INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION …...INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COA # 2019-COA-625 (CAMA) Hearing Date COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 13, 2020 Continued from March 4, 2020

INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

AGENDA Wednesday, May 13, 2020

5:30 P.M. via Webex Virtual Meeting: https://indy.webex.com/indy/onstage/g.php?MTID=ec9b13c7412a2287cf2f68efe42015918

Event number (access code): 712 795 133 Phone Information: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll 1-844-992-4726 United States Toll Free

For more information contact the IHPC staff at [email protected] or 317-327-4406

BUSINESS

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

NONE

III. OLD BUSINESS – NO PUBLIC HEARING

NONE

IV. NEW BUSINESS – NO PUBLIC HEARINGNONE

PUBLIC HEARING

V. REQUEST TO WITHDRAW OR CONTINUE APPLICATIONS

NONE

VI. EXPEDITED CASES

NONE

VII. APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD (CONTINUED)

NONE

VIII. APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD (NEW)

NONE

IX. PRELIMINARY REVIEW

NONE

X. APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD – WORK STARTED WITHOUT APPROVAL

2019-COA-625 (CAMA) 502 N. NEW JERSEY ST. SOMMER AWNING Maintain entry canopy on east façade with 3 awning signs installed without approval.

Page 3

Submittal Page 71

2020-COA-007B (WP) 552 WOODRUFF PL., WDR. JOHN C. ADAMS Approve work started without approval: reconstruct rear 2nd-story roof-top deck, to include new railing height and design.

Page 13

Submittal Page 83

2020-COA-053 (FS) 1044 VIRGINIA AVE. MELISSA GARRISON Replace storefront and awnings, install overhead door, replace sidewalk, paint, add sloped walkway at rear, replace rear pedestrian door (work started).

Page 27

Submittal Page 89

mailto:[email protected]

2020-COA-111 (LS) 434 SPRING ST. TERRY BRADBURY Work started without approval: replacement of non-historic front door and transom, rear door, and of non-historic windows; and painted house.

Page 45

XI. CLOSING BUSINESS

NONE

XII. ADJOURNMENT

COA #

2019-COA-625 (CAMA)

INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION

COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

Hearing Date

MAY 13, 2020

Continued from

March 4, 2020

April 1, 2020

April 15, 2020

May 6, 2020

502 NORTH NEW JERSEY STREET CHATHAM ARCH / MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE

Applicant:

Mailing address:

SOMMER AWNINGS 1160 West 16th Street

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Owner:

MURAT TEMPLE ASSN INC % SFX

BROADCASTING INC

502 North New Jersey Street


Center Township

Council District: 11

Vop Osili WORK STARTED WITHOUT APPROVAL

IHPC COA:

2019-COA-625 (CAMA) To maintain Tempotest fabric and vinyl entry canopy with

signage affixed to entryway installed without approval

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial

Background on Subject Property

The subject property is known as the Murat Temple. The original portion of the building was constructed in

1909 and has a Middle Eastern style of architecture. The structure is unique for the City and highly decorative.

Some of the decorative elements include terra cotta ornamentation, brick bands of alternating colors, stained

glass, pointed arched entries and windows, turrets and a tower, and murals.

On October 30, 2019, an investigation case (INV19-38945) was opened after a report from the Mayor’s Action

Center was made that a canopy had been erected in the right-of-way along New Jersey Street at the subject

property. On October 31, 2019, a violation was issued on the property (VIO19-00841) for erecting the canopy

without at COA, right-of-way permit, or sign permit. Staff was contacted by Sommer Awning about the canopy

and violation, and advised them to submit an application for the work (application received on December 11,

2019).

Proposed Plan

The proposed plan is to maintain the Tempotest fabric and vinyl canopy with signage affixed to the one of the

entries on the east side of the building. The canopy is 24’1” long, 12’7¾” tall, and 17’9 3/8” wide. The structure

of it is made of metal that is bolted into the wall of the building. It is made of Tempotest, a solution dyed

acrylic fabric and clear vinyl. In the two sections nearest the building are two wall panels made of the blue

fabric and vinyl. The canopy also has three “Old National Centre Premium Experiences Entrance” signs on it.

Lighting has also been installed underneath the canopy.

Chatham Arch / Massachusetts Avenue District Plan

Awnings and Canopies

RECOMMENDED

General

1. Awnings should be traditional in style and proportioned to fit the window opening properly.

2. Canvas awnings are preferred. Materials that visually simulate canvas may also be appropriate.

3. The colors of the awning or canopy should reinforce the existing color scheme of the building

or storefront.

Commercial Buildings

3

4. On storefronts, awnings and canopies should reflect the façade configuration and the storefront

proportions. The awning(s) should not overpower the building.

