Good evening.

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

We have uh the June minutes to approve.

Uh they were in your packet.

If you have any comments or questions, if not, I'll take a motion for their approval, please.

Thank you, Mike.

Get a second.

Thank you, Kristen.

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

Any opposed?

Same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We have one uh old business item this evening, uh 2023 COA 017 Cottage Home, address 828 North Oriental Street and 1323 East Ninth Street.

Uh Keith Payne is the applicant requesting a COA extension.

Emily, do you need to give us any background on that?

This is a new owner, and he did start construction, but the COA that was transferred to him has expired, and that and he had the previous owner had already extended it one time, so it's back in front of the commission.

There have been no changes to the design.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions for Emily on the extension?

If not, I'll take a motion to approve the, is it the one year extension?

Yeah, one year extension.

Thanks, Annie.

Get a second, please.

Mike, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we have no uh new business, so we'll move to the public hearing portion of the meeting.

And before calling the first case, let me read the rules of proceed introduce the commission, staff, and read the rules of procedure that we'll be following this evening.

Uh to my right is Anson Keller, Commissioner, myself, Bill Brown, President.

To my left, David Baker, Vice President, Annie Lear, Commissioner, uh Susan Williams, uh, Secretary, uh, Kristen Wiggs, Commissioner, and Michael Bivens, Commissioner.

Uh, the staff with us this evening is Meg Bush, our administrator, uh, Chris Steinmetz, our legal counsel, Emily Jarson, our principal architectural reviewer, Shelby Long, our senior architectural reviewer, Morgan Marlejo, our architectural reviewer, and our recorder.

Carolyn Anna Maker is our architectural reviewer, and Miriam Burkert Burkett is our preservation planner.

The commission has copies of IC 36 day 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 in the record of each case heard by the commission this evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll then ask for objections or remonstrations that'll be allowed up to an additional maximum of 20 minutes.

Then I'll uh ask for staff comment.

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

So before calling any of the cases, if you're going to speak to any case this evening, if you would excuse me, rise and be sworn in, uh, would appreciate that.

So Morgan.

Okay, please raise your right hands for me.

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

Say I do.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

We will start with request to withdraw continue applications.

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

Sure.

2026 COA 11, Fletcher Place.

Addresses 501 and 555, also known as 551, East Louisiana Street, and 304 and 306 South College.

Applicant is Buckingham Companies, and that request is to continue to the August 5th commission hearing.

Okay, all right.

Any questions from the commission on the continuance?

If not, I'll take a motion for its approval to continue to the August 5th meeting.

Get a motion.

Thank you, Kristen.

Get a second, please.

Hansen, thank you.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

All right, we have one expedited case this evening.

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

2026 COA 178B here in Morton Place.

Address is 2020 North New Jersey Street.

The applicant is Hannah Abel, and it's for work completed without approval, including uh demolish and reconstruct a historic rear edition.

Okay.

Questions from the commission on the expedited case.

Anyone in the audience?

Uh public wishing to speak to the expedited case.

Okay, seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve the expedited case as presented by staff.

Thanks, David.

Get a second.

Thanks, Mike.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign?

Okay, thank you.

We'll now move to applications to be heard, which were continued from a previous meeting.

First case is 2026 COA 009 ransom place and variants 2026 VHP 008.

Address 1010, Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street.

Joe Cauldron is the applicant.

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

Thank you.

Uh President Brown.

Members of the Commission, Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis, representing Super Jams to LLC.

Thank you for being gracious in my absence at the June meeting.

And wanted to come back tonight with a very brief presentation.

Each of you should have as part of the day of pack at a printout of the PowerPoint as well as the commitments that we uh have uh tendered uh to Shelby.

So there really were uh a few takeaways from the June hearing that we think we've addressed appropriately, and I'm gonna walk through those.

Uh first with respect to the um site plan.

Uh we did revise the site plan to include a bus pad along MLK at the request of Indigo.

So that is now shown on the site plan.

Uh we're tying ourselves by commitment to develop in accordance with the site plan.

So that was a change.

Um the other issue relative to the site was there was a lot of discussion about maneuverability and traffic and things like that.

We can't change really the overall traffic.

We've gone through uh those steps with DPW, but we did do uh an updated auto turn exhibit um and submitted that to uh Jill Palmer at DPW.

She signed off on that.

And what we've done in concert with that is we've limited regularly scheduled delivery trucks to 30 foot long, uh, even though the auto-turn would accommodate a 40-foot long uh truck.

So we've put that into a commitment.

The auto turn exhibit uh is in the record uh just to ensure that there is adequate maneuverability uh through the site for for deliveries, and then uh as far as the uh design is concerned, there was some discussion about the cutout that we had presented for the first time last month.

And staff suggested and the commission suggested they wanted a bit more design detail on that.

So in my PowerPoint on pages 9 and 10, you can see the kind of the June 3rd design and then the July 1st design.

I believe that staff is comfortable with that.

So it'd be page that's the first one, and we should have the new one.

It's on page 10 of the at least the printed PowerPoint.

So what we've done is added a little more attention to that particular facade.

Again, previously all the windows are now transparent.

And I think that working with staff, they are satisfied with the design of the building, subject to final details, which they suggest would be part of the administrative process.

What I'd like to hone in on are the commitments that we have tendered, because these are important both to I think the commission as well as the ransom place neighbors that showed up last month.

And we've uh put in six commitments, uh two of them are kind of standard in that we are tying ourselves uh in uh to be in substantial compliance with our site plan and our renderings.

So there's a record.

I know that sometimes there's can be concern that we're showing one thing one day and building something the next.

So we're tying ourselves to the site plan and design that we have uh submitted to you as a commission and to your staff.

Uh we have uh imposed limits on the hours of operation such that Monday through Saturday it would be 6 a.m.

to midnight, Sunday, 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

I know that there was conversation about 24-hour um uh availability for operation, and wasn't sure either the commission or the neighbors were 100% satisfied by that.

Uh we also have agreed to uh prepare a sign plan uh that would be uh submitted to your staff for their approval.

We don't have everything uh completely vetted, but we are prohibiting neon lit wall and window signs, and the only freestanding sign that we would have would be what we call incidental signs, the short ones that just kind of direct traffic in or out, that kind of thing.

So we would do a sign plan and tender that to your staff for their approval.

The fifth commitment relates to the um restriction in terms of truck uh length to 30 feet for regularly scheduled delivery trucks.

Um we have also in conjunction with understanding the shopping center owner to the west and his concerns uh about having our delivery trucks park on his property.

We've put a prohibition in that and allowed will allow him to be a party to these commitments.

And then finally, we've received an additional um request from Ransom Place regarding what the trash enclosure would look like.

We will uh build it with the same materials that we're using with the rest of the building, and then we will also have two commercial grade trash containers on site that will allow folks to dispose of trash without having a blow-off site into the into the property.

So we've tendered those commitments and put them in the record.

We hope that uh with the changes that we have made to the design of the site and the building that you are comfortable in uh passing uh the application for certificate of appropriateness.

There is one item of cleanup, and that's the variance that we're seeking, which is simply uh we'd like to place a building about one foot from the uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

right of way.

It's not going to be pulled up all the way to the street.

We'll still have sidewalk, etc.

And it's since we've done uh did the cutout on the corner, it's just the the rest of the flat facade as you move to the north.

Now, if this was not a corner property, we could build up to essentially the property line or one foot because that's what the other neighboring properties are.

But the code for corner properties makes you average the requirement, which is 10 feet, and then the average.

So it's basically a four-foot uh variance that we're requesting on the setback.

Uh notably one of the reasons we did the cutout was to make sure we had the appropriate line of sight at that intersection.

Uh so we do meet all the line of sight requirements and knock down the variance just to one item, we think, uh, given the code requirement to average for a corner property that it's uh meets the practical difficulty test.

My clients are here to answer any additional questions you may have, as well as uh I am and uh thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Sir anyone wishing anyone wishing to speak in support of the application.

If so, please come forward uh state your name and address, please, and offer your comment.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Carlina Moses.

I am the near west community builder.

And I just want to speak on the experience of the developers and super jams in my community, not to overstep anyone else's community, but to share from our experience.

I'd like to say that it has been a blessing and super jams has actually been an asset in the Near West community.

Not only did the development offer fresh produce and groceries that are reflective of the um the cultures that make up our communities, the developers themselves have been very engaged over the last several years with residents, other business owners, and community entities.

They not only engage with us and ask for our input, they are supportive of community initiatives.

They are um eager to step in and ask what it is we'd like to see in the neighborhood and jump in to support the other initiatives that already exist in our community, and I just want to speak in support of that because I don't think that that is typical of a developer or even business owners in a community.

And so I just want to say if this is a development that does happen right here downtown, that the ransom place neighborhood would be blessed to have these developers in the neighborhood working alongside them and being supportive.

Thank you.

Sorry, can we get your address for the record?

Thank you.

My address is 37 North Mount Street.

That's in Indianapolis, Indiana, 4622.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Name and address, please.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am Doris Mitt McNeil.

I am president of West Side Neighborhood Association, and like Carla just dated, Carlina just dated.

I am here not to remodestrate one way or the other as a neighborhood president because we do pride ourselves on respecting each neighborhood's boundary, so it's nothing that whatever ransom place have or what they want.

We don't have no stake in that.

And so, but I am here to say that Super Jams has been in our community for nearly a year, and what I can say is they've been a good neighbor, they've been a great community merchant, they have done everything that we asked them to do when they uh when they wanted the variance to be able to be in our community.

So again, I'm not here to sway one way or another as a neighborhood president.

We pride ourselves in respecting each other's boundaries, but I am here to say that Super Jams has just done a remarkable in our neighborhood, and so and I do want to also mention the lights.

Um I was at the last hearing, and I did hear one of the commissioners say that those lights were overwhelming in some neighborhoods, but uh the day the lights went up at 16th and warm, and my phone started ringing back to back to back to back.

Ms.

Dorse, you need to go and see those lights.

You need to go and see those lights.

And so that just let me know that when somebody what somebody else's trash is somebody else's treasure, people on 16th and warm and they love the they love the lights and how it lit up that community over there.

As you know, we are considered, you know, crime goes on over there, and and because of those lights, we think the crime has deteriorated over there in that area.

But again, I'm just here to say my relationship with with the owners of Super Jam and with their stores.

Uh on the day that they opened, had their grand opening.

I invited every parts of leadership in Wayne Township who that that were the pastors.

Uh the chief of I mean our chief of police in the Northwest District, Commander Lorenzo Lewis.

Uh, we had our trust our trustee officials was there, everybody was there.

And what I can also say is that the day that they had the grand opening, which is what probably eight, seven, eight months ago.

I was in the store again on last week, and exactly how the store looked at the grand opening.

It to my surprise, it looked exactly the same.

Every counter, everything was beautiful.

And uh, in fact, we have it is a grocery store with meat and and vegetables and everything.

We have I haven't had any complaints as far as the trash is concerned.

Right behind the super jams is a residential area.

No one's complaining, believe me you they will complain.

But so far we haven't had any complaints, and so again, I am Dorisman McNeil, neighborhood president of Westside Neighborhood Association.

I sit at the table with four other neighborhood presidents.

We are considered the joint neighborhood association, and we we want people to respect our area where we live.

And so if something was coming in that we didn't want, you know, we we will take care of it just like other neighborhood presidents do because this is where we live, you know, and so we want anything to come into our neighborhood to be something that is not gonna be a hindrance or something that's gonna be uh eyesore to our community, and uh I've never gotten any complaints on the negative, so whatever you guys decide to do, I I mean, I wish you the best on both sides.

Thank you.

Can we hear your address?

Yeah, okay, I'm sorry.

1653 North Bellevue Place, Indianapolis, 4622.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Um anyone else wishing to be speaking support?

Name and address, David.

President Brown, members of the commission, David Kingan.

Um, with the residents of 355 East Ohio Street, Condo 307.

Um, I'm here to speak in support uh as an urban planner.

Uh I did um the site has some history with me.

Some of the commission members that are long time remember when uh I was ill advised to attempt to place a convenience store gas station on the site, and to your credit, you saw your wisdom to deny that, or I think maybe we eventually withdrew it, but it certainly wasn't passed or or you'd um probably be not very happy with me today.

But I think this use that is proposed is an excellent use.

I think you debated a little bit of the use last month, and I what I heard was uh this site is is has to generate a great deal of uh profit because it's a expensive site, it's at a great great location, and I think they've done excellent job of placing the building on the site.

I know if Jim Kennley were still here, he would be saying probably to pull it up to the property line, and I would have preferred to have seen that, but I think as Joe is called and has explained the one-foot um setback will not be terribly noticeable.

I'm very pleased and would compliment the petitioner in restricting their hours.

I think that is a huge victory for the neighborhood.

They may not feel that way.

I'm not a member of the Ransom Police neighborhood, but I would say that that's a um significant victory for them.

The I'm also very pleased about um the petitioners' comments about the trash enclosure and the uh trash dumpster that'll be placed on the property.

I would ask the staff to uh take um notice of that and examine each site very closely for where the dumpster is placed and if it is indeed enclosed, and hopefully that the owner will keep the gates on the trash dumpster shut so that it is not visible from either the public streets to the pounds.

But again, I am here in strong support of it and hope that and I do want to also support the variance of record.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

Please come forward.

State your name and address, please.

Hello, Candace Offitt.

My address is 847 North California Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202.

Thank you for your time, Commissioners.

I am speaking on behalf of the residents of the Ransom Place Neighborhood Association.

I want to be clear about our position.

We remain opposed to this development.

However, we also recognize the importance of engaging in good faith discussions to protect our neighborhood should this project move forward.

At our last here at the last hearing, the commission encouraged Super Jams and the neighborhood to work together to identify ways we could coexit coexist if the development is approved.

We took that guidance seriously.

Since then, we have met with the petitioner, reviewed the additional commitments they offered, and discussed those commitments with neighborhood residents at our most recent meeting.

While residents continue to oppose uh the project overall, those who attended the meeting expressed satisfaction with the additional commitments that were secured.

These commitments address several of the concerns that were raised during our earlier proceedings and demonstrate that constructive dialogue can lead to meaningful improvement.

That being said, our opposition has not changed.

The concern expressed by residents regarding the compatibility of the development with the character and long-term interests of our historic neighborhood remain valid.

Although some issues have been addressed, not every concern has been resolved and future impacts remain uncertain.

Based on the discussion at the previous hearing, it appears likely the commission may choose to approve this project.

If that is the case, we ask that the commission recognize the efforts made by the neighborhood to engage in the process, consider the commitments that were negotiated, and hold the petitioners accountable to those commitments moving forward.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process, and we thank the commission for considering the perspectives of the residents who call ransom place home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Others wishing to speak in remonstrance, please.

Name and address and offer your comment.

Good evening.

My name is Carlette Duffy.

Um I live at 1329 Fall Creek Parkway East Drive in Historic Flint House Homes.

Um I'm not professing to speak for my entire neighborhood, but I am here against this project.

I respectfully oppose the proposed commercial development at TNTN, Dr.

Martin Luther King Junior Street as currently designed and submitted.

This project is proposed within a highly sensitive corridor situated between two historically significant African American communities, Ransom Place Historic District and Historic Flint House Homes.

These neighborhoods represent irreplaceable culture, architectural, and historical assets that embody Indianapolis' black heritage and legacy of self-determination.

While economic develop economic investment is important, development should not occur at the expense of resident safety, neighborhood integrity, historic preservation, and equitable planning principles.

The site is located on a documented high injury transportation corridor.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Develop Metropolitan Planning Organization identifies Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Street as part of the region's high injury network, meaning it is among the corridors where serious injury and fatal crashes are concentrated.

