Commission continues Lockerbie Square duplex review after concerns about articulation, windows and drainage

The Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission on March 5 continued review of a proposed duplex at 544 North Park Avenue (Case 2024 COA 406) after commissioners said the current drawings and material choices did not adequately respond to the commission’s previous guidance on masonry and architectural articulation.

Why it matters: The proposal is in Lockerbie Square, a historic district where the commission expects new construction to respect three-dimensional masonry articulation and make visible elements consistent with surrounding historic buildings.

Applicant Michael Murcho presented material samples, including brick, a siding product used on an earlier building in the same development, and limestone window ledges the team proposed to add. Murcho said the current design follows the material play used on an earlier four-unit building on the site and that a shallow bay had been added to the north elevation to provide more dimension.

Commissioner David Baker and others criticized the proposal’s composition and details. Baker said the entries read as small and “basement” like and recommended enlarging or changing the door treatments (for example, double doors or sidelights) and making canopies more substantial and higher. He suggested standardizing window sizes to reduce the number of different window dimensions now shown and adding windows on the first floor of the garage wall to reduce blankness visible from the street.

Commissioner Anson Keller said the pilasters and brick elements that rise on the facade currently end abruptly without appropriate caps and that the north elevation’s shallow 11-inch bay projection (as shown in plans) was insufficient to meet expectations for substantial articulation — he noted that 11 inches would not meet typical zoning or design expectations for meaningful projection. Commissioners asked the applicant to show a deeper bay on revised drawings; the applicant indicated a willingness to show a 16-inch projection and was asked to provide drawings reflecting that change.

The commission also requested the applicant show downspout locations and drainage routing on revised elevations; commissioners noted that downspouts, especially when run down visible elevations, are part of the building’s architectural composition and must be shown on plans.

Staff principal reviewer Emily Jarsen and Administrator Meg Boshard encouraged the applicant to have the project architect review the recorded meeting video and incorporate the commissioners’ comments into revised drawings. Jarsen noted staff’s past encouragement for a stronger masonry expression on primary facades.

Formal action: The commission voted to continue Case 2024 COA 406 to the April 7 meeting to allow the applicant to submit revised drawings showing deeper bay projection, downspouts and other requested revisions. Commissioner Kristen Wiggs moved the continuance; Commissioner Michael Bivens seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.

Clarifying details: The applicant supplied brick and siding samples and said a limestone window ledge was added to some windows. Commissioners identified the bay projection on the plans as about 11 inches and asked the applicant to provide a 16-inch projection on revised drawings. Commissioners asked staff to provide the meeting recording to the applicant’s architect so the architect can hear the detailed comments.

Next steps: Applicant to submit updated drawings showing bay projection increased to 16 inches (or otherwise addressing articulation), downspouts and drainage routing, and other clarifications discussed by commissioners for the April 7 hearing.