5. Awnings are good locations for storefront signage.

6. Awning should be considered on the upper floors of buildings.

NOT RECOMMENDED:

1. Covering important architectural features. 2. Obtrusive awnings or canopies that unduly detract from the streetscape. 3. Fixed metal (i.e. aluminum), vinyl or similar awnings that detract from the visual quality of a

building. 4. Back-lit, internally illuminated, or flashing lights on awnings or canopies are considered

inappropriate. Flashing lights may be considered for theatres and cinemas only. 5. Awning shapes or canopies that detract from the proportions and architectural style of the

building. Signage

RECOMMENDED

General

1. Signs should comply with all applicable ordinances and regulations in Marion County, Indiana.

2. The location of signs on commercial buildings should conform with the traditional placement of

signs on such buildings. On historic buildings, the appropriate place is often on the lintel strips

above the store front or possibly the transom panels above display windows. For newer buildings,

continuous areas immediately above the top of the storefront offer possibilities. These areas should

determine the size of the signage and lettering.

3. The location of the sign should be compatible with the surrounding area and not obstruct

important sites or potentially attractive views.

4. The size, scale, colors, shapes, and graphics on the sign should be compatible with the building

and the surrounding area.

5. A majority of the sign face should contain the business name and image.

6. Lettering styles should be legible, message should be simple, and fabrication should be done with

quality materials and craftsmanship.

7. Lighting should be subtle and be compatible with the historic character of the district. It should

not unduly detract from nor disturb the historic character of the neighborhood.

Awning and Canopy Signs

1. Such signs should be affixed flat or flush to the surface and scaled so as to not dominate the

awning or canopy. Generally, the lettering should be restricted to the face of the projection.

Context

Surrounding the subject property are a variety of restaurants, retail spaces, multi-family residential buildings

and office buildings. The subject property has two other canopies similar to the one in this case, one on the

south side of the structure and one on the east side just north of the one in question. These canopies were

installed prior to district designation. In 2009/2010, those awnings were recovered in a blue material. Staff has

been unable to locate any approvals for the recovering of those canopies.

The property to the southeast (the Athenaeum) and 627 and 721 Massachusetts Avenue have canopies that

extend outward from an entry. It appears that all of these canopies, except for the one at 627 Massachusetts,

were installed prior to the updated Chatham Arch / Massachusetts Avenue District Plan being adopted in 2006.

Staff was able to locate a 2006 application for the extended canopy at 627 Massachusetts, but was unable to

find a COA for the work. The canopy at 721 Massachusetts was approved in 2002 under the original Chatham

Arch District Plan.

4

Reasons for Recommending Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Authorization to maintain

Tempotest fabric and vinyl entry canopy affixed to entryway installed without approval:

Staff does not believe the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Authorization as outlined in the

IHPC’s State Statute is met in this case for the following reasons:

1. Staff believes the installation of the canopy is in conflict with the Plan. The Plan recommends against

covering significant architectural details, using fixed metal or vinyl materials, canopies that detract from

the streetscape or the visual quality of the building, and canopies that detract from the architectural style

of the building. The canopy covers the details of the original entry and detracts from the visual quality of

the extremely ornate building and the streetscape. As well, it likely damaged some of the original materials

as it is anchored to the face on of the building.

2. Any hardship in this situation is self-imposed and could have been avoided had the applicant applied for

a COA prior to the commencement of work.

3. Denial will not deprive the owner of reasonable use and benefit of the property.

Staff Recommendation

Staff finds the request to be inappropriate in that it covers an original entry of the building, including decorative

details. We believe that the canopy distracts from the original character of the building and the streetscape.

Staff acknowledges that there are other canopies on the structure that are similar to the one that has been

installed without approval. However, those were installed prior to district designation. Staff would not support

the installation of those canopies today. Staff recommends that the request be denied, that the canopy be

removed, and that any damage to the materials of the building be repaired to their original, water tight

condition.

STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION

COA #2019-COA-625 (CAMA)

To Deny a Certificate of Appropriateness or Authorization to maintain Tempotest fabric and vinyl entry

vestibule affixed to entryway.

Canopy must be removed no later than June 13, 2020 and damage to the materials on the building where

the canopy was attached must be repaired to match the original condition no later than July 13, 2020.

The applicant must apply for a COA from IHPC staff prior to making the necessary repairs to the

building materials. Failure to comply will result in this case being forwarded to the City Prosecutor for

enforcement.

Staff Reviewer: Shelbi Long

5

LOCATION IN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

SITE

Southeast corner of subject property prior to canopy installation

(location of canopy outlined)

6

Opening where canopy is installed

Close up of where canopy is installed

7

Installed canopy with signage

Canopy looking southwest

8

Canopy looking north

9

Wall panels that were also installed on the canopy

Example of conections in to buidling

10

Supports

Canopy at night

11

PLANS

Side view of canopy

Top view of canopy

12

COA #

2020-COA-007B (WP)


COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

Hearing Date

MAY 13, 2020

Continued from:

May 6, 2020

552 WOODRUFF PLACE WEST DRIVE WOODRUFF PLACE

Applicant mailing address:

JOHN ADAMS

12310 New Holland St.

Holland, MI 49424

Owner: SAME AS ABOVE Center Twp.