According to IMPO's safe streets and roads for all action plan, MLK Junior Street experienced one of the largest increases in fatal and serious injury crashes in the region, increasing from an average of 11.7 crashes to 37.7 crashes annually, a 20 22 point nine percent increase.

The proposed project produces introduces additional commercial traffic, turning movements, delivery vehicles, and customer trips onto a corridor already identified as a regional safety concern.

Before approval, the applicant working along with the city should be required to conduct a traffic safety, a traffic safety impact study, a pedestrian safety assessment, a bicycle safety assessment, a transit conflict analysis, a vision zero compliance review.

Asking these analyses, approval would be inconsistent with the city's stated transportation and safety goals.

Far too often our neighborhoods are forced to accept unwanted development, making it feel like we are consistently not at the table, therefore we are on the menu.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, I think we're ready for comment.

Uh Shelby, please.

This evening staff is recommending approval of the proposed new construction site work as well as the variants.

Um I did just want to note that our only concern is um with two of the proposed commitments this evening, number three and five, as they're not enforceable by the IHPC.

Um so we're recommending that those be removed from the statement of commitments.

Um if the owners in the neighborhood would like to come to an agreement and have that in writing as far as um hours of operation and delivery truck size, we recommend that be a civil agreement between them rather than something that the IHBC would be um in charge of.

Um, and I can answer any questions.

Okay, thanks, Shelby.

Questions from the commission, please.

David, please.

Shelby, one of the letters that I read suggests that the parking does not meet the standards, but there's no, there's nothing in the variance.

We're not granting a variance from the parking.

So, does it meet the parking standards?

It does.

Um, there are a couple of um allowable adjustments in the zoning code that they use to meet that requirement, but they do not require any parking variances for the site as is proposed.

Okay.

Um just a couple of things.

Um I don't see anything about the building itself or the site plan or anything that would suggest to me that I shouldn't support it.

Um, you know, I think we there's been a lot said about the kind of business, uh, but it's not our job to pick businesses that go into projects that we approve.

Um it's frustrating sometime, but that's just not our job.

Um, the other very real issue is the traffic issue.

But I've studied this thing, and I think this is going to have a fairly limited impact in that there aren't that many parking spaces, and people were sort of come in and out and all that sort of thing.

Um, and I thought if this was housing, you'd have a lot of people coming in at one in the morning or leaving in the morning at night.

But the bottom line is if our standard is that we should only support a project on this site that will have no additional impact on the problems that are already there, then we're basically going to take their property because nothing could be approved.

Um, so those were just thoughts that went through my mind.

Thanks, David.

Other com uh comments from the commission?

Mike, please go ahead.

Just real quick.

I think the applicant did a excuse me, a nice job in um revising the design.

I did have a question about the man door next to the overhead door in the north wall.

It looks like it opens up into the drive aisle of the parking lot.

I just want to see if the applicant could speak to the safety uh precautions that would be taken to prove to protect anyone exiting that door and not being hit by a vehicle.

I may have one of the owners come up and explain their experience.

Your concerns about pedestrians or passenger vehicles and conflicting with there's a uh a loading area in the on the north section of the building, yes, an overhead door.

Yes, and next to it is a man door that opens outward, which uh you would expect, but there's no uh walkway.

It looks like it opens onto the drive pavement.

So I'm worried about a vehicle.

In fact, one of the diagrams shows a truck uh interfering with the door swing, so raises the question.

Just name an address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is Paul Mohit Kumar, and I'm uh living in 10534 Oak Bend Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46239.

And uh, we can if that's the concern about safety, we can swap that for a swing door instead on the other side.

But that's to receive the deliveries, I'd say, right.

I I'm not uh asking for a solution right now.

I just wanted to make sure it had been thought about by the architect and or the engineer, and you know whether there's a protective pipe bollard outside to prevent, you know, yeah, this can be added.

We actually, to be honest, we have not uh considered this before.

Looked at it, and now that you brought it in tension, but we can potentially put a boulevard there, a poll.

Yeah, there's a number of ways.

I just wanted to.

Yeah, we can all this adjust like I said before.

Uh this is not a project that's has to be whatever we say.

It's depends on you guys.

If you guys say change that, we're willing to do the change, no problem at all.

That's all I have.

Okay, thanks, Mike.

Other comments from the commission?

Anyone else?

Okay, I'll just offer my comments.

I'd appreciate the applicant working closely with the neighborhood and want to acknowledge uh you know the neighborhood's cooperation in uh in working with the applicant.

I know this these kinds of projects can be controversial and challenging uh for neighborhoods, but I do certainly appreciate you having an open dialogue uh with the developer, and the same for the developer having an open dialogue with the neighborhood.

So I just want to uh commend uh that effort.

I know the commission was concerned about that last time and glad that that occurred.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um I don't really have anything else to add.

I think the changes to the building are much better architecturally.

I think it's a better better solution for sure.

So I'll just uh ask the applicant if they have any final comments, the only comments we'd like to make uh back to the commission, just in terms of commitments three and five in the statement of commitments that we provided.

Uh we added um ransom place and the West adjoiner as contract or enforcing parties, so we'd like to keep it all in one document and it would get recorded and we do in zoning cases have you know the Metropolitan Development Commission can enforce certain things that IHPC may be uncomfortable with, but we do have the other enforcing parties for those commitments.

So with your permission, we'd like to keep those in the form document so it's all there in one place.

And Chris or Meg, do you want to address that?

Is that okay?

Even though it's not enforceable bias, I assume it's fine to leave them in the document.

Right.

No, that that's fine.

I mean, I think staff's concern was that they would be compelled to enforce those.

Right.

Whereas um if there's a violation, the neighbors now, they have the option to uh initiate legal action on their own.

So I I don't have a concern about those all being in one document.

Okay, all right.

Anything else?

No.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

All right.

I'm seeing it.

I had car trouble.

Okay, yeah, go ahead and uh state your name and address and then uh just give us your comment, please.

Paula Brooks address is um 948 camp street.

Uh-huh.

And um a couple of things.

Um you mentioned the commitments.

Yes.

Um, I never got an answer from Shelby.

The Ransom Place Neighborhood Association, their boundaries stop at 10th Street.

I asked Joe, um, the attorney to include the four property owners in the 100 block or any commitments because we're gonna be, and I actually own um property in that block.

We're we're gonna be the ones that are gonna be most burdened.

I never got an answer, so I don't know.

Chairman Harbor, go ahead, Meg, please.

Because we're out of order right now, right?

We're gonna put 10 minutes back on the clock.

Yeah, I don't know what time we were at when we stopped it.

So just fine.

That's fine.

Go ahead.

Please finish your comment.

No, so I'm saying that Ransom Place Neighborhood Association boundaries stop at 10th Street.

Right.

Um, so we have four property owners in that block that I asked um the attorney to include as any enforceable um parties, and I never got a response.

Okay.

Um, so that's one thing, and the other thing is is um I just want to speak to the fact that I don't think the commission is really understanding um this decision thoroughly.

You're you're placing a building on Martin Luther King, which is really the the namesake for the black community at Indianapolis, with no front door, a wall of bricks, um, tenant windows, it will be the only building in the district like that, plus the front interest faces garbage, it faces the alley that has garbage.

What kind of statement is that making?

Um, that you're approving this building that the three historic neighborhoods have strongly opposed because of the burden that it's gonna put on our on us, and we struggle, we struggle to maintain a neighborhood.

This store, we don't want it, it's a convenience store.

When I asked the owner about not selling vapes, fake marijuana, um, individual to go alcohol, um, he got all upset.

Um, we he's gonna do money transfers.

We have we don't want that kind of business in our neighborhood.

But the main the main thing beyond the fact that you're totally disregarding um the incomplete studies, um, the auto turn as well as the data from 200 um 22 at the height of um the pandemic, you're totally disregarding that.

The traffic, and I thought about one of the commissioners' remarks.

Oh, well, um, if we um look at another, look at two 2023, we're gonna be prejudiced the um store owner, but the traffic has it increased every year, it's not gonna decrease.

Um, but the least that you could do is demand the right data to make the right decision.

And again, that intersection and that entire block is challenged, but it's the it's the public face to ransom place the Flanner House Homes, as well as to Fayette Street, and we've struggled for decades.

Commissioner Baker knows that because he was instrumental in drawing up the district, but he knows the struggle, and you're gonna allow this this um store, convenience store, um, to come and build a building that should not be on the intersection of 10th and MLK.

It should be something grand, as you said to Commissioner Brown several years ago, that that intersection is special.

We don't want this.

Okay, thank you for your comments, and sorry you had car trouble getting here this morning.

Oh well, God is good.

I made it, and at least I was able to get on the record, and all my statements are for the record.

Um, just so you know, but uh again, um I've talked to the property owners in the 100 block.

We don't want it.

Um the parking, um, you're looking at 18 spaces, but that's for staff and customers because there's no parking that it will be available MLK at all.

It'll be residential.

So, you know, where are they gonna park?

All right, thank you.

You're putting the burden on us.

Oh, I'm gonna give the applicant the opportunity to also offer final comment again.

Thank you, Joe.

Any any final comments?

Yeah, the only uh comment um and Miss Brooks is a wonderful community advocate, neighborhood advocate.

She shows up to and she pays attention to many things, and certainly respect that.

Ransom Place was in fact a noticed party when we sent out notices uh for these proceedings, and in my experience, I think it's best for commitment enforcement to be kind of filtered through an organization that has a process.

So not trying to disrespect individuals, but we just feel that for something like this, even if the folks that are in that block say, hey, they're not doing this or they've done that, that can be run through ransom place and be a much easier way for us as owners operators to manage that as well as as your staff.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Medic as well as project day.

We were notified, and we also should be enforceable parties, right?

And and as Chris just mentioned a few minutes ago, it'll be up to the neighborhood to be able to identify if there are issues that they're not living up to on the commitments, particularly on three and five, that can be brought forward to them.

And if you're not satisfied, you can take you can escalate that within the legal system.

So that's not our neighborhood.

That's what I'm saying.

Well, okay.

Thank you for your your comment.

We're now complete uh with our testimony this evening.

So uh Meg, we're ready for uh staff recommendation.

Then please I'm gonna read two recommendations the first for the COA and the second for the variants for COA 2026 COA 009 ransom place.

Staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a one-story commercial building, signage, a parking lot, site improvements, and a variance of development standards to allow less front setback than required.

All per submitted documentation is subject to the seven stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

All right, thank you, Meg.

Could I do I get a motion for the staff recommendation?

Is read please.

Uh Susan, sorry, didn't see you.

Thank you.

Uh Mike, thanks for the second.

Any final comment?

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

Aye, opposed, same sign.

Okay, it passes.

Uh variance, please.

For 2026 VHP 008 staff recommends to approve a variance of development standards to allow less front setback than required per the submitted findings of fact and site plan in the July 2026 IHPC staff report, and that is inclusive of the commitments as well.

Okay, thank you, Meg.

Uh, you get a motion for the variance as uh presented by staff.

Thanks, Kristen.

Get a second, please.

Thanks, Anson.

Any final comments for the variants?

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

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Okay.

All right.

Uh, the next case I need to recuse myself, so David will be um leading the uh that conversation on this and I will return.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

So the next case is uh 2026 COA-057 wholesale district, 231, 235, and 239 South Meridian Street.

Jennifer Milliken is the applicant.

Can the applic the applicants please come forward and give us your name and address and make your presentation?

Okay.

Hi, I'm Mike Baylog, owners rep uh 11312 Hazeldale Parkway in Carmel.

Um, we're here following up to our presentation last month and discussion around our plan to combine 231 and 235 South Meridian Street into a single use for the old red uh restaurant, bar, and music venue.

And just to do a quick overview on our plans, um, we are planning to keep and restore the meridian facade as well as the north wall and the basement of the building.

We plan to rebuild the rest of the site, uh, and this will allow us to enhance the existing appearance and highlight the fact that we have three unique buildings in this area.

We're going to be building back like in kind, using the same massing as the current building, and it's unlike some other facade changes that have been done in the city where they didn't match the massing of the prior building.

We will maintain the look, character, and dimensions of the existing building, as well as in making improvements such as replacing the steel beam that's over the left property, bringing it back to the arch style on the first floor of the site.

Since we're last here, we've updated some of the details of our plans based on the comments from the commissioners and staff, as well as meeting with Mark Delassy and Sam Burgess of Indiana Landmarks.

During that meeting, we agreed to four requests from them, three of them which are design-related.

First is we rebuild the failing south wall, we'll replace it like in kind with regard to the profile of the existing parapet so that it will now slope from the west on Meridian to the east on Cioto, matching the existing parapet.

On the east wall, we'll reconstruct it in three separate brick colors to match the western facade.

This way we're acknowledging the original buildings.

And our plans show a mural on the uh eastern portion of the south wall.

We'll bring that back for approval during our sign approval, but uh we have agreed there with their request not to paint the mural on the brick, but to have a mural material that would be attached to the brick so that it would be removable without causing any damage to the brick or having fading occur.

Uh our historical architect Ashley King is going to discuss some more details of our plans to rebuild, restore, and replace some of the various components.

Hello, Ashley King, Historic Preservation Architect with Woolport, uh 224 North Alexander Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Um, so just sort of briefly walking through our proposed uh design and treatment of the existing building.

The north party wall will be retained and repaired as needed.

The west facade will also be retained.

Um all of the existing historic elements on the upper floors will be repaired, referencing historic photographs, the existing windows will be replaced with new hung windows.

At the lower level.

The historic transoms casts are iron arched fascias and knee walls at 235 will be retained and used as precedence when replacing the non-historic storefront openings.

Will be retained and repaired.

After performing some sample testing, it was determined that we cannot remove the paint from the existing facade without damaging the brick.

So the center building 231 will be painted and accent color 229 will be painted a lighter color, and the existing exposed brick on 235 will remain exposed.

Separate pairs of entrances will also be added to each building.

Unfortunately, due to the condition of the existing floor and roof structure, we need to remove the south wall and the east wall, both which are in poor condition to replace these floor systems.

Okay on the next slide.

Based on comments provided in the last meeting, we've also looked at the treatment of the.

Than Kilroy's.

So with 22 feet in width and a hundred and ninety-foot length, there's very little ability for development individually or providing opportunity for natural light.

Next page.

Developing them individually is further challenged with the insertion of code required stairs and elevators into each building that further takes up available footprint.

Then particular for these particular to these buildings is that the upper floors were constructed for storehouse and light warehouse or workshop use and do not meet current code requirements of live load for inhabiting the upper floors.

Next slide.

And as you can see, so in order to the and and it and it look based on the reports from two different structural engineers, at least 30% of the existing joys themselves need to be removed and replaced.

That's not encountering all of the different holes and openings that have been cut into the building.

So what we are proposing is that replacing the roof the floor joist system in their entirety and the roof choice system in entirety.

We're proposing this avenue because the South Facade is in such poor condition, also due to deferred maintenance.

Most of it is uh lost its face brick along in the southwest corner.

It would require extensive repair if possible to be retained.

So again, to insert a new floor system and roof system, south facade will have to be brought down, rebuilt like and kind, matching the historic and existing profiles of that wall and the massing of the building.

And again, in the next slide, you can see further examples of where the roof has failed and the existing structures having to be temporarily supported due to its existing conditions.

Good evening for the record.

Uh Tim Oaks, attorney for the petition as a matter of the office of one American Square Suite 2900 Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282.

I'll jump right in.

As we indicated last month, these buildings were not purchased with a particular use in mind, certainly not this one.

They were put under contract over two years ago and marketed for any viable use.

And this is the only opportunity that has presented itself to ownership, and quite frankly, ownership had to aggressively pursue uh this opportunity to convince them to come.

Um, if you don't believe the reports, then believe the market.

It is not feasible to adapt this these buildings to uh uses that will work, especially uh uses that are economically feasible.

