to my eye that that is a much bigger addition than what I think it should be, and what we thought we were buying into when we wrote this plan.

And so I understand what they're doing is doing this one and a half story setback that leads to the two-story garage with housing above it.

Um I think that just makes it one sort of monolithic roof line, and you can't see the little cottage for the rest of the building.

It reminds me of the Hammond block on Massav, the the tail is wagon the dog because it's way too big, and we don't want to see that for our little cottages.

Um there are a lot of larger houses left in our neighborhood and in the surrounding neighborhoods that could use larger additions like this.

But I'm still not willing to throw out the whole idea.

I would like to see the connector be a one-story edition instead of a one and a half story edition.

If it could save those back two rooms of the original house, and there's precedence for this.

Shannon pointed out when we were planning a house uh at uh 1520 Bell Fountain Street, and this is on the last page.

Anyway, this was pointed out as the ideal addition that they would let us build.

So it has a smaller connector that leads to a larger addition.

That way it's not like a big tumor on a little house.

Um, and then there's also a good example right across the street on page two.

This is the corner opposite.

So this is a little 1890s cottage on Highland Avenue, Billy Ventwood and Kirsten Ventwood's little house, and it has a two-story, it's a garage with an apartment upstairs.

It was built probably in the 1840s or 50s.

It was oddly enough, our Chinese grocery store in the neighborhood.

But anyway, they are connected with a one-story small edition.

That way, the little house retains its original flavor.

Um, so anyway, my main concern is it just looks way too large.

So I'm not asking for a flat denial for the garage, because you know, we need parking, and parking is tough there, but if it just didn't have that huge connector that made it go from the little house, only the three rooms left of the little house.

You're basically allowing the demolition of the back of the house, then a one and a half story setup, and then the two-story um garage, that just seems too large, and that does not seem to follow our plan that says do not overpower it.

So my main concern is precedence.

Um, you know, I want you to be mindful that a precedent of a designs like this will have on future decisions when others will evidently inevitably want to follow suit and make our charming cottages glow up into something they never were.

Um, and one more thing, I just want to add, we're hearing more and more new people are moving in saying, why are we in a historic district?

Well, how do we get rid of it?

How do we get signatures?

Why do we need to do this?

Why do we need to pay?

So we're losing our preservationist in the neighborhood, and we need to rely on you guys to be the preservationist to stick to our plan.

And maybe maybe it's changed.

Maybe these interim setbacks are the latest greatest preservation thing.

But I think when you have a house that's that much bigger, an addition that much bigger than the little house, that's not what we had in mind.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Seeing no one.

Yes, so three different houses, a single variance because it's one project site, but the variances are for a variety of things on said project site.

So just a reminder 1204 variance is to have a fence in the right of way and in the clear site triangle.

1208 is to have reduced parking.

The requirement is one parking space.

They would have zero.

And then 941 is to have less square footage for the lot than what is permitted for the zoning code.

Minimum is 2500, they have 2160.

All of these are basically existing conditions for the historic lot divisions, right?

So yes, there is off-street parking right now because someone demolished a house, build a driveway in a garage.

But for historic development patterns and what was there, this is all just legalizing those historic lots.

And then a fence that's been there for quite some time.

I think it's about 13 feet.

So if we tell somebody you can't put in the right-of-way, they're gonna have like a fence halfway up what would we consider to be a yard.

Um the siding, I do want to say for 1204.

I had already discussed that with Micah stipulation number four in that, in that for that case, requires that IHPC staff must examine wood siding after the asphalt siding is removed to see the siding trim, any decorative features, etc.

for retention slash replication as required.

That being said, cottage home plan as a conservation district does explicitly permit alternative materials to wood.

It has been approved.

Um but any decorative details that cannot be replicated in something like a fiber cement, those are typically retained.

So if you have some kind of a decorative shingle that you cannot replicate because fiber cement only comes in a couple of different shingle types, the wood has to stay or it needs to be replicated.

So that's I just want to make certain that's that's clear it is different than some other districts in which alternative materials are not permitted.

It is explicitly permitted in the cottage home plan.