Council District 17

Zach Adamson WORK STARTED WITHOUT APPROVAL

IHPC COA: 2020-COA-007B (WP) • Reconstruct rear, second-story, rooftop deck (modified

without approval) to return it to its original footprint

with new code-compliant railings.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness

STAFF COMMENTS

Background of the Property

The subject property is an excellently maintained Prairie Box or American Foursquare-style house and was

most likely constructed between 1915 and 1920. The two-story, frame house has a rectangular plan; low-

pitched hipped roof with wide, overhanging eaves and exposed

rafter tails; and a symmetrical façade. A hipped dormer is

centrally located on the front (east) side of the roof. A full-

width, single-story, covered front porch with large, tapered,

decorative, square wood supports is located on the front of the

house. A single-story wing extends across the full width of the

rear (west) façade. The house also appears to retain other

original features such as its historic, multi-lite, double-hung,

wood windows; original, wood front door and decorative side-

lites; tall, historic, brick chimneys; and historic wood siding

and trim.

Background of Violation Case

• November/December 2019: Property is placed on the market by John Adams,

applicant/owner/violator, and is being shown by Rich Costello, real estate agent.

• December 2019: The property enters in to a pending sale with the current occupants of the house.

• December 17, 2019: IHPC staff is notified that a rear (west), second-story, rooftop deck has been

enlarged without a COA. Staff researches the property and discovers through real estate listing photos

and aerial photography that the rear, second-story, rooftop deck was enlarged; the roof was replaced;

and a deck on the first story were all completed without a COA or permits.

• December 17, 2019: IHPC staff contacts Rich Costello, property owner’s real estate agent, to discuss

the violation.

• December 17, 2019: IHPC staff reports violation to the Dept. of Business and Neighborhood Services

(DBNS) for enforcement. The following investigation cases are created by DBNS: INV19-41398

(building inspections) and INV19-41399 (zoning inspections).

13

• December 18, 2019: applicant/violator contacts IHPC staff to discuss violation and application

process. Applicant informs staff that he did the work himself with the help of friends. He did not hire

a licensed contractor.

• December 18, 2019: Violation case VIO19-009763 is issued by a zoning inspector from DBNS for

the failure to obtain a COA before starting work.

• December 19, 2019: Violation case VIO19-009779 is issued by a building inspector from DBNS for

the failure to obtain permits.

• January 2020: Applicant hires Bill Smith, his friend and licensed contractor, to help him create the

required drawings.

• January – February 2020: Applicant and his contractor work with IHPC staff to get the required

drawings Staff needs in order to fully understand the work that was completed.

o Also at some point during this time the family contracted to purchase the property moves in, as

the applicant has already moved to Holland, MI.

• February 2020: Staff determines that completed first-story deck and roofing is appropriate. Staff

informs applicant that the changes made to the second-story deck are not appropriate, and there are

concerns about whether it meets state residential building codes.

• March 12, 2020: 2020-COA-007A (WP) was approved for the reroof and first-story rear (west) deck.

• March 18, 2020: A building inspector conducts a site visit at the subject property to review the

enlarged second-story deck and provides feedback to Staff and a building inspector supervisor.

• March 19, 2020: A meeting is held on the subject site with the applicant’s agent; applicant’s

contractor; the potential buyers; the buyers’ agent; IHPC staff; a building enforcement inspector and

a building inspector supervisor. Based on the feedback from the inspections staff, it is determined that

the enlarged deck does not appear to meet state code requirements. The building inspector supervisor

recommends returning the deck to its original size – if possible by code. The building inspector

supervisor also informs all who are in attendance that code complaint railings will also need to be

installed.

• March 31, 2020: Applicant submits new application to rebuild deck with its original size and code-

compliant railings.

Work Completed without COA

• A low to the ground wood deck was added behind the rear (west) side of the house on the first story.

• The entire existing asphalt shingle roof was replaced with a new asphalt shingle roof.

• The rear (west), second-story, rooftop deck was expanded to the west and was cantilevered out past

the rear wall of the house. The deck was not extended to the north or the south. New 39-inch tall knee

walls were constructed on the north and south sides of the deck. An inappropriate, non-code-

compliant metal railing was installed on the west side of the deck.

Potential Code Violations

The building inspector provided the following information as to the potential code violations with the

expanded second-story deck:

Some initial impressions include the likelihood of violations with regard to these categories.

1. Foundation and footings to support the deck.

2. Header and joist violations for the platform of the deck.

3. Guard violations for the perimeter railing around the deck.

4. Drainage and weatherproofing.

Due to the residence being finished on the inside it’s difficult to tell if the correct size joists

are being used to support the deck, cripple walls and guards around the deck. The deck

overhang does seem to exceed the allowable cantilever joist measurement, and would likely

require support and appropriate footings below.

14

Headers to support the deck in the existing two story area of the house and joist spans in the

construction under the deck, now the kitchen area.

The railing around the deck is in violation due to the spacing and design of the guard.

As noted above without being able to inspect the wall structures it’s difficult to say that there

are definitely violations in those areas, including footings and foundations.

Structural Permits would be required to conduct repairs, possibly also requiring other trade

permits if electrical, plumbing, or heating are impacted.

Condition of Previous Deck

The applicant told Staff that the previous deck was in disrepair and was causing leakage down to the first

floor. He stated that because he thought he was simply making repairs to the already existing deck that he did

not permits or a COA. The following is a written statement that Staff received from the applicant:

At some point in its history, the house had a kitchen fire, which also damaged the deck above

the kitchen. The deck had been rebuilt with inferior materials and was not built to code, i.e.,

the railing was too low. Inferior rebuilding of the deck eventually caused leaks in our kitchen.