Um you have heard from uh the uh from Ashley and and it's containing the reports how residential use does not work if we maintain the current structure and its load-bearing demising walls.

Um we have a letter from a broker regarding the uh lack of marketability if we turn the top two floors into office space.

Um, as Ashley mentioned, we now have two structural engineering reports with a second one from RC engineers submitted since the last hearing.

Uh the RC reporter goes into detail about what would be required to preserve this building.

Um we did explore trying to save more of this building, and honestly, it would have been uh to a certain degree beneficial if we could have achieved it.

The cost for you know putting stabilizing the front facade is eight hundred thousand dollars, and by saving part of the south wall and avoiding having to stabilize and have a plan to uh you know preserve that front facade, we would have saved that out of the gate, and that's not even that's a drop in the bucket compared to the increase in costs that would be incurred if we were to move forward with trying to preserve uh you know bigger chunks of this building.

Um, go to the next slide and then the next one uh after that.

Um as the commission knows, there are four criteria contained in the wholesale district plan uh for removal or demolition of a building.

We don't have to meet all four, we are required to meet one.

If we don't meet one, that doesn't mean it's a no vote.

All we're all we are required to demonstrate is that we meet one.

We think we meet two.

Um the first one is condition number three that allows removal of demolition is necessary to allow new development of greater significance to the preservation of the district than retention of the structure or portions thereof, the balancing test, right?

You have weighing the significance of the new development for the benefit of the district against retention of the existing building.

Okay.

Let's look at that just for a second, logically.

So, uh, in exchange for replacing the South Facade, which is in very very poor condition.

It's very obvious, you just have to look at the pictures, and a lot of you have been out to the site in exchange for replacing the South Fazade and a severely modified east wall, um, the historic district gets the following.

One buildings that were the the buildings were uh the most historically significant portions uh are going to be preserved.

That is the front facade.

Two, the buildings will be entirely consistent with the massing of the current buildings, and that's very important.

We're not taking a facade and slapping it on a new building that is of different scope, scale, or massing, it's intended to replicate the massing of the existing building.

Um three uh preservation of the idea of and maintenance that this is in fact three buildings, not one, and four replacement of the south facade with as Ashley noted, like and kind masonry wall that is better and will last longer.

And finally, five a true catalyst for other owners of other buildings in this area to start putting money into the other buildings, which is necessary for historic preservation.

Um, and so when you weigh those, saving a the south wall and the east wall against those benefits, we think it's clear.

Now, this should not and it cannot mean that other buildings that have yet to be redeveloped can be demolished.

We have no interest in this establishing a precedent.

Um, these buildings, particularly uh the the northernmost 235 South Meridian, the two buildings are the worst of the worst in this area of Meridian Street.

That is why we agreed in our meeting with Indiana Landmarks that the owner and any affiliate controlled by its principal shall not reference or cite any approval that might be given in this case as a basis or argument to justify a demolition of any other building they now own or may acquire in the future that is located in the wholesale district.

It's not appropriate.

Each building will stand on its own, and the other buildings are in better shape.

We know we've been in most of them.

Um, so um we state this publicly, okay, knowing that in addition to the buildings that are the subject of this approval, this owner has purchased 225, 239, and 245 and 247 South Meridian.

If we can go to page 14, the next one.

We also think criteria four has been met with our proposal.

These buildings cannot be put to an economically beneficial use without being severely modified as proposed.

We've tried.

Every time we try to save more of the building, the costs go up, and we're already upside down.

As I indicated in the first hearing, when we're done, all in project investment is about 40 million dollars, and an independent third party appraiser has the assessed value of the as built completed buildings about 21 million.

So there's a significant difference.

Too narrow, too many problems with windows, too many issues with gaining access to the upper floors.

Office will not work.

Efficient or modern office layouts are not possible with the existing demising walls and lack of windows, and we still have no room for separate entrances, vertical transport, our modern life safety egress to the upper floors.

So, you know, we do think that it's just not feasible.

We tried, it wasn't for lack of effort.

Next page, please.

Um proper context is necessary and appropriate when considering anything, and that includes historic preservation.

It is appropriate, in our opinion, to consider the benefits of this project as part of actually condition three.

These benefits are real.

It puts the building back in place with the same footprint and the same masonry style where the massing is maintained, the north in wall and basement are retained, and it replaces the south facade with a light kind masonry wall that will perform better and last longer when complete.

So uh real advantages.

Um it will have the same form.

We're not putting again the facade on a different building design or a massing, we're not placing it on a larger building, we're not creating a parking lot.

We have the same uh look character and dimensions.

So and my time is out.

Um this can be a real benefit to uh the wholesale district and this area of South Meridian.

Um it will be a catalyst for great things to come, and we are happy to answer any questions uh that the commission might have.

Thank you.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak in support of this project?

I'm sorry, I meant object.

I guess first it's the remonstrators, right?

No.

Support, okay.

I don't know if there's time, but there that is the order.

I okay.

We have two council members who don't count against the time.

That's fine.

Just very briefly, David King and uh 355 East Ohio Street.

Um I am a um longtime member of the Stadium Village Business Association, which this property is located within.

Uh, we are in strong support of the use of the reuse of the property and encourage you to accept the testimony that's been given for the reasons that they've provided and let this project move forward.

We're concerned about the rest of the South Meridian Corridor from Georgia Street south to Louisiana.

Many vacancies exist, and we don't want to see those buildings go down the same route that this one has.

So we encourage you to approve this project and allow it to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me the opportunity to speak before you today.

I am here in strong support of this project, along with the president of our Indianapolis City County Council Council, Maggie Lewis is here in attendance in the audience with me.

I just wanted to thank her for taking her time out of our busy schedule to be with us this evening.

I was elected in 2019, November of 2019.

Before I was even sworn in of that January of 2020, one of the very first meetings I had was about this property on Meridian Street.

I had some meetings.

If you all remember Ike and Jonesy's, I had several meetings at a booth at Ike and Jonesy's talking about this property.

Problems that this property was causing, and how can we fix it?

And just coming together and trying to figure it out.

It was causing crime, folks were conglomerating there, and what could we do?

And we've spent many years since I've been elected trying to figure this out.

But as you've heard, it's a fiscal challenge.

There's many hurdles, and nobody wanted to take over that challenge.

But today we have we have the answer before us, and so that's why I am very excited.

I have strong support in our neighborhoods who you heard from Mr.

King.

I have business owners who are very excited.

This will be the catalyst to begin on Meridian Street to start to clean that up and to give some vibrancy back.

And so I'm very excited about that.

So I'd like to read to you a letter of support from Mayor Joe Hogsett, President Maggie Lewis, and myself, Counselor Kristen Jones.

And we are writing to express strong support for the exciting new project proposed at 231 and 235 South Meridian Street in Indianapolis's wholesale district.

On behalf of myself, Councilor Kristen Jones, Mayor Joe Hogsett, and President Maggie Lewis.

We are pleased that Box Car Development, Opry Entertainment Group, and Ryman Hospitality Properties have partnered to bring Blake Shelton's Old Red Restaurant Bar and Music Venue to downtown Indianapolis.

This project represents a significant investment in our city, and we're further enhance the vitality of downtown.

Opry Entertainment Group and Ryman Hospitality Properties are recognized leaders in music and entertainment, operating some of the most iconic venues and brands while creating memorable experiences that connect artists and fans, and we are so pleased that they have chosen Indianapolis.

The City of Indianapolis and the whole cell district in particular will benefit greatly from the planned restoration project.

It will protect the fabric and the character of the building and give it new life.

This investment will serve as an important catalyst for continued growth and revitalization along South Meridian and support the preservation of the district as a whole.

We enthusiastically welcome Opry Entertainment Group, Ryman Hospitality Properties, and Blake Shelton to our city, and we are humbly asking for your consideration.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else wish to speak in support?

Anyone wish to speak in remonstrance.

Good evening.

I am Sam Burgess with Indiana Landmarks at 1201 Central Avenue, Indianapolis 46202, here in place of Mark Delossi, who previously commented on the application at the June meeting.

And I want to restate the position that Mark Delossi stated in June, which is that Indiana Landmarks is not opposed to the overall concept of the proposal for the property in question.

But we are here to make commentary on the project as it has been presented.

And the first thing I want to say on a very positive note is that we recognize that this project can play a significant role in the revitalization of downtown Indianapolis and can help to catalyze further investment in the rehabilitation of other historic buildings in the wholesale district, as others have mentioned.

We also recognize the possibility that the outcome for these buildings could ultimately be worse if the COA is denied and the structures remain vacant and continue to deteriorate.

And we discussed our recommendations for uh improvement with representatives of the applicant yesterday, as has been mentioned.

And I want to say we really appreciate the willingness of the applicant to engage in direct dialogue with Indiana Landmarks about the project and the fact that they've quickly incorporated a lot of our comments into the updated design that was uh submitted earlier today and presented at tonight's meeting.

Um and so some of the comments that I have are slightly out of date as of after uh this afternoon based on some uh updated versions of uh elevations and renderings that were submitted, but I think it's still important to share Indiana Landmarks' comments for the record.

And our notes really focus on the treatments of the South Facade of uh 235 South Main Street, the Mayhew and Branham building, and the east facades facing Sayota Street of all three buildings.

Um we're not commenting on the demolition of the um interior party walls or floor structures because we interpret those to be interior features that would be beyond the scope of consideration for the COA application.

Um but as far as the south facade is concerned, um, you know, as as Mike and Tim mentioned, our our main comment was that the original design had a parapet that was at the same level as the parapet on the main west facade and it just carried straight across horizontally.

Um we thought that it would be more appropriate for the parapet of the reconstructed south facade to come down uh below the level of the parapet on the main facade of 235 and then slope downward from west to east.

Um, and that has been incorporated into the new uh version of the South Facade, so that's something we regard as positive.

Uh we also regard it as as uh helpful and positive that a second engineering study was submitted.

And although Indiana Landmarks staff has not physically visited or inspected the building in the course of this uh petition process, we we do acknowledge the severity of the condition of that south wall based on the RC report that was submitted.

Um, so moving on then to the east facades of the three buildings.

Um we have the general understanding that the request to move those facades is primarily grounded in the program for the proposed new use of the buildings, rather than uh necessarily the condition that those facades are in.

I want to make sure that is uh on the record.

Um we do think that if the east facades come down as a compromise, um, you know, it would be appropriate to make sure that those east facades express the volume of three separate buildings, which is the existing condition.

And the uh elevations that were revised and submitted today uh go a long way toward addressing that concern.

Um, but I do want to point out that one further request we we had made was that the openings be moved so that they're not directly aligned with where the party walls would have been.

And uh in the revised version of those east facades, that's not quite the case yet.

That you know, I don't know if we can go back to the revised east facade by chance, but um, but there are still two large openings that basically uh are lined up directly with the demising walls of the existing east facade.

Yeah, there we go.

So there's those two openings, not the center opening on the ground floor, but the ones to the left and the right.

If the one on the left could move even a foot to the left, and the one on the right could move even a foot to the right, um, it it would actually help for the um delineation of that facade into three separate volumes to be more legible.

Um so that's that's just one additional uh request that we would make for for revision to the design.

Um and then uh documentation is is another concern, you know.

If if these south and east facades are going to come down, um I think I think it would be important to have measured drawings if they haven't already been done just just so that there's a record of what was there, and that at least in theory, if someone ever wanted to reconstruct what had been lost, um the the documentation would be sufficient for that to be possible.

Um so in in commenting on this project proposal, we're mindful of the potential to set a precedent for future redevelopment of historic buildings within the wholesale district, and uh the representatives of the applicant, as has been stated, have uh made a commitment to Indiana landmarks that they will not treat the decision in this case as a binding precedent for future projects in downtown Indianapolis.

Um I will say it's very rare that Indiana landmarks would entertain the merits of a facade-only rehabilitation project, and none of our favorable comments should be taken as an overall endorsement of the facadectomy approach to historic preservation.

However, for this particular set of buildings, we do recognize that uh the construction of two new non-primary facades on the south and east sides may be the most viable path toward preserving the primary historic west facades on the buildings in question.

So if the COA is granted uh for this petition, we hope that the applicant will continue to invest in downtown Indianapolis through the full rehabilitation of other historic buildings that they own or may acquire in the future.

And uh we look forward to the possibility of working with the applicant on other projects.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who has something to say?

All right, uh staff.

I don't have any comments beyond the staff report this evening, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Anybody have comments, questions?

Yeah.

Um well, you we've had a lot of discussion about this, and and I kind of just wanted to offer my perspective as somebody who who does rehabilitate buildings quite a bit and has rehabilitated buildings similar to this one.

Um these buildings, when they're designed, they're designed with a lifespan.

And these buildings are well beyond that.

Um they likely weren't designed to last 150 years, and that's what they're approaching.

They're they're likely weren't designed to last a hundred years.

They were designed for a purpose that hasn't existed in 80 years, um or more, closer to a century.

Uh they they just are ready, I mean, I uh to quote a structural engineer that I work with, uh the only reason they're standing up is because they don't remember not how not to.

So um they but you know, if it was I think we got to look at what is important, what is historic and not just old.

And so um these wholesale buildings, the front facade was the thing.

That was the thing that got you in the door to sell the product that they had, and after that, they built that building as cheaply as they could possibly build it.

Um if this was another time that they built it, it would have been made out of wood and it wouldn't have burned down a long time ago.

Um, but because it went when it was built, the codes were in place that required it to be brick, but that they built it as cheaply as they possibly could uh according to the the building codes of the time.

And so what is behind that facade is of it's old, but I wouldn't say there's a lot of historic value to it.

And so when we we are going to restore something like this, uh you know, I think what we're looking at is restoring the facade and and rebuilding what might support it.

And so to say that the interior party walls are necessary, I just don't think that that's something that's uh really viable.

I it if you look at these buildings individually, you have two buildings where a hundred and fifty feet of them have no windows.

And if you can tell me a use, somebody that would want to work in a hundred and fifty feet of no windows or live in it, uh I mean I think I'd be scared of that person.

Um I don't think there's anything they're they're built for uh something that doesn't exist anymore, as I mentioned.

Um so I I think that uh we have to take all of that into to account and and say if we were asking them to rebuild uh what is falling down, what would we have when they're done with it?

We'd have something that doesn't work for our era, and that is uh you know just going to fall into disrepair again because nobody is gonna want to live in it.

So I mean I I think that if we if they did not restore this, then it would just sit and and eventually fall in on itself because it's made out of of wood that's about to do that anyway, and the brick is you know, seen much better days.

So I think our best chance, this may be our best chance of having these facades, which are the historic contribution to this district, last for another hundred, hundred and fifty years.

I think this is the best opportunity for that.

And I think that that requiring them to do more um would result would be a result that uh wouldn't benefit the district at all as it exists now.

So I just wanted to say that that this is a difficult uh project.

I think that they have have taken the landmark comments uh to heart and and done their best to rebuild what is enclosing the building, what it contributes to the district as faithfully as possible, and that uh what is interior to that is inconsequential to the history of the district.

And so I think that's most of what I had to say, and I appreciate uh their team for listening to both us and and historic landmarks uh in and trying to save what is historic here.

So thank you.

Anybody else?

Susan, yes, um, when we first started on this journey, um, I had three concerns.

I had concern when there was suggestion that the um front facade ironworks were gonna be done with something else, and the fact is that now I am satisfied that the ironworks are going to be done properly and as they were historically.

The other concern I had was the south facade, and um I went out there, three of us went on the tour, and I spent a lot of time looking at that south facade and was convinced.

First of all, I this has never been brought up in testimony, but somebody on the site said to me that wall was never intended to be an exterior wall, it was an interior wall, and it's crumbling.

And so, in order to put the south facade back to work as it was as it is now, have to take it down and rebuild it with a brick, unlike the brick that's there now.

There would be no way to do one at a time and plug it in and fix it.

