Posted by Land Use

Neighborhood Meeting: Central Avenue   October 24, 2011

Attendees:  Mary Owens and Alicia Byers, co-chairs; Polly Spiegel, Tom Gallagher, Jim Garrettson, committee members; Kathleen Blackham, Senior Planner for the Department of Metropolitan Development; Judy Goldstein, President MKNA; Clarke Kahlo, MKNHN; and the many wonderful neighbors whose contributions provided the purpose of the meeting (list attached).

After a brief introduction and broad overview of the process of the Meridian Kessler Plan by Alicia, Mary delivered a power point presentation on the specifics of Form Based Code.  She described the need for a comprehensive plan to prevent the current situation of acutely, “ time constrained”,  evaluations for  zoning variances which so often leave the neighbors most affected by these variances feeling they have not had ample opportunity for their concerns to be heard. Since the current comprehensive sub area plan was last revised in 1978 and is out of date, our group of neighbor volunteers, supported by the city’s DMD and MKNA, are attempting to compile the thoughts and concerns of our Meridian Kessler neighbors as we strive to look 20 years ahead to the future of our neighborhood. The process involves two plans.  The first, the “Neighborhood Plan”, consists of the work we are doing at present. Our goal is to compile a “wish list”, or guidelines encompassing the input from neighbors resulting from these smaller sessions. With the professional help of architects and DMD, these guidelines will be translated into a comprehensive Meridian Kessler Plan utilizing the tool of Form Based Code.  With subsequent broad neighbor consensus, the “Neighborhood Plan” will be presented to the Metropolitan Development Commission for approval. If approved, it will serve as the basis for the “Regulating Plan” which is the method by which the Neighborhood Plan may be implemented.   The “Regulating Plan” will be prepared by DMD, with the input of the Meridian Kessler Plan steering committee, and will basically “translate” the Neighborhood Plan into a legal document providing the basis for the “enforceable component” of the document. The Regulating Plan must also be approved by the neighborhood.  When approved by the neighborhood, the Regulating Plan must be reviewed by the City County Council where, if approved, will be filed as THE resource document and reference point (which will overlay the current zoning plan) for all future development within Meridian Kessler. As pointed out by an audience member, variances to this document can still be requested.  However, we have been assured by DMD that this current up to date document, with broad neighborhood support, will carry more weight in variance approvals than our current sub area plan does.

The question was raised by the audience that “special use” zoning variances (such as those allowing the AT&T switching stations, and the current MPA enterprise) should revert back to their original zoning status if and when that particular entity vacates the building.  Kathleen was asked to explore the current statutes, and, if not in current statute, the feasibility of it becoming so.

WHY DO WE CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE?  Neighbors listed:

  • Location, location, location!  We enjoy the proximity to the down town, combined with the quieter sensibility of a family oriented neighborhood
  • A sense of community/ a celebration of diversity
  • An area which is bicycle and pedestrian friendly

As a part of Form Based Code, neighbors indicated they did not feel that every building in each typology must “look alike”, but that there must be a maintenance of “flow” as one looks down the street—with no particular edifice standing out in marked contrast to its neighboring properties. There was support for the maintenance of a general architectural style in facades and setbacks. Support was given for “traffic calming” measures on all our streets consisting of curb bump outs, bicycle lanes, and curbside parking. A request made prior to our meeting addressed the need for a stop sign at 40th and Central in an effort to ease access by neighbors across that intersection. A request was made to ban chain link fences. A suggestion was made to address signage and its lighting as it impacts private residences. Lighting and paving of alleys also needs to be reviewed.

THE GIRL’S INC. PROPERTY (40th & Central Ave.):

“Possibilities” for development:

  1.  Some type of “shared spaces” concept, consisting of artist studio rentals, or kitchen production/catering space, Non Profits
  2. A residential space, perhaps condominiums.  It was mentioned that a second building might have to be constructed to allow a more financially viable enterprise since the listing price for the property is presently $500,000 and renovations for conversion would be costly.  Neighbors shared concern over the setbacks for another building, emphasizing that they would not want to feel “crowded” by an additional building.  They also requested that in the event of an additional building and the attendant increase in traffic flow on the narrow 40th St, that an ingress/egress point off of Central Avenue might be necessary.
  3. High end office space
  4. Legal office space
  5. St Joan of Arc School extension campus—as the continued success and expansion of the SJA School may require additional space, the question was raised as to the use of the Girl’s Inc building as a campus for the middle school.

“Deal Breakers”

  1. No “oddball” groups
  2. No public restaurant at that location

ST JOAN OF ARC CHURCH AND SCHOOL (42nd & Central Ave.):

“Possibilities” for expansion:

  1.  It was pointed out that the success of the school as a point of growth for the influx of young families is something to be celebrated by the entire neighborhood.  It is recognized that it is the presence of our young families that contributes greatly to the stability and success of our neighborhood.
  2. Could the school expand into the residential housing to the north of the property?
  3. Could the school expand into the rectory on Central Avenue?

The concern over increased traffic and parking and the resultant obstruction for homeowners entering and exiting their driveways might be addressed by the support of the city, MKNA, and SJA for increased police monitoring to enforce the resultant 25mph speed zone, and the possibility of curbside parking markings to maintain the accessibility to residential driveways

  1.  As above, could the school expand into the vacated Girl’s Inc building?

“Deal Breakers”

  1.  A preference that no demolition of current residential housing occur

THE MERIDAN PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATES (MPA) BUILDING, 4401 Central Ave.:

“Possibilities” for development:

  1. Senior condominiums in the event the building were to be vacated by MPA
  2. Other low impact office
  3. As MPA has a “use variance”, in the event the building should be vacated by the current enterprise, could there be a provision requiring demolition or reversion back to the original zoning?

“Possibilities” for expansion:

  1.  A preference for expansion to the east as opposed to other directions was mentioned
  2. A  height restriction must be enforced

“Deal Breakers”:

  1.  Neighbors request that no second story expansion be acceptable
  2. The question was raised by architects—if the property reverted back to residential and was demolished, with a home built in the space, would a two story home be acceptable?

Neighbors in closest proximity to MPA had the following requests, describing MPA as a “fair” neighbor:

  1.  That more outdoor trash cans be provided so that clients did not use neighbor’s trash cans for refuse
  2.  That a common outdoor seating area be provided so that clients are not sitting on neighbors’ residential structures
  3. Could there be no week-end or late night hours?—Mention was made that this might not be a part of the covenant for the operation of the business, but Mary Owens has agreed to look in to this

Mary Owens indicated she will discuss the above issues with the owners of MPA

Because Form Based Code will allow us to list businesses that we would not, under any circumstance, welcome into our neighborhood, a general list was compiled by the Committee to include:

  1. Strip Clubs
  2. Cash checking/loan centers
  3. Tattoo Parlors
  4. Additional gas stations
  5. Additional fast food chains
  6. Pawn shops
  7. Bars

We would discourage:

  1. Chain restaurants
  2. Specialty multi physician offices
  3. Big box retailers

Neighbors are invited to add to this list





 

Send this Post
Your Name:


Your Email Address:


Recipient's Email Address:


Your Message:


Contact Us

Meridian Kessler Neighborhood Association
526 East 52nd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Phone: 283.1021 Fax: 283.6061
E-mail: meridiankessler@aol.com

Follow Us:


Proud Sponsors

© 2010 Meridian Kessler Neightborhood Association

Website Design & Content Management Powered by Marketpath CMS