To find and repair the leak underneath the decking, I had to remove a good part of the

decking and sheathing and in the process, discovered rotting framing. Because of this, a

portion of the house was exposed to the weather and needed immediate repair. I repaired and

built the deck.

Applicant’s Proposal

Based on feedback the applicant received from the building inspectors and IHPC staff, the applicant is

proposing the following remedy:

• Rebuild the deck and reduce its size to return it to its original footprint.

• Restore the eave that was located in front of the deck.

• Install traditionally-styled, code-compliant, open railings.

Woodruff Place Historic Area Preservation Plan

The Plan offers a few recommendations related to deck additions:

Not recommended:

• Placing new porches in locations that never had porches, especially on significant elevations.

• Obstructing significant architectural detailing with new additions.

• Altering the roofline of an historic building in a manner that affects its character.

• Blocking the light to adjacent buildings.

• Additions near the front and at the sides.

• Additions which look as though they were part of the original house. Additions should be

differentiated from the original buildings.

• Imitating historic styles and details although they may be adapted and reflected.

Staff’s Recommendation

Staff believes that the proposal is appropriate for the following reasons:

• The deck addition is located on and limited to the rear (west) elevation.

• The deck will be returned to its original size.

• It does not obstruct significant architectural features or block the light to adjacent buildings.

• It does not alter the rear hipped roofline in a highly negative manner as the deck is smaller than the

back, one-story portion of the house.

• The new, traditional-styled, code-compliant, open railings will reduce visible obstructions.

15


2020-COA-007B (WP):

To approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct rear, second-story, rooftop deck (modified

without approval) to return it to its original footprint with new code-compliant railings; per the

submitted documentation and subject to the following stipulations:

BNS: Stipulations number 1 and 2 must be fulfilled prior to issuance of permits.

1. Final construction drawings shall be approved by staff prior to commencement of work.

Approved: ________Date: ________

2. A pre-construction meeting with IHPC staff, the owner, and the contractor/construction

manager must be held prior to commencement of construction. Approved:______ Date:______

3. Siding and trim materials shall be wood and shall have a smooth texture free of major

imperfections. Rough-sawn finishes are not permitted.

4. Work on exterior details must not commence prior to approval by IHPC staff of each,

including exterior lighting, doors and windows.

5. “California” style railing (face-mounted balusters) is NOT permitted.

6. All railings must be built per applicable building codes and per submitted drawings.

7. Balusters shall be spaced evenly and parallel to each other.

8. Wood elements shall be painted to match paint colors on historic building.

9. Any changes to the approved scope or design shall be approved by IHPC staff prior to starting

work.

10. Any deviation from this approach or major replacement shall be approved by IHPC staff prior

to construction.

11. Applicant must notify the IHPC staff before making any unexpected repairs.

NOTE: Owner is responsible for complying with all applicable codes.

Staff Reviewer: Dean Kessler

Location in Woodruff Place

16

Subject property is circled

Subject property is outlined.

17

Subject property

Front (east) façade from 2014 real estate listing photo

Front (east) façade from 2019 real estate listing

18

BEFORE: Rear (west) façade (from 2014 listing)

2019: Rear (west) façade showing new deck, but before rooftop deck was modified. (this

photo provided by applicant’s contractor)

19

AFTER/Current Conditions: Rear (west) façade (from 2019 listing)

AFTER/Current Conditions: Rear (west) façade

20

2019 listing photo of rooftop deck showing non-compliant railing

2019 listing photo of rooftop deck showing non-compliant railing

21

Current Conditions: Rear (west) façade

Showing how deck is currently cantilevered over rear (west) wall.

22

Looking north at deck

New Deck Plans

23

Plan view

24

South elevation

25

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

26

COA #

2020-COA-053 (FS)


COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

Hearing Date

MAY 13, 2020

Continued from

April 1, 2020

April 15, 2020

May 6, 2020

1044 VIRGINIA AVENUE FOUNTAIN SQUARE

Applicant:

Mailing address:

MELISSA GARRISON for

CURRAN ARCHITECTURE 5719 Lawton Loop East Drive Suite 212


Owner: NORTH HILL REALTY LLC 484 East Carmel Drive

Carmel, IN 46032

Center Township


Kristin Jones WORK STARTED WITHOUT APPROVAL

IHPC COA:

2020-COA-053 (FS) replace storefront system and awning; replace doors; replace

sidewalk (sewer work); paint; add sloped walkway at rear

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval


The subject property is a one to two story commercial building that was originally constructed as a theater.

Constructed in 1911 as the Green Theater, the structure was used as such until 1929, when it then mostly sat

vacant until the mid-1930’s. At that time, Sablosky and Sons, a local department store company, bought the

building to use it as an annex for one of their stores that was located down the street. According to a 1936

Indianapolis Star article, that year the company opened a store at the subject property. At that time, the theater

building underwent alterations, which according to the article included “the building of a recessed, plate glass

front window for the display of merchandise” (The Indianapolis Star, March 16, 1936 issue, page 7).