So I was convinced that that concern um was satisfied, and then today I walked in here with my third concern, um, and that was the other buildings that were owned by this developer and some other buildings that were owned that we're gonna see this as a precedent, and that we were gonna be hearing more cases like this.

And um I'm satisfied that this owner has made a commitment that um that we can stand by and we expect them to stand by.

And so those concerns of mine um were answered, and then I was thinking on my way down here um uh this evening, you know, we we talked about a building not so long ago that wasn't uh built for any appropriate reuse, and that was the CSX building.

And we had less conversation about that building, which is wiped off the face of the earth, and nothing, no hint remains of anything about that building.

And I just want to remind us that that we do look at these buildings as you so uh eloquently pointed out, in terms of are they reusable as they stand there, and what would be a reuse?

And um, and I think that this building has the same issues.

And again, walking around in there, it was scary, and you know, my house was scary before we renovated it too.

But um the narrowness, the length, all of that, it just I couldn't come up with anything in my mind that would justify us leaving these buildings in their current form.

So what we're what we're what we're preserving here, as you said, the the front facade and also the massing of the building, the size of the building, and now the roof slant that that uh that we just learned about, and so I'm convinced that um that this project deserves our support anybody else, nope.

Well, then I guess it's my turn.

Um everybody's waiting with baited breath, um it's no secret this is a tough one for me.

Um and I came, I left my house today with notes explaining why I still couldn't support this, um, but you know, that's what these hearings are for.

You hear things and you think about them.

I will tell you when I've started thinking about changing my mind on it, and that's before the meeting.

I drove by the buildings and parked my car and just looked at them, and as I've done for several decades, you know, and uh looked at the area around it, and uh it's just really dead down there.

And there's a a good argument that this area needs a shot in the arm, maybe one that hurts then I think the change in the design of the south wall is important in some, seems like a small thing, but it points out the importance of the uh envelope of the building, um and I recognize that we don't even have jurisdiction over the interior.

I mean, one could keep the outside walls if you could, and completely gut the inside.

We've seen beautiful homes in some of our districts where people have come in and done that and we just gnash our teeth at it.

But um, but it could happen.

So, in a sense, that's sort of what's happening here, um so I think that what I find of all the the conditions or the um the reasons, the possible reasons for going along with this uh demolition is uh might be that there's an argument in this particular case that what's replacing the what that what will be removed, um and the use that's going to go in there may be of greater significance to preserving the area than leaving it the way it is.

Um I don't want to discount these buildings though.

Um for the fun of it, I took a base map at home, and I found uh close to a hundred buildings that used to be in this area of downtown that were skinny and long.

That's what characterized this district, you know, not the CSX building, even though that was a difficult one.

But that was not the character of the wholesale district.

But these buildings were, and these three are miracle survivors.

They're actually some of the better examples of those buildings that are built as a block.

Um it's uh difficult for me, but I can.

And it's also a little frustrating because it seems like they could have done this a different way since they own that property next to it, and uh you look at a map and or you go out there and there's at least two other properties.

Now they don't own them, I don't believe, I don't know what they own exactly, but uh there are two other properties that where this project could have been built, but that's neither here nor there.

So in the end, I guess I'm gonna look at this as not entirely tearing them down.

Uh having said that, there are some, I'm focused on the front facades.

And there are some restoration issues there that if I'm gonna support this, I'd really like the commission to stipulate that the applicant deal with these issues.

I think that if we're gonna be losing what we're losing here, we need to uh uh the restoration needs to be the highest standard possible.

So I'm gonna mention them.

There's five.

I don't know what kind of windows are actually planning on putting in there.

They said uh metal outside, which I can live with that and wood on the inside, and I understand that whole issue.

But all the drawings appear to be two over two windows in one plane.

And that's well, they they look like that.

What what I want to see are four over four windows, and either actual double hung, I don't care if they actually operate or not, but they should be in different planes.

The two sash should be in different planes.

Yeah, they went over that in the last hearing where the the topper operable and the middle area.

All these drawings show something else.

So I just want to make sure that that's right.

Um, arched window hoods.

I think they ought to be restored.

We have all the best photo evidence that I've ever seen practically of missing elements.

The keystones are missing on them, and the corbels are missing.

Um you can actually kind of see the outline of where they used to be, I think they should be replaced.

That should be part of the restoration.

The uh the vents that are up at the top, and I've got a drawing, I've got pictures here I can give you so you'll see and know what I'm talking about.

Um they've oddly changed over time, yet we have like a perfect picture of the outline of these things historically.

They just need to be made to match the way they were originally.

Um I believe in one place it says that well the sweet the fourth thing are the bulkheads on the storefronts, um, it says that they're gonna match the one that's there now, which is actually kind of a replica of what was there originally, but not exactly.

Again, we have like a perfect photograph that's very clear of what they were originally, and I'd like to have those bulkheads put back the way they were the same design.

Lastly, and this is probably the toughest one, that marquee that goes across the whole front of the building, uh just doesn't belong there, and I don't know what the answer to that is.

Um my preference would be that they um up with some kind of signage that uh that's kind of uh not mimicking the historic ones.

We have lots of pictures, photographs of what kind of signage were on those buildings historically, but maybe something that is more along the lines of the way signage used to be on these types of buildings, um I don't know.

Maybe the marquee could be on the south wall, which is gonna be a new wall, and I don't know what they're gonna do with all that.

They do have a sign back there, but I that just seems completely out of place to me, that marquee that's on the front of the building.

So those are the things that I think should be addressed in the restoration of the facade, and if the applicant is willing to deal with those things, then um, and they could work on it out with staff.

I don't we don't have to know the details here, um, then I'm prepared to vote for it tonight.

Do any other commissioners have any comments, questions?

Yes, Annie.

I just wanted to make a couple comments that I think the beauty of this process is because it ends up being so frustrating.

But when parties work together and they're challenged to come up with better things and to reach the concerns that David had and the very great things that Anson said about you know that how were these buildings intended to use, but we're at this um intersection of the past and the future, and so we have this rare opportunity of the what the very best of historic preservation offers, to be honest, to our downtown and what the future it sends the message that if you want to demolish buildings, it'll be a case by case, and it's gonna be really hard.

On the other hand, I think we're a very reasonable body, and I think it sends the message of come back to South Meridian, and that's really the goal of all of us, to be honest.

And so I think like David said, that you know, to go take it as much back to these old pictures as you can absolutely get, it's what we demanded of bottle works and why bottle works is so amazing because the expectations we placed on the goods and services that you would use to preserve this building, um so we're gonna hold you to that, and um I wish you the very very best because this is an important corridor, and if this is the impetus and it sends the message of you know, be prepared to defend it.

On the other hand, if you're gonna bring things to us, then make them really, really good.

And I think you've done that.

I just noticed one thing in a photo.

That one of the buildings has a marquee that says Otis Elevator Company.

Is there a historic Otis elevator in there?

Okay, I was gonna say there might be something in there worth saving, but if it's not in there, then okay.

It would be great if we can like that.

I noticed the sign that said that also, um, but I didn't see one.

Yeah.

Okay, anybody else?

Yeah, I I'll address a few points here.

So if I could, I'm gonna start very quickly with um Indian landmarks.

We we would like to publicly thank them for meeting with us as well and and being able to work through some of these issues.

Um we have done a uh point cloud model um from a from an entire building scan, and with that we can um reproduce what would be necessary to completely restructuring at least what's there right now.

Um so we we really already have that.

Um so uh we we can move the openings on the back side a foot.

Um that that's fine.

Uh we can we can accomplish that is as well.

Um and again, we we we really appreciate um you know the efforts that Indiana Landmarks gone to to try to assist and try to make this a better project, honestly.

Um, so um with respect to the the stipulations, um we really appreciate some of the suggestions one of the one of the difficulties we had in this design because there was a heartfelt and sincere attempt to bring the front facade back to uh you know its original form, um, and one of the issues we had was we have there's some in terms of clarity, there's there are some shockingly good ones, but there's a there's shockingly a lot of pictures of the front of this building that are some are um 80 years old, some are 100 years old, some are uh we don't know, some are 50 years old.

And the over the years, the fronts of these buildings, particularly the two that comprise 235 South Meridian, have changed a lot.

And so it comes down to sometimes which historical photo are you trying to emulate.

Um do you want us to emulate the one from you know 1902 or the one from 1917, just for example, and so we went through that exercise to try to come up with something that faithfully restores um the historic nature of the front facade.

So I wanted to start with that.

So let's start with the windows.

Um the our intent and the design are for um hung windows, and that replicate what was there.

That is the intent.

We're happy to do that, and we certainly will show that on the construction drawings.

Again, the arched vents that are up there, as far as we could tell, they've been up there for a very long time in their current form.

We we'll have we'd have to understand how they could be changed to replicate what you what you see there, but from our perspective, they're incredibly similar.

We're happy to look at that.

We just haven't had the time obviously to look at that.

Um we do have old pictures uh of the bulkheads that we matched, and you may have a picture that has something slightly different.

Again, um, which one do we want to use?

Um, but our intent is again, and we're happy to show that in the construction drawings is to match old photos, and whichever one we end up picking.

Umfortunately is going to be inconsistent with one of the photos and consistent with another.

Um, and so um we like the uh commission to take that into consideration.

Um but you were entirely right.

The the most difficult of the the five stipulations was was the marquee.

Um you know, we we we do have a particular use here.

Um marquees existed a hundred years ago, um and uh that uh we feel needs to stay um uh if the use or ever changed and adapted in the future, why the marquee could go away or be replaced with something else.

But we think uh given the work that we're willing to do on the facade to restore it, that um asking for the marquee is is an appropriate request.

Okay, um I think you should re-look you should look at that marquee though, and David, would it make you feel better if it was designed more as a an element that was hung from the building that could be removable?

Well, true they had marquees a hundred years ago or more, uh, but not on this kind of building.

You know, there would have been a um in fact there was.

We see in the photograph um canvas awnings that came out over the sidewalk.

I only ask because in in our work with the National Park Service, a lot of times the National Park Service will be more um willing to accommodate something that is less historically accurate if it is something that is just hung and removable rather than if it is an integral part as it seems to be of the structure.

It's actually currently designed to do that very thing.

One thing I don't like about it is how it takes what are three individual buildings and unifies them.

Okay, and that's what it's supposed to do, I think, but it's accomplishing it too well.

I'm wondering if your uh very talented architects couldn't play with that and find a way to somehow not make it like a you a uh marquee across the whole front, but something that differentiates it, uh maybe impacting only one building the way it is instead of all three, yeah.

So it's you know, being historic preservationists I definitely can share your concerns, and so our our initial approach to the sign of this canopy, and also yes, taking in consideration what the park service would be looking at if this was a tax credit project.

So the marquee of the audience does is design that it can be removed without altering any of the repairs that we're doing to the existing building.

It's um it's kind of hard to see in this, but there are rods that are supporting it, it's hung on the outside of the building, etc.

In terms of the overall design, um it was essential that it was a simplified design of the fascia itself to make sure that it was not creating that false sense of history.

Um thirdly, in terms of delineation, so the center portion of the marquee of the awning is deeper than the other two bays, and actually the fascia steps up at the middle bay, so there is almost a six-foot difference in depth between the middle marquee and the two side marquees, and then also the top fascia steps up about 14 inches so that they're even just walking down the street, you can perceive those three different buildings.

It's it they're just unified in terms of there's not a gap between them to help the pedestrian experience and protecting them from the elements.

One thing I would say too, David, is that if you look at the photos, it also is consistent with how the wholesale buildings operated, where when somebody was successful and expanded into the next space, they just kept their sign band going over and they expanded it to that new building that they were in inside.

And I mean I've seen that across downtown where you know there were, you know, they they took over the next space over and then they just expanded their their sign band across that building too to make everybody sure everybody knew that they were also in that building.

It was I mean it's it's an interesting, you know, conceit, but I think it is consistent with how you know those build those uh businesses operated.

And I understand it's removable, um the things I really really really want to see, though, are those uh window hoods restored properly.

Um, and the storefronts, it's it's it's very clear in the oldest photograph what how they were built, how they were designed.

Uh so they just need to be done like that.

Um not necessarily I mean the doors and the windows might be the doors may be in a little different place, but that's the way they did it back then.

If uh sometimes the doors moved, different tenant came in, understand that.

Yes, our intent was to have the panel, the the um, there were actually two panels underneath each window.

That's that is not a problem.

We were just sort of in in trying to take in all this information between both meetings and trying to figure out uh which which historic photograph was accurate, you know, because to your point in some in some historic uh photographs the windows are two over two, and some photographs they're four over four.

And the weird thing is is that all of them are either two over two in some photographs, or all of them are four over four in some photographs.

So it's very bizarre.

Well, I would interject, there's one where there's four over two.

So as you can see, it's like which you know, which one so we what we can do is that we can look through all the historic photographs in greater detail and try to create a timeline.

I would error on the side of the oldest.

Okay.

So we can look at a timeline and sort of maybe categorize a little bit better a history of these modifications to the West Facade and come up with a game plan that feels consistent with a general period of time.

And regarding the vents, the vents, unfortunately.

I wish I could have gotten up there and looked at them, touched them because I can't tell what's going on.

They are so those were the original attic air circulation vents, and unfortunately, those have been filled with brick.

I don't know how hard that brick is, and I don't know if a hard water was used to fill that in.

Yeah.

So we would have to kind of carefully chip away at that border and see if we could remove that infill without damaging the brick, the vent surrounds.

Yeah, the the trim around it.

It's changed over time.

No, it fortunately it hasn't what has changed.

I'll give you this picture.

No, I think we're talking about.

Um it might have been modified slightly when they did the stecko facade, but it looks like the brick infill, somehow the brick and fill is slightly recessed.

Um I forget which building.

There's one that the brick and fill is almost proud or level with the front facade of those or the front of those brick vets.

So we would have to get up there on a lift to see what we can do to remove that.

It almost looks to me like there's something covering something.

I don't know.

I don't know.

Yeah, I don't know if that the if the brick in the mortar, it's something we can look at and explore.

All I'm asking is that it be explored.

And that staff, when you're reviewing the final ones, you get as close.

If there's any evidence up there or anything left, or if they can somehow replicate it, it's a it's not a big difference.

Well, there would have been a metal mesh covering that.

It seems like a simple fix for A and B, but C seems like the one where you're more.

I mean, there's millions and millions of examples.

So it's the frame of it that I'm talking about.

Correct, yes.

Um I I cannot wait till the scaffolding gets up on this building so we can get in touch and and look and see all these things ourselves.

Yes, Susan.

Is it possible for this discussion to go on elsewhere and um it come back to us as old business so we can keep up with the what's evolving, therefore being able to move this project forward and tinker with this stuff for a month and see where we are.

I'm willing to do that, certainly, yes.

Um I mean, I sense a willingness for their cooperation and uh uh maybe they could come back.

I mean, I I'm willing to support this um and then have them come back and give us discuss with us what they've discovered on these these items that are concerned to me.

So in essence, it's not a continuance.

It's just an understanding issue that needs to come back to us under old business.

And um we've done this successfully with a lot of projects and it will allow you to get going.

Right.

So there's I just want to logistically now walk through this because right now this is currently one certificate of appropriateness for the whole project, as opposed to a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition and a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction.

And I don't know if we need to split those so that we can move forward.

Um yes, we've been involved in the process where we want to get we have to probably have to go out there and get a lift, but we also have to get our construction drawings done to bring back, I think, to the commission as a whole, from what I'm hearing, and then get that blessed.

Happy to have that as a condition, and I understand it's not, you know, it's approved with that condition, but we would like to move forward with the project.

I mean, I think this is our third month in a row we're here.

That's exactly what we're proposing.

That's I don't I think you're missing the point, is that that we I'm gonna make a motion to approve.