Um terms of the design of 1204, staff looked, you know, discussed and looked at this project.

Uh, in fact, I believe the connector piece was actually lowered based upon staff comment to create basically kind of a step up instead of just a bump up and then the whole thing be in the back large.

Um, there is, in terms of corners, certainly when we're talking about historic buildings, there's nothing specific that says you have to look at a corner differently.

When we're looking at historic resources, obviously things that are in a corner and that are highly visible.

We're gonna take a different approach maybe to something that's on the rear third of a building that you can't see because only three feet from the neighboring property.

And it's same with new construction in terms of corners.

You can't just turn a blank wall on a corner, you have to relate to both streetscapes.

Um, and so staff felt they were doing a good job with that.

There's lots of openings, um, that type of thing.

There's there's actually there's things that are visually interesting about it.

Um, and that this is a the garage is not obviously this is a site with limitations, and most people just have a detached garage on the alley.

But this approach is very typical for cottages, is very typical for cottages in cottage home.

In fact, if you look at historic cottages, you'll actually see a lot of them that have something very similar, smaller gable, and then it pops up about midway back, um, and there aren't that many on corners, but there are many that are highly visible in cottage home.

Um they might be on a corner, they might be in kind of in with vacant lots next door, but found a historic development pattern, and many additions that have been approved by this commission, including one that was just approved last month that was nearly identical in size, scope, setting of the of the rear gable to this proposal.

Um so I just kind of want to explain what our thought processes were when we were looking at this addition.

Um, do believe that it probably looks bigger in elevation than it actually will be.

Um and they also do benefit from the fact that the houses on Highland are larger, so it does help that you got the step up and you do have larger context directly adjacent to kind of help mitigate that change in transition, and I can answer any questions.

Alright, thank you, Emily.

And just for clarification, we're hearing all of these cases for convenience, they're all individual cases, so we can act on them separately and individually rather than as a collective, so just be aware of that.

So I'll take questions from the commission.

Any questions?

Yeah, Susan, come up please.

Yes, um, I have consistently opposed two-story connectors.

Um and so I want you to know that that's kind of a deal breaker for me.

The rest the rest of the design is good with everything else, but that connector just overpowers, um, as was pointed out, the historic home.

And when you walk past that home on the street, the historic home has to catch the eye, and it might from uh the front elevation, but from this um side elevation, you lose it.

So something creative has to happen there in order to um get my vote on this particular house, not if it if anybody cares.

I'm just telling you right out there, because they're we don't have a four people, and you're gonna need five votes on that.

So the other two houses I'm fine with.

Okay, Susan, thank you.

David, please go ahead.

Um I think Joan's comments and explanation of it were were um have uh make a point, and they're valid.

Um I hadn't actually up to admit, I hadn't actually thought of that, uh, but she's obviously very immersed in the plan, and I've stepped away from it for years, but um and the building it looks it looks nice, but it is a little disconcerting now that I'm looking at it with with that in mind.

I'm curious if you've given any thought to finding some way to reduce the somehow.

We reduce the mass of that uh I mean we certainly work to keep that as low as we could, and even the garage is not a false two-story, it's actually still lowered down, so it's got lower plates.

Um so yeah, we're trying to keep that as minimal as we could while providing the function that we're trying to achieve on the second floor, um, which is why like we've got that dormer up there.

We could certainly like we could narrow that dormer up so that it's less prominent, so it doesn't, yeah, it it's not as big of a piece.

It needs to look like a connector.

Well, I mean, like part of it is that this is still the back end of the house.

We're just extending it out.

Uh-huh.

And so I guess it didn't.

To me, it's like it was still part of the house.

We were just making it a little longer and then kind of putting the garage on it and then raising the roof up as well.

So I mean we're making changes to it, obviously, but the scale of it could just somehow be shrunk a bit.

Yeah, I think it would be.

I mean, I think that we are certainly willing to look at that and see if see if we can look at it.

And then I have written that down a little bit more.

No problem with the no parking.