Violation Timeline

April 2019 --- IHPC staff met with the owner on site to discuss the storefront. The wood of the existing

storefront system was in good condition. The kickplates were covered in vinyl and the material beneath was

not visible. The center pane of glass the storefront had been replaced with a more modern metal system and

smaller panes of glass. There was some cracked glass and broken sealant present, but overall staff found the

existing storefront to be in good condition. It was staff’s conclusion that there had been alterations made to the

storefront, but that there was no justification for full scale replacement and that any restoration of the storefront

should maintain the existing proportions of the system.

December 2019 --- IHPC staff met with the applicant to go over replacing the existing storefront and other

changes on the rear of the building. Staff sent feedback to the applicant that we were concerned about the

proposed storefront alterations, and recommended that the applicant do some additional research on the

building and exploration into the existing storefront system to better determine the age of the storefront.

January 9, 2020 --- IHPC staff drove by the site and noticed that a wood structure had been constructed over

the face of the building and painted to match the walls of the building. Upon further inspection, staff was able

to see that the storefront had been removed. No Certificate of Appropriateness or structural permit were issued

for the work. The violation was reported to the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

27

January 10, 2020 --- DBNS inspected the property and issued a violation (VIO20-000246) for completing work

without a Certificate of Appropriateness.

January 24, 2020 --- Applicant submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the

storefront and awning, install an overhead door at the rear of the property, to replace sidewalk after completing

sewer work, painting the building, adding a sloped walkway at the rear of the property and to replace a rear

pedestrian door.

Proposed Scope of Work

Storefront (work started)

The storefront that was in the building was comprised of large, uninterrupted panes of glass in metal frames.

There were two entry points, that were recessed and funnel in shape. Overtime the center pane of glass had

been replaced with three individual panes and vinyl had been installed over the kickplate. It is unknown

whether any material was underneath the vinyl. The storefront was held up by a steel lintel and metal columns.

Additionally, there was some wood framing on the interior of the system. There were two wood, full light

doors with 24 light transoms that had been painted.

The proposed new storefront would be constructed of a metal storefront system. Overall, the new storefront

would maintain the configuration of the original, except for that the funnel entries would be widened and a

sidelight would be installed to permit adequate space for ADA accessibility. 24 light transoms would be

reinstalled and the glass would be returned to uninterrupted panes of glass. The kickplates would be a spandrel

glass panel. It is unknown if the steel lintel was also removed during the demolition. However, if it was a steel

lintel to match what was there would be reinstalled. The goal would be to match as much of the previous

storefront as possible, but with using modern materials. The proposal also includes the installation of a new

black canvas awning.

Sidewalk

Underground sewer work is needed. The proposal includes ripping up the existing sidewalk in front of the

building to complete the required sewer work. Once completed the sidewalk would be reinstalled to match the

existing.

Overhead Door and New Pedestrian Door with Ramp

At the rear of the building are two existing openings, a single pedestrian door and a wider delivery sized door.

A metal door with no handle is currently in the pedestrian door and the delivery sized door has makeshift wood

doors. The applicant is proposing to install a new solid metal single pedestrian door and a metal overhead door,

both of which would fit the existing openings. Additionally, a concrete sloped stoop would be installed out

from the pedestrian door.

Paint

The proposal also includes repainting the building. The proposed color scheme consists of a gray and a red

(Sherwin Williams SW6001 Grayish and SW7582 Salute). The body of the building would be gray, and

accents on the building would be red.

Fountain Square District Plan

Storefronts

• Maintain the original proportions, dimensions, and elements, when renovating or reconstructing a

storefront.

• Avoid using “strip commercial” elements since they do not relate to the historic elements in the area.

• Avoid setting the storefront back from the sidewalk and disruption the visual order of the block.

28

• Contain the storefront within the frame defined by the lintel and the support walls or piers.

• Retain the original proportions of new storefront elements.

• Consider uncovering the lintel and the support wall or piers if covered, to reestablish the storefront

frame and the definition of the storefront opening.

• Incorporation the traditional elements in modern storefronts – display windows, transom, and kickplate.

• If evidence does not exist of the original storefront, a modern approach is advised.

• Entrance Area

o Restore the recessed entry in order to provide shelter, importance, and visual order.

Painting

• Use a color scheme that will coordinate the whole building façade and be consistent with the

surrounding buildings.

• Consider using muted colors in the background and strong colors as accents.

• Usually three colors are recommended to paint the façade – a base color, a trim color, and an accent

color.

Awnings

• Awning colors should reinforce the façade and sign color scheme.

• Awnings should reflect the storefront proportions

• Awnings should align with those of neighboring buildings to promote visual order.

• Awnings should avoid covering significant architectural features

• Awning shapes and materials should relate to the façade configuration

• Metal frames with canvas awnings are encouraged.

Alleys

• Rear facades may offer great potential for secondary entrances and display windows; however, the

existing door and window openings should retain their original size and shape.

Pedestrian Amenities Guidelines: Furniture, Paving Material, and Landscaping

• Choose material for compatibility and minimum maintenance

Context

The subject property sits along the main commercial strip of the Fountain Square District. Surrounding the

subject property are mostly other historic commercial buildings. There are modern and historic storefront

elements throughout the surrounding context. The funneled storefront entry shape appears to be quite common

in the surrounding context, showing up in several different iterations. One property south of the subject site,

1112-1114 Prospect, has a very similar storefront configuration to what the subject property once had.