Um that the historic facade discussion that we had here be dealt with at the staff level, and the staff bring it back to us as old business, and you would be here and you'd have to spend more time with us, but you can get all your stuff done.

Okay, um the COA that we're considering is for both the demolition and the new construction.

Is that correct?

That's what I thought, yeah.

And let me just say one additional thing.

There's been absolutely no discussion that I'm aware of about how these facades are going to be kept up in place, so I have to assume you're we have submitted a plan.

Have they?

Okay.

Yes, this might actually be a great time for me to talk about our backup recommendation because it's got all of that information in it.

All right.

Let's hear it.

Yeah, um, and if you want, I can hand this piece of paper to you all to take a look at, because I know this is not in the staff report, but if you just want to listen carefully, and then I can have it spend a few minutes just to go over it because it is pretty detailed.

Um, staff also shared those concerns, and that's something what that has not been talked about in any of these hearings just yet.

Um with the shoring up of the front facade.

We had a conversation with uh BNS and DPW, they are gonna have to block the road in order to do this.

Um it is advisable that the applicant reach out to DPW, especially in get a better understanding of how long they can block the street to shore that up.

Um we definitely do not recommend splitting this because the that means that facade will stay up longer than it's than it needs to.

So we asked for a shoring plan, which is in the packet, and we do have a stipulation in here for construction must not commence prior to approval by the IHPC staff of final construction drawings and shoring plans, reflecting any changes directed uh by the commission at this hearing.

And then the second stipulation is a preconstruction meeting, of course, with IHBC staff, the owner, contractor, construction manager prior to commencement of any construction.

And the third stipulation, and these are all stipulations that must be fulfilled prior to issuance of permits, by the way.

An as-built drawing of the front elevation must be submitted to IHBC staff prior to shoring up the facade to document the existing conditions and dimensions of the front elevation.

And that is simply in there because accidents happen, and so we want some kind of record of what is currently there with the dimensions, so that in the event something does happen and this has to be reconstructed, we have a document that shows that.

This is why I put it in there.

Um, and so they're pretty much close to being there.

So I don't think this is a big ask, but I think it's an important document for us to have before they start to do that work.

Um the fourth stipulation is the material mock-ups must be constructed for review and approval by staff and the IHPC members given the opportunity to view and provide comments to staff about those material lockups.

The number five, the front facades must be shored up per the submitted shoring plans during construction.

Care shall be taken to avoid risk of damage to the existing materials.

The applicant shall contact IHPC staff and if any loss occurs, at which time a reconstruction plan will need to be submitted showing the facade design, and we put matching the 1906 historic photo documentation because we felt that that was in its longest lifespan.

The reconstruction plan must be approved by IHBC staff prior to commencement of work.

Number six, work on exterior finishing details must not commence prior to the approval by IHBC staff of each, which can include doors, windows, etc.

Number seven, changes to the design must be approved by IHBC staff prior to commencement of work.

Number eight, final signage design to be reviewed and approved by IHPC staff prior to purchase or installation.

Number nine, all replacement materials, or excuse me, all new materials should have the same color, surface texture, and method of construction.

Number 10, all new repaired and or rebuilt elements shall replicate the documented historic appearance of set elements again as depicted in the 1906 photo included in the in that that by the way, those photos are in the staff report for reference.

Number 11, no changes to the proposed design, location configuration, or method of installation are permitted without prior consultation with IHBC staff.

And number 12, notify IHBC staff prior to making any any unexpected repairs.

Staff is aware that the applicant has applied for an ILP already that is on hold.

Um I've got copies of this that thing I keep referring to.

If maybe you staff could take this and pass it around, we don't need to discuss it.

I've already discussed it.

Just so the people can see what I'm talking about.

And the applicant, too, obviously.

Um just for a clarification, in stipulation number one, we don't currently have that coming back to you, uh, the final construction drawings coming back to you under old business.

So we wanted to clarify is the request to have all of the final construction drawings come back or just the front elevations.

Just I I would say just the facade, the front facade.

Okay.

Then I will.

Because what we're interested in is the restoration elements.

Okay.

I don't want to see the rest of it.

Okay.

When they have it have reviewed that, I will modify that first stipulation to include that the front elevation come back under old business once they get the details of that.

And I would recommend window details to satisfy David's concern about the sashes.

I'm so sorry, could you repeat that?

Uh I would recommend window details to uh alleviate the some of David's concerns about the sashes.

Okay, thank you.

With the maybe just a very, very minor tweak, we these are reasonable, we don't have any problem with them.

Um the one we um uh are a little reluctant tonight, and it's just part of it is stipulation number five that pegs the design to a 1906 photo.

Um we think that is a little bit arbitrary.

Um these buildings are older than 1906, and it looks like that photo was just picked, and let's go with this.

And what you heard earlier this evening was hey, we can go back and take a look.

Um our intent is to be faithful to the historic front, and we're a little concerned that tying ourselves to a single photo when we have a multitude of photos, some of which are older than 1906, is not is a little constraining.

Um so it's not that we don't agree with five in the fact that we shore up the facade, or if we any loss occurs, um that we have to restore it and we'll get the as built prior to construction.

That's easy, that's not difficult to get there from where we are right now.

It's just pegging 1906.

Um, we don't know if that's problematic or not.

We like to remove it.

Our intent is to be faithful to the historic nature of the building.

We just don't want a specific photo.

Okay, they're wording.

Meg, that came from you.

Right.

Um I don't think I said that because I don't really know what date the pictures are, you know.

So I think she mentioned the most prevalent historic period, right?

Like, yeah, I did.

I mean, by 1906, it's probably still fifty it's closer to the original.

But uh it's going to come back to you under old business.

Yeah.

So I would say if you just delay on 1906.

If there's a specific thing you're proposing on the restoration, and you want to justify it, show us what you were what the photo is, whether it's nineteen oh six or something else.

I don't uh agreed.

We we think that's entirely appropriate.

Yeah.

So just for clarification, I'm striking the language in that stipulation number five about the nineteen.

There's nothing sacred about the nineteen oh six reference.

And then for stipulation number one, I added final review of the front facade elevation must be approved by the commission under old business.

If that's satisfactory.

And they don't have to send an advertisement out or anything.

They do not.

Okay.

So we would just make sure the applicants okay with all of the stipulations.

So are you okay with with those two modifications included?

Yes.

We're we're comfortable with that.

Okay.

Okay.

Then we would just ask for a motion from anybody.

Susan, thank you.

Annie, so thank you for seconding.

All those in favor say yes.

Or aye.

All those opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

Look forward to seeing those uh what you come up with.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, David.

Uh we will now uh hear the next case, which is 2026 COA 144 cottage home and variants 2026 VHP 007, address 1204 Polk Street.

Micah Hill is the applicant.

Uh please come forward, state your name and present your case, Micah.

Uh good evening, uh Micah Hill with offices at 961 North Highland Avenue.

Um here this evening.

Uh I was unable to be here last month.

You had Jason Wolf, the architect on this project presenting to you.

He and staff caught me up to speed with your concerns and hopefully we've addressed that and brought you back some new designs with some new massing and some new scale on several of the um elevations that were most concerned.

Um if you go to the next slide there, if you would please, I believe you'll start seeing where um next couple slides.

Excuse me, we get to the elevations.

Um the front and the rear of the home are largely unchanged.

Uh moving the next slide, and you'll see where the side and facing North Highland Avenue uh has been resubmitted.

We brought the plate height down over the connection, the space between the historic cottage and the new garage.

That's now fully down at the uh existing ceiling height, and just have a small dormer window on one of the uh pages on your uh staff report.

They have them juxtaposition uh kind of shown next to each other where um you can see what was last month versus this month.

Um I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was one of the larger concerns uh and just how that middle portion really stepped up.

So we made that uh change, and then the side which is less visible uh on the eastern facade, changed just a little bit because we actually flipped the bedroom on the second floor to be able to make that happen.

And so the window positioning changed, but really the masking didn't uh along with anything else on that portion of the home.

Um so I don't mean to be uh oversimplify this, but uh I believe that was the major concern.

That's what I want to speak to first.

And if there's other comments, I'm certainly happy to have those conversations.

That complete your presentation, it does.

Okay, tell me anyone wishing to speak in support of the application, anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance to the application?

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

Emily, please.

Staff find the design to be appropriate and meets the concerns uh of the commission at the last hearing that it was too big for the house and for cottage home as a district.

Um, think that they have achieved what you asked them for, and I can answer any questions.

All right.

Thanks, Emily.

Questions to the commission, please.

Everybody good.

Any final comment from the applicant?

Okay, ready for staff recommendation, and Meg, please.

For 2026 COA 144 cottage home staff recommends to approve a certificate of appropriateness to make repairs to the historic house, demolish the rear section of the house, build an addition and curb cut slash driveway, and for variances of development standards and associated findings of fact per the submitted documentation is subject to the 10 stipulations and one note in the staff's written report.

All right, thank you, Meg.

Uh, get a motion for the staff recommendation is read, please, Susan.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you.

Any final comments?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign?

Okay, and the variance, please.

For 2026 VHP 007 Part B.

Staff recommends to approve variances of development standards to allow a fence in the right of way and a fence in the required clear side triangle.

Okay, get a motion for the staff recommendation on the variance, please.

Mike, thank you.

Get a second, thanks, Kristen.

Final comments.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

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

Uh the first case, 2026, COA 198, Chatham.

Cottage home, sorry.

Uh 950 Durman Street.

Russell Brown is the applicant.

Uh Russell, or is representative please come forward, state your name and address, and present your case.

Hi, I am Paul Nasher with Redemption Engineering 803 5 Craig Street, Indianapolis, uh 46250.

Russell had another meeting tonight.

He could not be here.

Um, I'm here representing uh Fitzmark, Bob Stansbury, who's their director of facilities, and Andrew from Outdoor Environments Group as well.

Um, and if you want, should I give an overview?

Um, I'll just try to give uh a high-level explanation of what's happening here.

So Fitzmark started in 2006, it was an Indianapolis startup.

They bought this property in 2016.

Um it's a technology and logistics company, and they I got involved in 2020 as they kept growing, they were running out of parking.

This was actually originally an industrial I3 zone parcel um and when Fitzmark bought it, they changed it to more of um some warehouse storage and more um tech type jobs, computer jobs, and the need for parking was just growing because they're being successful.

Um, and so now 10 years later uh they have continued to be successful in their business.

Now they have 12 locations across the U.S.

from Buffalo to Scottsdale with their business, and this is still their main location.

So what's happened is that as they've grown, they've added more staff, they hire a lot of young professionals, and um all along they've been very sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood, cottage home.

Um they've always had a great relationship with cottage home, and the problem that has come up is that there's so many employees, and there's not enough parking, so the employees end up parking on the streets in the neighborhood, which nobody wants that.

This is not there's no like we have to have parking because of this, it's more of we want to have parking for the neighborhood so that spaces in the neighborhood are not being used.

Um and also there are other uses.

I think the southeast corner of tent and dormant, there are some uh restaurant type uses with that have heavy uh parking demands.

There's not a lot of parking there, so they have agreements with those uh entities that you know because this is pretty much an eight to five business, um, so the other bars uh restaurants in the neighborhood can use this parking as well, so it's not we have to have parking because we need this for our business.

It's really a we want to provide great parking for the area.

I mean, we know parking lots pavement does not look great, uh, but I will say that uh Andrea has done an exceptional job.

Uh most beautifully landscaped parking lot I have ever seen, um, and it's going to be a huge investment in that.

I think there's one side note that there were really two sections of this project, the north side, which is on the left side of your screen there, which is the main portion of the project, and then also on the bottom right, there's another 13 spaces that we wanted to add.

Um talking with staff, we've decided to kind of keep that bottom right 13 spaces as a separate uh part of this and seek approval on the north northern section because there are some questions that have come up, uh valid questions that um uh the neighboring property owner has that we want to work through.

Um, and also we need to uh have some additional conversations with DPW because we would be making improvements on ninth street there as well.

So uh we do uh want to, we desire to get approval um here tonight for the northern uh improvements on the project, and that's all I have.

I'm happy to uh answer any questions or if there's anything regarding the landscaping, or if you'd like to speak with um the uh the owner's representative as well, okay.

All right, that's my last screw.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Please come forward to your name and address, present your comments.

Um I'm Sean Miller, uh 1000 East Ninth Street.

I own the building in question to the south of the property, and I really have no objection to them adding their parking on the north and east sides of their property.

Um my only objections are really concerning how this impacts my building.

Uh, did I sent a letter?

Did everyone see that?

So the two main concerns are basically cutting off my access to the vacated alley north of my building.

When they built the parking lot north of my building, they stayed away from the building, um, and you know, that access is still there, and I need that access to not only access the existing parking area, which hopefully will be somewhat temporary, but more so just to service my building.

This is a very old building, and then I'm just not excited about the parking behind the building at all.

Um, so those are my only real concerns now.

Uh generally speaking, I hate surface parking lots, and I really you know what they as long as the neighborhood's in favor of what they're doing is fine, but I do want to point out uh I was uh somewhat in a leader position in Chatham Arch and Mass Avenue, and parking's always been a big problem there, and I can remember at one point we all thought we needed a parking garage, and uh somebody said, Oh, well, we're gonna do a parking study because we don't really think you need a parking garage.

And it actually was very illustrative that there were plenty of lots within reasonable walking distance of Mass Avenue.

People just weren't using them, and I did bring again, I'm not opposed to them having more parking.

My only long-term concern, this is an expanding business, it's gonna keep expanding.

Um what happens if you need more parking?

Um, so there is, and I brought here a map that I can write in high.

Just give that to staff and they can distribute it.

There is a 500 space parking spot three blocks from this site connected by a trail.

So there are other alternatives to surface parking in this area that already exists within easy walking distance.

But again, I'm not opposed to them expanding to the north.

I'm just concerned how this impacts my property.

That's it.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in remonstrance?

And if not, we're ready for a staff comment.

Uh Caroline.

Um so we do have a revised recommendation from the original report.

Um, and staff is recommending that the case be split into a part A and part B.

We are recommending approval of part A of the COA, which would include the expansion on the north and northeast side of the parking lot and the landscaping improvements throughout the project.

Part B would include resurvicing and the expansion of 9th Street and the additional 13 spaces to the south of the existing parking lot.

Um we are recommending that that be continued to the August 5th, 2026 hearing so that proper notice can be sent.

Um the notice for this month did not include any of the alterations to 9th Street, and so that the applicant can discuss the project with DPW.

And just as a correction to the original staff report, we have received a support letter from the cottage home neighborhood, and that should be in your day of packet.

Um, and I can answer any questions at this time.

Okay, could you address the uh the remonstrators' comments about access and so forth?

Yes, so to my understanding, um there was a question about um access up in between the the properties, so it'd be the north of a thousand East Ninth, that little section in between.

Um there is an updated landscaping plan that should also be in the day of packet.

Um, they will not be doing any landscaping in between that section, so it should not impact um the uh park small parking area that would be um on the east of the map if you were looking at it north to south.

Um, do you want to know more about the accessibility on just ninth street or just that kind of question there?

No, no, go ahead and yeah.

If you've got other comments about 9th Street, too.

I'm sure the commission would just appreciate understanding the moment.

So the main concern with 9th Street, um, could you put it page 37?

Um, when we first received the application, we didn't quite have an understanding of what was going to be altered on 9th Street, but we did receive this, um, which is in the original um documentation, and you can see that they're redoing part of 9th Street down at the bottom on the south side, and then there's that small strip there, and there is a section that has two not two do not enter signs.

And so part of the accessibility is is that they're redoing the ninth street with the connects to the neighboring property, um, but some of that expansion also goes into it's in the right-of-way, but it also goes into the railroad right-of-way, which is part of the discussion that they need to have with DPW.