Uh I've always been a big one that if if there was a documented historic house on a property and it's gone, I can't tell somebody they can't put a house there that they really should.

So I have no problem with that.

In historic districts, sometimes things are a little tight.

And parking sometimes is.

Yeah, that's what we always do.

Not what I call Paul Bunyan restaurant.

I don't know what that stuff is even supposed to be.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, David.

Other questions, comments from the commission?

Anson, go ahead.

Or and Jeanette, go ahead.

Sorry.

I wasn't sure who was going.

Go ahead.

It's fine.

Um overall, I'm fine with the variances and the two brand new um homes.

I'm kind of I'm with um Susan and David on this the scale of the addition.

Um, so I I would like to see you guys kind of rework that and come back next month.

Yeah, I think we'd be happy to work with staff uh to work and lower that down.

Yeah, and what we can come up with.

Yeah, I I think I'm just gonna reiterate what it what everybody's been saying.

I I do appreciate the overall project approach, the reestablishment of the historic fabric of the neighborhood and and adding the two historic homes on on those lots.

Um the the addition is is you know one of our our the the guiding tenets of the um secretary of the interior is is that the scale be appropriate and doesn't uh overwhelm the uh historic structure.

This is a hundred and fifty percent bigger than the uh uh historic structure and and overwhelms it uh you know pretty handily.

The the dormer, I also find this the design of the dormer i inappropriate for the the style of home.

Um so i if you're gonna find a solution that has a dormer, I I'd like to see it done differently as far as the the style of it.

It's the style shed roof style seems and with the continuing facade up the dormer seems uh inappropriate for the neighborhood.

So um those are my comments, and I think though it's pretty consistent with what everybody said here.

And I I'll just reiterate uh the the connector needs to be a different scale for sure.

I think I would also look at whether you could push it back a little bit more from the facade of the of the garage and the I guess again that is just the that's the existing end of the house that is already there.

Okay, so we're just extending it out, but that piece already exists.

Yeah, it's just well with it, it doesn't exist at this height.

Right.

We're raising the plate up by like three feet.

Well, I think you've heard enough.

I think where we'll where we're headed here is we can likely approve the other two, and then we'll need to continue the uh 1204 to next month and let you come back with uh uh an alternative there.

Okay.

Okay.

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

Okay, so what I am going to recommend that we do is for the variances, if we could split that into a part A and B, and then for part, well, I'll I'll just read it the way um that's fine.

I have a worded here.

So let me start with the continuance for 2026 COA one forty four, which is for twelve oh four Polk.

If we can get a motion for a continuance to July 1st for that COA.

Okay, I'll take a motion to continue the case to July 1st.

Thanks, Susan.

Second, anybody?

David, thanks.

Any final comment?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Meg?

Next is for 1208 polk, and that is for 2026 COA 145 cottage home.

The uh staff recommendation is to approve a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the non historic garage, remove driveway, construct a new single family house.

Am I reading the right one?

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, sorry.

And for variance as development standards per the submitted documentation and subject to the eight stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

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

Thanks, David.

Thanks, Anjanette.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Meg?

For 941 Highland, 2026 COA 146 Cottage Home, staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new single family house and for variance of development standards and findings of fact per the submitted documentation and subject to the eight stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

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

And Jeanette, thank you, David.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

And for the variance, staff is recommending to split the variance into part A and Part B, and is asking uh or is suggesting a recommendation to approve variance of development standards to one for a lot to have less square footage than permitted and two for less parking than required.

That's part A.

That's part A.

Okay.

I'll take a motion for the variance uh recommendation as uh read by staff.

Thanks, Susan.

Thanks, Mike.

Any questions?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Part B.

And for part B, which will be for a fence in the right of way and a variance for a fence in the required clear sight triangle.

Staff's recommending a continuance to the July first commission hearing.

Okay.

We'll uh get a motion for the continuance uh to the July 1st for part B of the variance.

Get a motion, thanks, Susan.

Get a second, please.

Somebody, Anson, thank you.

Uh any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

So we'll see you next month.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any final uh words, Meg, for this evening?

No.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for staying late.

We stand adjourned.