It was staff’s conclusion from visiting the site last spring that the storefront was in good enough condition and

integrity to be maintained. Based on the style of the storefront and the 1936 article that was found that noted

that updates to the storefront had occurred, staff does not believe that the storefront was original to the building.

However, it is possible that there were historic materials from 1930’s updates still present. Unfortunately, since

the storefront was removed before further investigation could be completed, little is known about the materials

and their condition that were underneath the vinyl and various modern materials that had been applied over

time. In the design of the new storefront system, the applicant has paid homage to the storefront by maintaining

the glass and kickplate proportions, installing the 24 light transoms over the doors and maintaining funnel

shaped entries. The main difference between the original storefront and the proposed is the size of the entries.

The original recessed funnel entry size was not ADA compliant. Increasing the size of the entry (making a

29

wider funnel) and adding the sidelight would allow for ADA compliant access to the building, while overall

maintaining the essence of the original storefront, which staff thinks is appropriate. Staff feels that the proposed

configuration and materials of the new storefront comply with the recommendation in the Fountain Square

Plan in that what is known about the storefront (which in this case is its configuration) is overall being

maintained while what is unknown about the storefront (which in this case are its materials, most notably the

kickplate), would be redone in a modern material. In this case, since the storefront has been demolished, staff

finds the request appropriate.

Staff finds the proposed paint colors, sidewalk replacement, door replacements and slope walk installation to

be appropriate as the paint will accent ornamentation on the building, the sidewalk will match the existing

sidewalk, the original openings will be maintained on the rear, and the sloped walk will further better access

to the building with minimal impact to the structure.


COA #2020-COA-053 (FS)

To approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the storefront system and awning; replace rear

doors; replace sidewalk; paint the building; add sloped walkway at rear, all per submitted

documentation and subject to the following stipulations:

BNS: Stipulation number one must be complete prior to the issuance of structural permits.

1. Construction must not commence prior to approval by the IHPC staff of final construction drawings

reflecting any changes requested by the Commission at the IHPC Hearing. Approved: ___________ Date:

__________

2. Glass shall be clear; any addition of beveling, frosting, etching, caming, or stained glass is NOT permitted

under this approval.

3. Awnings shall be of fabric construction on metal frames. High-sheen finishes are not permitted.

4. Awning supports and hardware must be installed using methods which cause as little damage as possible

to the exterior walls. Fasteners at masonry locations should be installed in the mortar joints. Do not drill

into or otherwise damage masonry (brick, block, structural tile, etc.).

5. Backlighting of awnings is not permitted with this certificate.

6. Signage is not permitted by this certificate. Any text, numerals, logos, or other signage will require a

separate certificate.

7. Replacement doors and storefront shall fit exactly into the original openings; no changes to the openings

are permitted.

8. Concrete surfaces shall have the lightest possible broom finish. Strokes must be straight with no curves or

swirls.

9. New sidewalk must match the existing sidewalk in profile and appearance as closely as possible.

10. This certificate does NOT approve the painting on non-painted brick or masonry surfaces.

11. All new, repaired, and/or rebuilt elements shall replicate the documented appearance of the building per

IHPC photographs.

12. New doors and storefront system must be prefinished or painted to match color scheme on the building.

13. Work on the exterior details, finishes, and landscaping must not commence prior to the approval by IHPC

staff of each. These may include, but are not limited to the approval of all finish material for: doors,

windows, landscape materials, foundations, exterior light fixtures, paint colors, roof shingles, etc.

30

14. A catalogue cut sheet or drawings documenting the appearance and material of new doors must be provided

to the IHPC prior to purchase or installation of the doors. Approved: _________ Date: __________

15. No changes to the proposed design, materials, placement, lighting, or approach are permitted without prior

consultation with IHPC staff.

16. Notify IHPC staff prior to making unexpected repairs.

NOTE: Owner is responsible for ensuring that awnings do not pose any risk of danger to the public.

NOTE: A permit and encroachment license for the awnings may also be required. Please contact the

Department of Business and Neighborhood Services at 317-327-8700, to receive any applicable permits prior

to commencement of project.


NOTE: New storefront shall be completed no later than November 1, 2020. Applicant/owner shall contact

IHPC staff when the work is complete to set a time for the work to be inspected. Failure to comply the shall

result in this violation being forwarded to the City Prosecutor for enforcement.



31

SANBORN MAPS

1887 1898

(before existing structure was built)

1915 1956

32

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Prior to work taking place (image from 2018)

Image from Fountian Square National Register Nomination from 1983 – showing the steel

lintel, no transoms in the display windows, a low kickplate and uninterupted panes of glass.

33

Image from Fountian Square District Plan, desginated 1984 – showing funnel entry, the steel lintel, no transoms in the display windows, a low kickplate and uninterupted panes of glass.