Um, so uh it's kind of just the accessibility of both the parking lot and kind of getting out in and out because those 13 spaces would be a one-way, if that makes sense.

Um, right.

So I think those are the main concerns.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Uh questions from the commission, please.

David, yeah, go ahead.

I think I heard the applicant say that he was basically abandoning his request for the southern part of it that uh is near Mr.

Miller's property, and did I understand that correctly?

Because if so, then it just doesn't matter that we even deal with that.

We're not we're not um abandoning that.

We're just like let's come back and look at it.

It's not we have to do that.

We do think it would be good for Fitzmark and for the neighborhood, um, but we don't want to hold up the other part of the project, so our plan would be to talk with DPW and um all interested parties and see if that but our goal would be to so it's not part of tonight's record requesting approval for that.

I don't know how that works with um dynamics of approval.

Um would the part B then be continued?

Yeah, part B will just continue it.

Yeah, that's our recommendation is for that piece of it to be continued and to allow them time to send out notice for that and come back to you later for that.

Okay.

I assume he either picks a date for it to be continued to, or if he doesn't know when that's going to be, he'll just he'll have to readvertise.

Is that correct?

There is time to send out notice for the for August, so we can continue it to August to allow them time to send out notice, and we can continue it after that if we need to.

Okay.

And just so I understand, would that be sort of similar to the um the recent the project we're talking about with the facade where you would still get the COA, but then it would get addressed under old business?

No, no, this would actually be you coming back for part B to get second certificate for that.

Oh two separate, yeah.

Yeah, that would that would be appropriate.

Okay, all right.

David, anything else?

Susan, please.

Yes, I'm looking at um this beautifully colored thing in our packet.

Um, it doesn't have a page number on it, but anyway, and there's an overlay, and it shows Sean's property, and I don't know if this is an old photograph that this overlay was put on or not, but I'm hearkening back several years when there was meant to be improvement on your property and the parking in your area, and it does from this picture it doesn't look like that happened.

Did it ever happen?

Um you'll need to come forward.

Yeah, um I had applied uh to move my dealership there, and that was there was neighborhood opposition, and so I withdrew that application.

Okay, okay, and that that is an old picture.

There aren't as many vehicles in the lot, but the lot is could not be more effectively screened from the neighborhood.

But you you have access off a ninth street, right?

Um, to yeah, to the main area, but there's a fence between that and that small area is currently used for dormant street parking, and again it's a complicated legal issue when an alley is vacated, typically it is split between or street or an alley.

Okay, well, I hope I hope when we um take this piece up, part B that we have better drawings that are really focused in on that section because I I'm confused by it, but we'll see you again, I guess.

Probably so, yeah.

Okay, other comments from the commission.

Yeah, please, Anson.

Go ahead.

Um I didn't think of this until I got here and was looking at this.

Um I'm sure that they have you know their required parking for their use, but have has anybody looked at given that part of this is warehouse, the maximum allowable parking in the ordinance versus what their square footage is.

So for the um office space it's one per 200 square feet, but the warehouse does not have a cap, so technically they can have as many as they want to okay.

So there's there's no maximum one warehouse.

Okay, any other questions?

All right, any final word from the applicant, no good.

Okay, ready for staff recommendation then back, please.

Sure.

Um, and I'm gonna read this because this is not in the staff report, so um staff is recommending splitting 2026 COA one ninety-eight into a part A for the parking lot expansion to the north and northeast and landscaping, and for part B for the additional expansion, including the thirteen spaces to the south and the repaving of ninth street.

Um, and that would include four stipulations.

Number one being the final site and landscaping plan to be reviewed by staff prior to work.

Number two, parking lot construction should be field staked, and staff would come out to check that.

All required landscaping and or fencing shall be maintained and replaced if lost for as long as this site remains a parking lot.

And number four is no changes to the proposed design location configuration or method of installation are permitted without prior consultation with IHPC staff.

So if you could just ask the applicant if they're okay with that.

Is the applicant okay with that recommendation?

Yes.

Okay.

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

Thank you, Susan.

Get a second.

Hansen, any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Same sign.

Thank you.

And for part B, a motion to continue to August 5th.

Okay.

Get a motion to continue part B to August 5th.

Thanks, Kristen.

Thanks, Mike.

Any final words?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

Good luck with your project.

Alright.

We've got uh next case, uh, new case this evening.

To 2026, COA 206, Cottage Home, address 929 Stillwell Street, Matthew Payton is the applicant.

Uh Matthew or his uh representative, please come forward.

State your name and address and present your case to us.

Good evening.

My name is Matthew Payton with PAT Architecture at 6219 Guilford Avenue, Indianapolis, 6220.

Um, I'm here on behalf of my client, Justin and Jason, who are current residents of Cottage Home for over eight years now.

Um they would like to build a new home in the neighborhood that they love living in to stay and grow as they have already developed a strong connection to the neighborhood itself.

Currently, lived they live in one of the stent houses built on Dorman Street, probably back in 2013 at this point, and desire more space inside and especially for their outdoors, as most of those houses were designed with very minimal backyards.

I think it's a gravel pit right now because there's no way any grass can grow.

Justin and Jason have purchased the property back in 2024 with intention of designing a new residence for themselves to stay.

It's obviously a block away, so that way they have the same neighbors and enjoy the same community.

These lots are unique in the fact that they are only 70 feet deep compared to a typical 90-foot deep lot on the opposite side of the street.

Um I know Cottage Home is known to have kind of shallower lots in the neighborhood, and they're obviously narrow as well.

Um, but there are even longer lots that allow for an extension of a home backyard space and garage behind.

Um, but that is not the case with these being only 70 feet deep, and that is why an interesting design was needed to be considered with the wants and needs of the clients for the indoor space and the outdoor space as well.

Uh the property has an interesting jog on the north side of the property, which is to the left of the screen.

Um, on that parcel historically, there was a house that was um long and L-shaped in the same almost exact location as currently shown in this new proposed design.

Um, so it is within the character of building within that little jog.

Um there were two other houses built on the separate parcels, small cottages, typical of cottage home.

Uh the project itself, um, we're locating the house to the north side of the property to allow for a larger yard space along the south side of the house, since obviously there won't be much of a backyard given this the house needs to stretch far away from the street, that's to minimize the width and frontage along stillwell.

Um, so the yard space that we're utilizing is now considered a side yard.

And then given the shorter depth of the parcel as well.

A garage should be located behind a historic residence.

And then with this design, there is not enough room.

So the garage is located to the side, but still facing the alley and as far back on the lot as possible.

The house itself has an overall square footage of 3880 square feet, including the full basement.

The first floor itself is approximately 1400 square feet in footprint.

The footprint stretches to the north to claim that usable space in the jog, again historically found in sandborn maps in 1956.

There was a residence previously located in this jog parcel that was oriented long ways along Stowell Street.

Keeping and much of the remaining program along the north side of the property as possible, the house stretches east towards the alley.

Current zoning requires a 20-foot rear setback, and because the lot is much shorter than most for a typical modern home to be built, we are encroaching that by five feet, so proposing a 15-foot rear setback instead of the 20.

This way, it helps minimize the frontage as much as possible by moving the program as far back from the front of the house, but also still utilizing the jog space on this property as well.

Cottage host guidelines state that a larger than typical mass might be appropriate if it is broken into elements that are visually compatible with the mass of the surrounding buildings.

The front design follows this ideal by breaking the frontage along into two gable forms comparable to many of the small cottage homes within cottage home neighborhood.

I know cottage home, cottage home, cottage.

The roof line along the front is lowered to keep the height of the house within the height range established by adjacent houses.

The front gable peaks are only two feet higher than the peak of the house to the south, that is 917 Stillwell.

The remaining roof line slopes away from the front of the street and stays under the overall height of the house to the north at 11 24 5 pulk, which we are much closer to.

The entry to the house is between the two gable forms with a spanning covered porch with standing seam metal roofing.

A brick chimney is located on the south corner of the house, assinuated along the front, as well as a covered patio off to the side, because that is our outdoor space at that point.

The garage is a three-car garage, as they currently have three cars, and they always leave one parked on the street, and we just had a presentation about that parking.

So this would allow for them to have all their cars parked in the back, out of way and not using street parking anymore.

The garage doors face the alley, they do not face the front, it is pushed back in the lot as far as possible.

The west side that has some aesthetic features with a couple of windows and a gable form bump out to match the house, connected for a covered breezeway that goes directly into the mudroom.

The style is mostly traditional while leaning into a more contemporary style as well.

The simple gable forms with low-profile hip roof extensions.

The materials used are mostly lap siding with the use of a painted panel siding in a select view locations.

All of the trim is a painted cementus port trim.

You have painted metal gutters, you have asphalt shingle roofing, with exception of the two covered porches.

Additional details include the upper portion of the gables, have a smaller exposure lap siding with a decorative gable vent, invoking the decorative nature of many gabled homes within the neighborhood that use a different material on the peak to provide a form of decoration.

A good example of that is directly across the street, 934 Stillwell, that has a fish scale feature in the gable form, and as well as a very decorative vent.

The trim around the front, the first floor windows shows a small narrow side casing with expressed cap and still trim.

The narrow rake boards, there will be narrow rake boards along the roof lines with sloped soffits, and the brick chimney has a boxed off traditional style with a recessed brick accent down the center.

Following cottage home guidelines for new construction, I'll read a couple of excerpts.

In this case, as we were designing this house that we were trying to follow to the best of our ability, but the purposes of the guidelines is to present concepts, alternatives, and approaches that will produce design solutions that recognize the characteristics of the cottage home conservation area and bring harmony between new and existing buildings.

While guidelines can create an accept framework, they cannot ensure a particular result.

Consequently, people may hold a wide range of opinions about the resultant designs.

We have worked with the guidelines on new constructions the best we can.

It's very important to consider the context for this site, as we are not an infill site with a highly developed street.

There is only one house fronting the street currently, and there is a neighbor next to us that is built around the same time as most of the homes in the neighborhood.

The determined concept is the very important first step as noted in the guidelines, and the property is not an isolated lot in this highly developed unhighly developed area.

It should be considered as a large lot, as there is a combination of several vacant lots on this side of the neighborhood, many of which have also been developed with homes that have claimed their side yards as the extra parcels available to them, and some that will never be developed.

The context is still a primary concern.

In such cases, a so much larger area than the immediate environment must also be looked at in the context, especially if other vacant land exists in the media area.

Our contacts should include more than just the adjacent properties, as we are this larger lot type, as noted in the guidelines.

It should include houses across Polk Street as well, and it's across Stillwell as well.

The entry as well, as noted in their guidelines, entrances may be characteristically formal and friendly, recessed or flushed, grand or commonplace, narrow or wide.

New buildings should reflect the similar sense of entry in which it is expressed by surrounding historic buildings.

There are many houses in the neighborhood that have large front porches, either historically or currently that span across the entire front porch, the front of the house, porches that are located only on the sides, and as well as porches that wrap around both the sides and the front of the house.

In terms of height, generally the height of a new building should fall within the range set by the highest and lowest contiguous building if the block has uniform heights.

If the pattern of the block is characterized by a variety of heights, then the height of new construction can vary from lowest to highest on the block.

Given that the perceived height of the front elevation is within two feet of the lowest house on this block of Stillwell.

Speaking of the house to the south.

The house to the north was built at the same time period as this other historic home to the south of the block, and should also be considered as characteristic of the street.

The mass of the project, as mentioned before, a larger than typical mass might be appropriate if broken into elements that are visually compatible with the mass of the surrounding buildings.

And with this project, the mass is broken into elements that relate to the context.

It can be taller without overbearing adjacent properties.

As it is not our intention, there are many residences in the given context that span across the entirety of the property, many of which do not take into account the sense of scale along the street.

Outlines and silhouette along the street as well.

The basic outline of a new building should reflect building outlines typical of the area, and the outlet of outline of new construction should reflect the directional orientations, characteristics of existing buildings in the context.

The guidelines also have a graphic guide provided that shows gable forms with a strong vertical directionality.

Given that we are separating the front and two gable forms to meet this characteristic commonly found in cottage home, and that it is commonplace to see these houses in the neighborhood with a cross gable that could veil the larger section of the house behind it.

Style and design in the guidelines, there are no specific styles recommended.

Creativity and original design are encouraged.

A wide range of styles are theoretically possible and may include designs that vary in complexity from simple to ornate.

This design is both simple and ornate.

A front yard is defined as the area in front of the front face of the house, and everything that is not the back or the front would be considered side yard.

I know that it's not recommended to have rear privacy fences that begin any closer to the street than the line parallel to the front of the primary structure, or have a privacy fence higher than six feet.

But our fence that we are showing proposing to enclose this side yard is behind the front face of the house, making it defined part of the side yard and not a front fence.

To break up the span of the fence, it will be divided into smaller sections of varying depth and height, as well as given a little less opacity by leaving a one-inch gap between each board.

Accessory buildings according to the guidelines should be located behind existing historic buildings, unless there is a historic precedent otherwise.

This is new construction.

Again, even if we had room in the lot behind us, I would recommend that the garage go behind the house, but we do not have this depth based on the current property, and the garage should be oriented towards the alley, which we are meeting as well.

After reviewing the guidelines, and originally presenting to staff, we've worked with the staff from the original design presented, that does not reflect this current design, and I will go through those changes that we've gone through.

So originally we had a sloping roof line that carried down to the south corner across the chimney.

A little bit more of a kind of tutor roof line, and we have since removed that and provided the hip roof feature along that corner.

And we originally had a tapered stucco chimney versus the brick chimney that you see today.

And the very we had varying lap siding exposures throughout the house as well.

Now we have lap siding that is six-inch exposure, except for in the upper gable portions where it is that four-inch exposure.

Windows also had varying head heights to take advantage of different spaces within the house.

Now all the doors and windows line up at eight feet, with exception of the living room windows, but the bottom transom lines up with that eight-foot mark.

Um concerns were also raised about the front gable forms not being prominent enough to read as two separate forms.

So we moved the portion between them back to further express that separation of forms.

Both from all three adjacent properties that are currently owned by homeowners and not investment properties at 917, 918, and 934 still well, and staff should have those letters on file as well.

When presented to the neighborhood committee, there was no pushback for the size of the house, as there is already a house of similar size across the street and varying house sizes within the neighborhood already.

They like the style and the neighborhood wish to see more houses of the same style.

There were also letters of support provided by the president of the cottage home neighborhood association, which in that letter states that the agreement the agreement that the design is aligned with the neighborhood's conservation plan.

In conclusion, in conclusion, Justin and Jason are proud members of Cottage Home and value the conservation of this prominent Indianapolis neighborhood.

The house was designed to many follow many of the guidelines of the cottage home guideline for new construction and used to provide that design that works with the clients' needs and wants and needs.

Why would we be respectful while it will also be respectful of the historic designs of the past?

These new designs build on the character of the neighborhood and provide a variety community to the community that it is expected.

There are unique varieties to many houses in the neighborhood that use the same materials and different types.

We're out of time.

Can you wrap it up, please?

Yes, I'm almost done.

We strongly believe that this design will work well with the existing context and not overwhelm the neighboring houses.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We have no time for support.

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Okay, ready for staff comment.

Morgan.

Um staff would like to start by pointing or would like to start by noting that this development will span three parcels that were historically three separate lots and three separate single-story dwellings.

Staff does not believe the request is compliant with the cottage home conservation area plan.

Staff has met with the applicant to discuss these issues with the proposal, however, the applicant's clients have not indicated a willingness to alter plans to come into compliance with the historic conservation area plan.

Staff has outlined these items below.

Um the height uh in the cottage home plan states that new construction heights can fall within a range of surrounding properties, but if a structure is uncharacteristically high or low, that should not be considered.

We believe the structure needs to be lowered as to not dwarf the neighboring cottage.