DETAILED IMAGES OF STOREFRONT – TAKEN APRIL 2019

Side bay of storefront

34

Center bay with altered windows

35

Detailed shots of window frames, some cracked glass, and vinyl covered kickplate

36

Doors and transoms

Ceiling of funnel door way

37

Interior

Image of rear, northeast elevation (taken March 2020)

38

Existing door in delivery sized entry (taken March 2020)

Existing door in pedestrian entry (taken March 2020)

39

VIOLATION

Subject property – image taken 1-9-2020

Images from behind wood structure over the front of the building –

storefont system completely removed

40

PLANS

Proposed Floor Plan

41

Close up of proposed new storefront configuration

Proposed west elevation

Proposed east elevation

42

Proposed Storefront

43

Proposed paint colors (trim on left, body on right)

44

COA #

2020-COA-111 (LS)


COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

Hearing Date

MAY 13, 2020

Continued from

May 6, 2020

434 SPRING STREET LOCKERBIE SQUARE

Applicant:

Mailing address:

TERRY BRADBURY 335 North East Street


Owner: CHARLES & KIMBERLY JOHNSON 434 Spring Street


Center Township


Zach Adamson WORK STARTED WITHOUT APPROVAL

IHPC COA:

2020-COA-111 (LS) Certificate of Authorization to maintain paint, windows and

rear door, replace inappropriate front door and correct

alterations to front door transom, all installed/completed

without approval

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Certificate of Authorization


The subject property is a one-story c. 1865 vernacular cottage. It is known that the structure once had artificial

siding, which was removed and new wood siding was installed. The cottage retains its 3-bay façade and

pedimented openings. It is also believed that the building was moved to its existing location sometime between

1887 and 1898.

Violation Timeline

May 2017 --- Current owners closed on the subject property. The previous month, the owners signed a contract

with a contractor named John Logan of IPC Workers to complete various interior and exterior work on the

house.

June 2017 --- Payments were made to Mr. Logan ($8,400) for the work to take place on the property.

July 26, 2017 --- The Department of Business and Neighborhood Services opened on investigation case on the

property after receiving a report that work was taking place on site without a Certificate of Appropriateness

(INV17-27210). The reported work included painting, new windows, and new doors.

July 27, 2017 --- The owners visited the property to receive a delivery of appliances for the home to find that

Mr. Logan had walked off the job. At this time, the owners discovered that Mr. Logan had also not purchased

items they had paid him to acquire for the house.

August 2017 --- BNS cited the property (VIO17-005407) for painting the house and installing new doors and

windows without a COA. By this time, the owners realized Mr. Logan failed to obtain the correct approvals

from the IHPC for which they had also paid him to do ($1,250). Upon visiting the site, IHPC staff determined

that the windows and the doors that had been installed were not appropriate. The owners were informed that

the newly installed windows and doors would need to be replaced with appropriate units, or that they would

need to request permission to maintain the windows and doors from the Commission. With help from the

Office of Corporation Counsel, a letter was sent to Mr. Logan explaining that his company was in violation of

Indiana state code and requested that he contact the IHPC to begin rectifying the violation.

45

Fall of 2017 --- The owners attempted to make a claim on IPC Workers insurance policy, and discovered that

the policy was terminated by the time the loss had occurred. The filing of a claim on IPC Workers bond was

also started. For the bond claim process to continue, a decision from the IHPC must be made, as well as other

bids and expenses must be identified. For unknown reasons on October 19, 2017, BNS closed the violation

case, noting that the violations had been corrected and proper permits had been obtained. In the meantime, the

case also fell off the IHPC staff’s radar. During this time Mr. Logan filed for bankruptcy.

December 2019 --- IHPC staff was contacted by a new contractor who was hired to do some repair work on

the house. At that time, it was discovered that the violation case had never been resolved and conversations

with the owner and the applicant began again on correcting the violation.

Proposed Scope of Work

The applicant is requesting the approval of a Certificate of Authorization to maintain the new paint on the

house, all the aluminum clad windows and the rear door that were installed without approval. The applicant is

agreeable to replacing the inappropriate front door with an appropriate style and correcting the alterations made

to the front door transom.

Windows:

There are 9 windows throughout the house. All of the windows that were replaced were non-historic wood,

one over one, double hung windows. The new windows are one over one double hung, aluminum cladded

Pella Proline/450 series windows. This line of windows is no longer produced and staff was unable to access

specs on the windows. The applicant noted that a recent estimate on replacing all 9 windows would be

approximately $8,100 to $9,900 (totaling $16,000-18,000 for the windows, including the loss to the previous

contractor in 2017). The applicant estimated replacing the front three windows would cost approximately

$3,000.

Doors:

The doors that were replaced in 2017 were modern metal doors. It appears that sometime between 2011 and

2014 a decorative wood front door on the house was replaced by a previous owner with a standard half light

metal door with caming in the glass. The existing doors that were installed in 2017 are of a Craftsman style

and do not fit with the 19th century cottage. The applicant is proposing to maintain the rear door and replace

the front door with a more appropriate style. Additionally, the front door transom has been altered. It appears

that additional moldings have been applied to the opening, causing the visible glass to be downsized. The glass

was also changed out for a decorative leaded/camed glass with the house number. The applicant is proposing

to return the transom to the correct opening size.

Lockerbie Square District Plan

Windows:

• Windows on a historic building are important elements defining its architectural and historic significance.