Massing the mass of the new building is not compatible with surrounding buildings.

The mass is not broken up and raises one large mass on the street facing side of the front of the house, especially considering the mass of the garage and carriage house at the rear of the lot.

The cottage home plan states that larger than typical massing may be appropriate if broken into multiple elements that are visually compatible.

Staff has suggested designing the house to look as if it were two cottages that had been connected, but the attempt to create this is too minimal and the proposed design to be effective.

Um for scale, the structure is too large for the surrounding buildings, uh, especially the garage causing the development to span the full width of the three lots.

The outline of the structure is not compatible with historic or with surrounding buildings.

The proposed cross gable lends this building to feel wider than context would consider appropriate.

Staff recognizes that these lots are shorter than most, but because the footprint of the proposed design does span three historic lots, the spacing isn't compatible with the area.

Two cottages, quote unquote, connected in the middle may be a way to solve this issue, and the commission should and can consider an attached garage as an exception.

The design and style of the proposed structure isn't compatible with the simple forms of their surrounding buildings.

There are too many elements being included that complicate the design.

Additionally, the front chimney is an appropriate or compatible with the plan and surrounding context.

Chimneys are found either on the side elevations or simply punched through the roofs from the interior.

Accessory structures in the cottage home plan state that they should be located behind primary structures.

There may be an exception in this case for an attached garage.

Garages should not be obvious from the front of the structure, and this is a very large accessory structure, and it does span across two historic lots.

To address the fence while the cottage home plan does allow for fencing to come up to the front facade of a house, the intention is not a 55-foot span of six-foot privacy fence.

Um this is not appropriate and is creating and reading as a visual wall along the street.

The plan does call for front yard fencing to be no higher than 42 inches and open in style.

Um and then lastly, the patio covered on the side of the house should be uncovered and pushed closer to the rear where it can be more appropriately located and not as visible from the street.

Staff believes there is a way to design the structure that so that the house reads as two cottages side by side with a garage at the rear that is more in keeping with historic cottage nature of the district, but it may require significant redesign and rethinking of the floor plan, as is the house and garage appear too large and inappropriately designed and laid out on the site.

Staff is asking the commission to provide comments to the applicant to approve improve appropriateness of the design and to continue to the case to the August 5th IHPC hearing.

And I can answer any questions.

Alright, thank you.

Morgan, uh, questions from the commission.

Really quick, those letters of support were included in your day-off packet.

Yeah, thank you.

We did get those.

David, please.

So after reading the staff report and kind of probably influenced by the sandboard maps.

Um which show a whole lot of little cottages in a row, like is typical of some areas in cottage home.

Um, I guess I was expecting something else.

So today I drove by there, and uh for all of my being involved with, you know, being on the staff and everything.

I'm not sure I'd ever been down that still, little section of still well.

Um, it's not like anything else.

Uh and I will I I expected to feel like that house was gonna be massive compared to it's where it is on that little lot with all these little houses around it, but those little houses aren't there anymore for the most part.

Uh and actually what you the impression you get is it's a mishmash of things, kind of houses going this way and that way, and uh in quite a few kind of you feel like they're big houses.

So I guess what I'm saying is it didn't end up bothering me like I thought it was going to.

Um, and I as a design I generally sort of like this house, uh so I'm not I'm anxious to hear what others have to say.

I I will add I was a little worried about the garage uh because it sits back there.

There isn't a lot you can do if you're gonna have a garage on that property.

Um but then when I went out there, again you see buildings going this way and that way, and big ones and then little ones, and you're not even sure what some of them are.

But uh it it made it seem not as problematic to me.

Um I'm sort of I haven't given much thought to this, but I think the facade of the garage that faces the street might benefit from a little more articulation, maybe some windows or something.

But anyway, I'd like to hear what others say.

Thanks, David.

Other comments, please.

Question you usually cottage home is pretty defensive of their cottages, and when something is larger than they would typically seem fitting in their their neighborhood.

They they pretty pretty vocal about it.

What why do you, Morgan?

Do you have an idea why they were in support of this rather than coming to the fence of cottage styles?

I do.

Um what was articulated to me from a couple different members of the neighborhood was that their support was more for the owners rather than the design, as they are existing neighbors in the neighborhood, they were more willing to make concessions on what we normally hear from the neighborhood because they're existing neighbors and not developers.

Um I had some conversations with people where concerns were raised outside of the overall neighborhood support that was issued.

Susan, sorry.

Yes, um that little stretch of Stillwell Street, it's like a one-block street or something.

There's not much there, and we're seeing larger places, and we've approved larger places throughout cottage home.

This one, and I I sort of the renderings on 132 of our packets sort of speak to me, particularly the one on the bottom with with the six-foot fence in front and the trees all around, it begins to look like an estate, um, and so I've got a real problem looking at this and thinking that it's it's a home in an urban neighborhood, and I I like the fact that they tried to create two cottages in the front.

I think there needs to be more effort and more division of the two faux cottages.

Um the garage, I mean, unless it's gonna look like a house facade facing the street is totally inappropriate.

Um, six-foot fence in the front yard, particularly a board fence, is not appropriate in urban neighborhood as well.

So I I don't I don't have specific recommendations.

I just think that the place ought to be, the house ought to be simplified.

There are too many peaks and valleys and too much stuff going on there.

Um I agree with staff.

If there's a way that this garage can be attached in the back and maybe make the house a little bit wider across the front, that that might solve it.

I don't know, but as it stands now, it's um it it doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Thanks, Susan.

Other comments, I'll offer uh some thoughts.

I I am falling in the same place that Susan is.

I really feel like there is so much going on in the design of the front facade that it's almost like no fish nor foul kind of thing.

It's just lots and lots of things happening.

It really needs to be simplified and quieted down.

Um, you know, this porch kind of kind of works in and out in the chimney, and then this other element next to the chimney.

It's there's just a lot going on, so I would suggest simplifying this in a number of ways.

I'm not gonna sit here and try to design it, but it's very very busy and needs to uh quiet down.

I think to accomplish what you're trying to do with the two gables, I think will works, but then you have all these other pieces that uh I think really distract from what you're actually trying to accomplish with the two gables.

Um I I too, they this fence makes no sense at all.

It is very much a state-like using Susan's term, and it it is not uh approachable from a neighborhood standpoint, so you need to you need to rethink that for sure.

Um you know I think if the if the garage felt more like a, you know, we've had carriage houses that have been separated.

I think maybe in Woodruff Place where we were talking with one, and if it had more detail and more interest and felt like uh a little building back there, it might start to work, but it's it's very very plain right now and needs to be improved uh for sure.

So I I obviously the staff is recommending a continuance, and I'm gonna be uh in support of that uh for sure.

Hopefully, there is a strategy here that you can design it in a way that it'll uh sort of get through the commission.

But I'm not uh interested in supporting this this evening without uh further design exploration.

Other comments from anyone?

Okay, uh final comment from the applicant, please.

Uh I definitely understand the concern about the privacy fence along the front of the house, um, but given that that is their backyard essentially, um having their own personal privacy was a huge ask for them.

Um I knew there would probably be initial pushback, that's why we tried to break it up as much as possible.

Maybe there's a different material um that could be introduced versus the wood boards, um, something that we can work with together in the meantime.

Um as for attaching the garage and moving the first floor program to make the house even wider along Stovel Street, I would have thought would have been more pushback.

Um and not recommended to make the house any wider than it needs to be along Stillwell, um, which is why we pushed it as far back as possible.

I do understand like nobody wants to look at someone's garage.

Um but given the fact that it's on as far back on the property and is not front loaded, that it's not a feature along the streetscape as much as it might be the peaks of it as well.

But I do understand it will be somewhat visible in the street and a concern.

Um the features along the house are requests of the client for their style.

Um I think in our meetings of design, I've toned down their style and something that I think would be appropriate more appropriate for cottage home.

Um, there's maybe some wiggle room here or there that we can discuss.

Um but it is from the basis of the client of their wants for this house.

Uh it will be their house and other wants and concerns.

But thank you for your comments.

Okay.

All right, to Meg, we're thinking Meg, I think we're ready for a staff recommendation to continue the case.

I'm gonna ask for a motion to continue the uh case to the August 5th uh commission hearing.

All right, thanks, Meg.

Could I get a motion for the staff recommendation?

Thanks, Susan, thanks, Mike.

Any final comments?

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, thank you.

We'll see you next month.

All right, we have no preliminary reviews this evening.

We have uh one application to be heard, work started without approval.

And that is case 2025 COA 322 amended Fletcher Place address 763, also known as 767 Fletcher Avenue Mark Crouch is the applicant.

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

I am not Mark Crouch, I am Paul Muslack.

I am at 2301 Central Avenue.

Um we have come for you today.

Mark was uh traveling, so we want to make sure we get this going.

But um currently we built a house or we are building a house um at on Fletcher Avenue during construction while we were digging.

Um we started having some uh pretty significant cave-in issues happening in the neighbors' properties uh to specifically the one to the east.

Um, and in order to kind of make sure we didn't have any other uh risks by going deeper, the home that we have partially constructed is taller than the approved plans.

Um we are coming here today to try to come to a solution uh about moving forward of what would the staff would like to see in regards to um what we have compared to where you want us to go.

That's pretty much it.

Currently the house is framed, the roof is on, obviously foundation's done.

We haven't started anything in the back of the property.

Uh the house is Tyveked, um, but no windows or doors are installed yet.

Okay.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the application?

Anyone wishing to speak in remonstrance?

Would you like me to explain or are we on board with what?

No, you can change.

I thought you were finished.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, so basically what we're proposing um is a few things on the site plan compared to uh what is currently there.

Um the I guess kind of running through the uh issues that were uh presented to us um with uh our meetings with Emily.

Um the grade being too high, so or I guess the house being too high out of the grade.

So I guess um what we're trying to accomplish by that is um making it appear as if the house isn't out of the ground as much as what we are currently at.

Um there was some concern with the grade between the homes, specifically the one to the east, uh about it sloping towards their property uh too steeply, which we understand.

So we've submitted a site plan that we gave I think yesterday, um, in regards to that that were stamped by uh an engineer that kind of told us what we could do to fix it.

So um basically bringing the grade between the homes back to preconstruction level, um, we're gonna add a drain tile sleeve uh between our house and the property to the east and then clad this with rock.

Uh in doing so, I think there was some conversation back and forth this morning about a swale still being uh apparent between the homes.

I mean, we have like three and a half, four feet between homes.

So I mean, obviously we'll have some type of swale between the two homes, but it's not gonna be as significant as what you might see in other urban lots.

Um and then with the uh drainage portion of that, um what we're proposing is uh and what uh from our discussions back and forth is we just don't want the water dumping onto the public right away.

Um so we are going to be altering our drainage plan to try to focus most of the drainage of the building toward the backyard, um where we have the most amount of grass, and then a minimal amount running obviously towards the front property uh then with the aesthetic side of things in regards to the home sticking out of the ground a little too much um what we're proposing uh is a couple of things we're gonna rework the front porch um dropping the height of the porch down a little bit as well as lowering the front three windows that are on the front elevation on the main floor down um as well to make the home seem a little kind of uh shorter I guess um and then where we have a little bit of exposed uh concrete on the sides yet um we are planning or proposing to uh introduce like an air a rain screen to allow us to bring the siding down over the concrete foundation a little more uh so that not so much concrete aggregate is showing and then with the home being out of the ground a little bit too much we have to add a deck to the rear of the property so that is a whole new addition to the plan that was not previously uh granted.

Are you down to I am finished okay it's it's late I know it's all right no worries all right so we're ready for a staff comment then emily help us out please.

Yes so in your day of packet you did receive an updated drainage plan and essentially the intent is to um to bring so because right now it's piled up and we have heard from the next door neighbor that water was getting into their basement because it's piled up against their foundation and up against the siding up above the siding.

So what we asked was to see what the best practice drainage would be that would be to take out the dirt that has been piled up so that the foundation would be fully exposed bring it back to the grade that it was prior to that dirt being mounded and that it would the drainage would basically be falling away from the structures at least six inches vertically being basically to the front and the back of the property.

So originally one of the intents was to from the designer and the owner was to pile that up and try to have as little foundation exposed as possible but staff is not of the opinion that that would be good practice and the light lot so tight it might work in a bigger lot but it's just not simply going to work here.

So um in terms of the design staff laid out what was being proposed to be kept at the time of the writing of the report to retain the foundation as constructed the floor height is forty inch 48 inches above what was the grade at the time of approval of this project.

Retain the cantilevered side bay as constructed so this was changed to a cantilever without approval in order to eliminate the need to dig into the ground closer to the historic house.

What DBNS has told us is that it should that grading needs to go away.

The front windows so some of the things that are exacerbating the feeling of height are how high the windows are off of the porch floor and they don't align with the as the door as you can see there.

So the the proposal is to lower those push them down 24 inches so they're much closer to the porch floor and they're not nearly so high above eye level from the sidewalk.

Lower the porch roof down by 18 inches.

Because when you look at it, the porch is also very, very high when you're on standing on the sidewalk.

So they drop that down by 18 inches.

A deck in the back uh simply because of the grade change, and then simply changing the garage.

What was what was a carriage house with living space to a standard one-story two-car garage?

I think that's that's the fairly simple element.

Staff has kind of outlined what the issues are.

Um and can answer any questions.

Um we have proposed approval with changes.

One of the other things we added was perhaps changing of the, if this is seems like a workable approach, is that does it also make sense to change the porch posts because the porch posts are just very, they're so plain and they just all so fell out of scale.

Um one of the stipulations was to have a code permitted drainage plan as part of this, and I can answer any questions.

Okay.

Thanks, Emily.

Questions.

I'd like to go first on this one, though.

Please do.

Did you use any shoring when you were excavating your hole for the basement?

So I am the framer.

The I'm not the applicant, I'm not the did owner put the builder that use any shoring.

When he was excavating for the they did, yeah, but it that was during the time in March where we just had monsoons every single day.

Yeah, you got rain in spring.

Yeah.

When you're excavating a 10-foot hole next three feet away from a historic building.

So and I'm sorry that you're getting the brunt of this, but the reason I asked that question first is because that this whole project is actually a lack of care.

It's not, you know, an act of nature, it's a lack of diligence, and that's just part of it.

The first thing is the splitting of a lot.

Um, the package that was presented to us when when we approved this in an expedited fashion, uh, showed the historic home two feet away from the property line to the east.

Now we have a plan that shows it four inches over the property line, extending into the property line of the new home, which the plat committee should have never approved because you need an easement for that uh to even be legal.

So how that ever got through any of that is beyond me.

This is this whole thing that the plan has been mirrored without uh our approval.

I never would have voted for this, being now it's two feet eight inches from the historic home.

I never would have voted for that ever.

And on top of that, you're talking about the drainage, these uh window wells that that you aren't shown on these plans completely block any opportunity for a swale for any water to move, and they're 18 inches away from the historic home.

I don't know how you think you can move any water through that, and again, I'm sorry that you're getting the burnt of this because you're just here, but I I'm really upset because this particular petitioner has a problem with accuracy, and it upsets me.

And even the plan that's here isn't accurate.

So before we even contemplate a solution to this, which I would not vote for any of this, um we have to have some accurate plans and elevations.

I think we have.

I'm no, we don't.

Um, I mean, I'm looking at what was what's as built compared to what's proposed, and I believe those plans were shared um well before this meeting, and that reflects in the correct elevations as well as the floor plan.

Yeah.

So I think well, I'm talking about the relationship of the existing house to the new build.

That is not accurate, and we need that to be accurate in conjunction with the elevations, the floor plans, and the streetscapes.

Before we can make an informed decision on this, beyond that, your bump out is two feet eight inches from the historic home, which means you can't have any windows in it.

You also means that your Eve is less than two feet from the uh historic proper from the property line, which isn't allowed by building code.

So there are so many problems here that I I would say without completely moving the windows, the window wells into the basement for the egress windows, and removing the bump out entirely, I don't think that this is a viable project.

And that's if you manage to get the the problems with the the uh easement figured out.

Because I don't know if you could look at those window well, the other problem is the window well is underneath the the bump out, and there's no room for anybody to even egress out there, it's not compliant with code, correct?

Building code.

So well, there's that's not an egress window that though egress when there's a separate egress window in the bedroom in the rear of the two egress windows, yeah.

There has to be egress windows from any space that's not a mechanical space.

So I understand everything you're saying.

I'm not arguing that, and I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that anything you're saying is wrong.

I mean, we obviously want to make it right, and that's why I'm here.

So I don't I don't, you know, I'm not one to sit here and tell you it's different.

If this was one of my projects, you know, start to finish, and we were going ahead and and you know, doing it like we typically do.

I've been in front of this committee, you know, 20 times, and I've never had issues like this.

I kind of been brought in at a point on this that I'm kind of like the guy that's hoping to make it right.

So that's why I'm here to try to work with you all to see if we can make some changes and and correct that the neighbor to the east is present, and he is behind me.

Um he'd more than welcome to talk as well about the project, but um I I think uh some of the items that you're they are talking about in regards to um having accurate plans.

I mean, we have as built plans right now, we have proposed plans, and then obviously the original plans were were approved by BNS.

Now I understand we didn't build those approved plans, but um we're not trying to like hide any information or anything like that.

Well, the the foundation changed in one month from when we approved when you got approval from BNS.

So you flipped the the plan immediately.

We and didn't come back to this body.

The plan was flipped on with Emily's permission on that.

Well, I I would say that it was ill-advised that it did not come back to this body because the the again the problems with the the site plan, which Emily may not have known about uh at the time, didn't uh it said that there was more than three feet between the existing home and and the new build, and that's not the case.

It's less than it's two feet eight inches.

And I and I wasn't a part of the the replat or or anything like that either.

I mean, I I could wish I could give you more info on that as well.

But um, I mean I agree again with what you're saying, the plat not needing or the plat, you know, shouldn't have been approved like that, but that's where we're homeowner do do you have uh uh an easement for the encroachment of your property onto the other property?

Uh no.

Well, they could make you tear your house down, the four inches that are on their their property.

Did you know that we just purchased the home, yeah.

You'll need to come up and you might want to talk to your title insurance.

Yeah, name and address.

Uh Kyle Shelburn, 767 Fletcher Avenue, Indianapolis 46 203.

Um we just purchased the place in March of last year.

Did you have a survey with it?

I can only assume everything was done.

Our realtor, we just moved from Meridian Kessler down here, and I can only assume that everything was done correctly.

It was only after um, and and I spoke with the developer, asked him what he was going to be building.

He sent me some.

Yeah, I was kind of excited about it.

But then all of a sudden they came out and they surveyed, and there's a stake in my house.

It's a couple inches over, not counting the overhead.

So at this point, I I don't know what the next steps are for me.

Right.

I'm excited that they're building.

It's a great sure.

I'm excited about it.

Well, the current survey shows that your property is, well, this it says four inches in one drawing.

This says 0.2 feet, which is you know, a little less than three inches.

I don't know what to believe.

I don't know where your house is at.

You I don't know that you know where it's at on your lot.

I mean, well, I will tell you that the the house on the corner is four inches on my property.

My house is four inches on their property.

Well, it wasn't.

I mean, they they replotted it, and it shouldn't that it should have never been legally platted that way.

And this is outside of my knowledge, I don't know anything about that.

But now we're we're dealing with the problems from things being half assed, excuse me, um, from the very beginning of this.

And so like, but I don't want to be here all night, but uh suffice it to say, I will not vote for a project that has the bump out, has the window wells on that side, is as high as it is out of the ground.

So there's a lot of work to be done for me to get on board with this.

I don't think that we, if this was a case where there were extenuating circumstances, and it wasn't just the lack of diligence, I think it would be a different case.

But this is all just laziness from the very beginning, and it I'm not gonna vote for anything that that uh encourages that type of laziness.

So uh and I apologize that that we dragged you into this, but um, you should explore.

I want to come and actually support Paul because Paul's the a person of integrity on that job site next door, so one of the only ones I guess um but I would look into your your an easement at the very least for your property, okay.

Uh other comments from the commission.

Susan, please.

And for staff.

I mean, the first thing that struck me was that the front facade and the bump out were flipped from one side to the other.

Were you aware of that?

Was that approved, or did they just decide to build it that way?

We were aware of it, so Paul reached out.

So in the original design, the designer had not taken into account a guy wire that basically landed like right in front of the sidewalk where the front door was supposed to be.

So Paul asked if they could switch it.

And in terms of DBNS looked at it, we looked at it, and just in terms of the design of it, nothing really changed other than the door and whatnot were swapped.

And then the proximity to the house next door change, at least from this drawing significantly.

Yes, however, in terms of the setbacks that were approved from the parcel line, that's what we've always looked at, not necessarily the proximity to the house, the proximity to the parcel line.

So it was going to be three feet on one side and then it was ended up being three feet on the other side instead, um, which is not necessarily atypical.

There's a lot of projects that are submitted at a three-foot setback.

Um, and unfortunately, this one when the foundation was dug did not work.

Well, and that that again is in this drawing, they have four feet eight between the main building and and the property line, and then the bump outs two feet, which leaves two feet eight inches, which is even less than the three feet, which is which isn't acceptable in the first place on this lot.

There's eight feet between the the other buildings, the the west side.

So the the building on the west side and this one, eight feet.

So I mean, it is a comedy of errors, including the guy wire situation.

I mean, it's just ridiculous that the planner never went out there and said, you know, hey, this is gonna be in the middle of my sidewalk before they brought it to us.

I I can't.

Well, I can go on.

I know you're having a rant, and I'm just about to have one.

40 inches too high is a lot.

Yeah, that's I don't know how that happened.

I don't know how any of this happens, and I'm not gonna yell at you.

I'm just gonna yell.

We cannot screw around with this thing and make it okay.

I see no way in the world because you start moving the porch down and then it gets taller to the naked eye.

You move windows down and gets taller.

I mean, we this is ridiculous.

We've seen bad stuff.

Yeah, this is not this takes the cake, and I don't know how this happens, and I don't know what how inspectors that go by and look at what's going on.

I don't know how they say it's okay.

They were given bad information.

Well, they're standing right there, you know, so um I I am at a loss of what to do.

I didn't look at this one until uh right before the meeting, and I thought, holy cow, I mean, if if we let this go, then people can just go build anything they want to build.

Right.

Right.

And so I'm done.

Well, you know, uh Meg and I had an opportunity to talk about, and this applicant has had a lot of issues in the past, not you, but uh Mark uh Crouch and the drawings that they produce are not very good, and you know, here we are again dealing with a crazier situation than we've dealt with in the past.

I know BNS has had issues with Mark on projects not in historic districts.

So, you know, this is this is a pattern that isn't going to get repeated again.

As Meg and I have talked, we're gonna demand a very different uh strategy with Mark going forward here, because this is not gonna be acceptable.

I don't really know what the solution is here.

You may have to demolish the building to get this resolved.

I don't know what your answer is gonna be, but you know, to Susan's point, almost four feet difference out of the ground.

I mean, how do you make that mistake?

I one question I got on that is we keep we keep talking about the four feet out of the ground.

Uh and then again not arguing anything, but the proposed plans was originally at 30 feet, and we are at 32 too.

So the you're talking about the top.

I'm talking about just the basic foundation.

Well, that uh all the floors are framed to what they're specifically supposed to be.

I mean, we're nine foot first second floor, ten foot first floor, you know, the high joys are what we have.

Right.

So the the four feet, I I can understand your frustration, but that's not accurate.

Yeah, what's the first floor elevation from what it was supposed to be?

That's what it is.

It the the I mean the foundation is out of the ground much farther than what it's supposed to be.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

But it's not four feet out of the ground.

Well, it was depicted at at twelve around 12 inches on the original drawings that we approved, and now it's forty-eight, forty to forty-eight inches uh above grade, depending on where grade ends up being.

So I you know it you it's hard to defend something that is completely inaccurate.

So you know if it's even if it's three feet, it's too much.

I don't know, yeah.

Yeah, if it's that's three inches would be something else.

But yeah, and that's why we're that's why we're you know, we're here and we have the stop work order and we're trying to work it out.

I mean, I'm not we're gonna try to beat a dead horse.

I'm just trying to say, we're here now.

I know I know that you're trying to solve it.

I don't know from the commission standpoint if we're gonna find a solution.

So, you know, I you know, I don't know where we're headed.

We're clearly not reproving anything this evening.

That's for sure.

That's fine.

So, you know, I guess I I guess Meg, you know, what where do we go from here?

Because we're clearly not on board with the solutions being suggested.

I think the other thing, I mean, to kind of contemplate too and we're dealing with this, is um, you know, again, not to put another straw on the camel's back, if you will, but um, you know, the house we we've done our best to try to you know mitigate any kind of water intrusion in the home and everything, but it is a home that's half done.

So it's like we have a property.

I know where I live, I did a large development at 23rd and Central over there by the Oaks Academy, and there's a s a home that's been slated for demolition for months on end on the alley there on I think 24th Street.

I would hate for that anything like that to happen with this because you know uh again, I'm not speaking for me.

I'm not saying anything.

I I don't even know the process that would get to a point like that, but right, you know, any kind of litigation's gonna take a long time, and I would hate to have the neighbors get put through that.

So it's like I know he doesn't like the bums that are already kind of, you know, fussing around in there and it's Fletcher Place, nice neighborhood.

So I would say, you know, even if the decision is not something, you know, great, it'd probably be better for everybody to kind of pull the bandit off, right?

Well, I would recommend that he comes up with a real remedy uh before somebody's people start uh suing him for his negligence.

Any other comments from the commission this evening, Kristen, please.

Um I'm just I mean, you all are very calm.

As a realtor, I'm like really worried about the damage done to the house next door of that historic home.

I mean, that's out of their control.

Eventually they will leave.

Something terrible will happen to their house that was completely caused by this.

Um, and I just want to make note of that because I know we're talking about drainage and that kind of thing, and I think that has to be a huge priority.

And what like not doing more damage to the other people that have nothing to do with this?

Right.

I mean, I know we've we've already sent guys out there to put some gutters on you know to try to mitigate any kind of water going toward Kyle's house.

We've also extended his you know some pump line on a toward the back to try to mitigate any more water flooding in there.

Um you know I'm not saying they're not honest businessmen but to your point with the title you know work and everything else if God forbid something like that does happen he's gonna pull that lever and we're gonna be here for months on end and it's not going to be good for anybody so I'd rather just try to come up with a solution.

Well does he want to keep working in the city?

I mean you've got to make that choice I know he's done a lot of work in this area.

I mean it it wasn't you know important enough for him to be here actually that's why clearly you could keep yelling at me but I'm just trying to make a solution.

Yeah and we understand that we've told you what it is and it's not not on this you know not in this paper and it's not in this room right now.

So I you know clearly we're gonna be continuing the case and I'm not exactly sure what the solution where to head with a solution here.

That's the biggest we need to think about is that it's our biggest responsibility is protect those historic houses.

Correct that's correct.

And so anything that in and your comments were really drove it home.

That's where we need to be thinking if this thing needs to be wrecked and it needs to be wrecked is there a homeowner does somebody own this house or is it a spec house so uh so okay like the full story on it is Jason Langchip who is the he owns an LC that owns the property Mark Crouch is his permit guy that gets all his permits and does all his his stuff and so that's who owns it I think his LC I I couldn't tell you the name of it's probably on the title latitude community investments.

There it is.

Yeah.

So it's a spec house it's spec house at the planet there we go.

I'm feeling a little better about things yeah exactly yeah exactly well to to Susan's point though is there anything that we can do to uh um enforce a um protection of or at least a remedy for the water infiltration uh that they've created I don't couple I have a couple of thoughts please um firstly just as a reminder you don't have to approve this so right someone can make a motion to just deny this request and then they have to fix it.

The other is I think there's a big question about insurance policies here that need to be discussed uh amongst both parties that's not for this commission to solve we don't I staff uh we're not code experts we rely on BNS to help us with that but at the end of the day looking to for guidance from a code expert and hiring a registered architect to redo redo the plans um you know our initial thought was they're probably going to have to start over but staff tried to figure out a way to look at this and provide some kind of remedy.

I will say too for the commission's comfort this would not be the first house that we had them take out I personally reviewed a project in St.

Joe uh probably I don't know 20 years ago and a very similar situation happened in fact a commissioner here tonight was with me on that site visit and the developer agreed to just rip the foundation out and start over but the almost the exact same thing happened they built it too high out of the ground and it was definitely going to be drainage issues between how tight these houses were on Tenth Street.

And so you know, if there just isn't a remedy that works, there's just not a remedy that works.

And that that's the price of doing business in downtown.

You have to follow what you need, what you're required to um we what they committed to, I mean it's in the stipulations that they can't change it.

Exactly.

And and I think that a lot of this could have been avoided had they come to us when they discover that this uh foundation next door was compromised in some way.

So that's my thoughts.

And if if you want to continue it you can but you can take an up or down vote today as well.

I think uh one other thing too just to kind of you know put it out there too is like the one of the big issues I at least in regards to the site plan throw the drainage away throw the house being too tall out of the way whatever it is I mean the other kind of just to kind of look like full circle on this is the plat that you talked about.

You said it you know they shouldn't have platted this they they shouldn't have done that that well they did and to your point we don't know what information they were given they we don't know they would have been given that they can only make a decision on on the the accurate information that they're given just like we did yeah when we were given in inaccurate information and I don't know what information they're given either because it was platted long before I was here but I'm just saying just to kind of put it out there that if you know we go ahead and we look at the plat and let's say the survey that was presented was what was replatted the other thing too is I think that you know the developer not me don't get mad at me is also going to say that the plat has some skin in the game here because we went ahead and we built you know what we were allowed to build given the plat because it wasn't platted correctly then according to what you're saying.

I don't know whether it was or wasn't it was it definitely was but it's also their responsibility to to have accurate site conditions to draw from it's it you that's not on anybody but the building and we we've we stake you know we stake the the the survey or I'm sorry that I mean the the lot is staked the stakes are I think they're still in there now we did the foundation we had the foundation inspected it cleared the inspection we we've moved on I mean I I'm just kind of playing double ed kit is all I I don't have a problem with that I just uh I would say that we've been given two different surveys from them that show two different things and we've gotten three different site plans that show three different things.

So when you say you know that we had everything done doesn't seem like they did.

And and obviously that's not the only problem so that we've got multiple problems and I think we're gonna quickly get to a place here now I guess the question for the commission is whether we think it's valuable for them to have time to continue this and look at something or whether we just want to deny it this evening I think that's the the choice we've got Mike go ahead please I think you might disagree but I I'd be willing to make the motion to deny it and I think if everyone's lucky I think if the owners are lucky the contractor has a contractor's professional liability CPL insurance coverage that can help out on the other side that we're not involved with but I'm happy to make a motion.

Okay that's fine I'll take a motion then uh to deny the case Mike do you want to make that yeah I move we did not okay and Susan you just second okay any uh final comments from the commission David please I just want to make sure that we understand that staff can continue to work with any kind of sure solution on the drainage and all that sort of thing.

Yeah I mean that yeah they need to protect the adjacent property or the adjacent property owner will sue them.

That's not part of this denial.

Right.

That's correct right okay all those in favor of denying the case this evening please signify by saying aye.

Aye any opposed okay thank you thank you for your time all right uh we have no more business this evening so we stand adjourned thank you all, and have a happy fourth of July.