Their original materials and features should be respected and retained. Replacement should only be done

if necessary and if similar to the original.

• Avoid replacement windows not similar to the original in size, dimensions, shape, design, pattern, and

materials. Example: metal and vinyl cladding, snap-in muntins, and tinted glass are not considered similar

to original wood windows.

Doors:

• If an original door is lost, its replacement may be an old or new door compatible with the building style.

New doors should be wood, unless the original was a different material, and should match the original in

size, shape and proportion.

• Transom windows and door trim should be retained or reinstalled if there is evidence of their original

46

existence.

• Hardware on new door should be simple, unobtrusive and compatible with the building’s style.

Paint Colors:

• Paint colors are essentially a personal choice. They are reversible, have no permanent effect and have

usually changed many times throughout the history of a building.

• Avoid monochromatic (single color) color schemes on building which originally had vibrant, multiple

and contrasting colors.


Staff sympathizes with the current owners of the subject property and the unfortunate situation that occurred

in 2017. However, it is ultimately the owners responsibility to ensure proper approvals and permits are issued

for work taking place on land they own. Staff finds the paint colors to be appropriate and due to the limited

visibility of the rear door we are comfortable with the existing door remaining. Staff’s largest concern is over

the windows and the front door.

Staff is recommending the approval of a Certificate of Authorization to maintain all of the windows except for

the three, most visible windows, on the front façade. Some of the windows appear to have different stile and

rail dimensions. The windows on the front elevation have stiles and rails are very thin and nearly all the same

size, which is uncharacteristic of historic wood windows like the house would have had originally. The

windows also have rolled aluminum cladding which causes the mitered edge at the joints. When reviewing

aluminum clad replacement windows, staff requires that the aluminum be extruded which creates a butt joint

like wood windows would have. Staff was unable to confirm if any of the properties throughout the district,

that were noted by the applicant (images below,) were approved by the IHPC to install Pella Proline/450 Series

windows. However, staff reviews the replacement of windows in historic structures based on if the new

windows replicate the characteristics of historic windows, which those that have been installed at the subject

property do not. The Lockerbie Plan states that windows are important elements to a building’s architectural

and historic significance, that features of original windows should be retained and that replacement windows

should have similar dimensions to originals. Staff has concerns about all of the windows throughout the house,

but we believe those on the front, which are the most visible, are the most impactful on the integrity of the

house.

Staff is recommending that the front door be replaced with one of an appropriate style and that the transom

window opening be restored to the original size. Staff does not find the proposed new door to be appropriate

due to it being constructed of metal and is not compatible with the style of the cottage. The applicant has agreed

to work with staff to find a more appropriate option and to correct the alterations to the transom. Additionally,

staff would recommend to the owner, that once a COA is issued for the work, to continue with the claim

process on the bond of the original contractor to help with the expenses of the violation corrections.

47


COA #2020-COA-111 (LS)

To approve a Certificate of Authorization to maintain the new paint, installed rear door and windows

on the north, south and west elevations; and to install new appropriate replacement windows and front

door on the east/front elevation; and to correct front transom window alterations, per submitted

documentation and subject to the following stipulations:

1. A catalogue cut sheet or drawings documenting the appearance and material of new windows

and door must be provided to the IHPC prior to purchase or installation of the windows and

door. Approved: __________Date: __________

2. Exterior trim shall not be altered when new windows and door are installed.

3. New windows and door shall fit exactly the original opening; altering existing openings to

accommodate the new windows and door is NOT permitted.

4. New windows and door shall not be attached to or cover any exterior trim.

5. New windows and door must be prefinished or painted to match color scheme on house.

6. No changes to the proposed design, location, configuration, or method of installation are

permitted without prior consultation with IHPC staff.

7. Any deviation from this approach shall be approved by IHPC staff prior to construction.

8. Notify IHPC staff prior to making unexpected repairs.


NOTE: New front windows and front door shall be replaced and transom correction shall be completed

no later than November 1, 2020. Applicant/owner shall contact IHPC staff when the work is complete

to set a time for the work to be inspected. Failure to comply the shall result in this violation being

forwarded to the City Prosecutor for enforcement.



48

SANBORN MAPS

1898

1915

1956

SUBJECT PROPERTY

2011 2014

49

Existing

VIOLATION

Front/east elevation (image taken in

July 2017 before paint and transom work was completed)

50

Back door

New paint scheme (before left, after right)

51

Transom alterations (before top, after bottom)

Images of installed window units

Front/east elevation

52

Throughout the house

53

Close up images of windows throughout the house

54

PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY APPLICANT

55

56

57

58

House in 2017 when current owners purchased property

Subject property and neighboring house 436 Spring Street (436 is noted in the Lockerbie

Plan as having had its fenestraion altered and façade redesigned)

59

Proposed replaced front door

60

Windows on other properties in Lockerbie Square

640 Lockerbie Street

638-640 East New York Street

(2013 and 2015 COAs were issued for repair and restoration work on the windows)

61

628 Lockerbie (windows in house were replaced during restoration in the early 1980s)

62

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

63

64

65

66

67

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

68

Documents

INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION …...INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COA # 2019-COA-625 (CAMA) Hearing Date COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 13, 2020 Continued from March 4, 2020