MERIDIAN KESSLER PLAN Steering Committee meeting

Attendees: David Vanderstel, our newest member who is the VP of Institutional Advancement of Martin University, a professor at IUPUI, and our expert consultant re historic preservation.  Also attending were Jim Garrettson, Tom Gallagher, Kent Pinaire, Mary Owens, Vera Adams, John Albrecht, Alicia Byers, and Kathleen Blackham.

“Brief review of two past Neighborhood Discussions re College Avenue”:

                Concern was voiced regarding more input on infrastructure at the Neighborhood Discussions,  and less input on form. Discussion ensued indicating that neighbors are more informed on infrastructure needs, seeing them on a day to day basis, and are more likely comfortable addressing them with authority. Thoughts as to “form” are more intuitive—people “know what they like and dislike”.  As they have spoken positively about the forms they like, we should take those elements of the form which are highly regarded, and focus on incorporating them into the plan. To be included in discussions of form, we also have heard of “uses” which seem to draw neighbors together and are encouraged by the form itself.  An example, spontaneously occurring but perhaps in some way encouraged by “form”, is the Noble Romans at 49^th and Penn, which, with its “Waffle Cone Wednesday” is seen to bring neighbors together in a pedestrian/outdoor setting enjoying the landscaping, benches, etc, provided by the area. As a “family/neighbor” gathering space, this example of “form” speaks to proportion of space in the context of a commercial enterprise.  Additionally, we have often heard of the good regard of the intersection of College and 52^nd. We can use these intersections as examples of how our neighbors would like their neighborhood to look, and generalize from there. It was suggested we be careful about rigid standards as to height, setback, etc.  Using the example of the College Park Condominiums located to the south of Yats—their scale would be too massive with a narrower setback, but as they are currently situated, they are well accepted aesthetically.

                There was some review to the 2:1 ratio described in past meetings as setting the standard for width of open space:height of building. Some consideration must be given to Rights Of Way, better defined for our purposes as the “property line”and most often beginning at the edge of the sidewalk.  Kathleen will clarify the “Right of Way” for College Avenue. In an urban setting, the standard is to build to the property line, although it was suggested that a “façade zone” could be defined which would allow some leeway on the “public realm”.

“Review of the two Neighborhood Plans”:

                The College Avenue “Neighborhhood Plan” draft was presented for discussion (it is posted elsewhere within the MKNA website).  The information in this draft plan, combined with any added neighbor comments, will eventually be condensed into a tabulated format.   Upon completion and approval by the neighborhood, it will be placed in the “Regulating Plan” by the city. The City will provide the drawings of the plan which will be added as an appendix to the final form.

                Discussion ensued regarding the specifics of the use of “a system of traffic calming” measures, as we have had much specific input from neighbors as to what defines a “walkable/bikeable/drivable” neighborhood to them.  We would like to be proactive in addressing these issues with the city, to avoid the occurrence of “improvements” without adequate input.  Mary and Alicia will consolidate the specific requests for traffic calming and prepare a request, which will be distributed both to Steering Committee members and to the MKP website for input. We will include specific alley renovation requests.  Once we form our specific requests, we will ask our city-county council members for support as we meet with DPW. Kathleen will arrange a meeting with DPW when we are prepared. It was advised that we keep in mind future transit issues such as bus rapid transit, which may conflict with calming measures for College Avenue as we make our requests.  We don’t want construction of curb bump outs for example, which might have to be removed for transit.  On the other hand, we might ask for restriping which could be repainted in the event of forward movement on the transit issues. The question was raised as to maintenance of planted curb bump outs—the city will likely refuse maintenance and we must be prepared to address this issue. We may consider input from KIB, individual neighbor participation, “adopt a block” among other possibilities.

                Billboards have been raised as an aesthetic concern by neighbors.  The permit for the billboards at College and 54^th is automatically renewed without neighbor input.  Only when roof work is needed will we have the opportunity to remonstrate for their removal.  Shall we explore stronger language regarding new requests for billboards as “billboards will be prohibited”?

                Provision of bike racks is the responsibility of the property owner.  Could we look to TIF funds to help with this expense?

                Shall we try to draw up a “Lighting Plan” for the neighborhood?  Any specific plan would need to be an addendum to an actual Form Based Code Plan. As we consider this, note was made that we might entertain one type of lighting for residential areas, supplemented with a second lighting type for the commercial nodes within that area. 8 ft lights would require too many lighting structures to be feasible (one/property), so that lighting heights of 16-20 feet would be more reasonable. We do want language prohibiting EVMS (electronic variable message signs) in this neighborhood where the commercial nodes are in too close proximity to residential areas to allow for such a visually disruptive presence.

                As we look to other means of “identifying” our neighborhood, we might look to some uniformity of trash cans. Mention has been made to establish various “Gateways” identifying entrance into Meridian Kessler. Rather than undertaking a large project such as this, might we look to 38^th St as our “Gateway” on the south and Kessler to the north, using general design parameters within the neighborhood with some “guidelines” providing a degree of uniformity without encroaching upon individual design elements.

                Kathleen will provide a compilation of “Historic Buildings” in this area, including the survey which indicates if they are “contributing, outstanding,  non contributing”, etc. This may serve as an appendix to the MKP. Regarding the “Prather Building” at 42^nd and College, the question was raised of the availability of grants for structural improvements.  Indiana Landmarks is investigating the importance of the structure.  Mary suggested that perhaps Alicia Garceau might help us with this.  Mary feels this will soon become another urgent issue and will contact Alicia Garceau for her help.

                In discussing the issue of the purchase of the 46^th and College southwest property by Family Dollar, Vera will forward her students design drawings for this area, and Kent has offered to review them with any added suggestions.  Perhaps this can be introduced into discussions of the future of this property in the hopes it will encourage the proper form, if not the proper use.

“Architectural Review”—Tom Gallagher

                In Broad Ripple, the prototype of the FBC was drawn up by Tamara Tracy, planner, with city interns doing illustrations.  Broad Ripple leaders have reviewed this plan and are making changes. The need for our Steering Committee to compile the ongoing tabulation of recommendations within the format of the outline which Kathleen will send to us has been addressed above.

                Tom would like to define broad “character areas” such as the length of the College Corridor, each of which may contain up to 4 or 5 typologies.  Although this is a discussion of semantics, he feels we need to be in accord with the language used to avoid misunderstanding in future dealings.

Our next Neighborhood Discussion will involve the 38^th St corridor (from 40^th St to 38^th) along the length of 38^th from College to Meridian on Tuesday June 5 at 6:30 at Coburn Place. (The area of 38^th St from the Monon to College will be included in the Character Area of the Monon or State Fairgrounds at a future date).  For this event, we will need to invite the other stakeholder organizations bordering on this area consisting of Mapleton/Fall Creek, BTNA, and Watson/McCord.  Mary will issue these invitations.  It was felt by the group that a separate meeting should occur between representatives of the Steering Committee and representatives of the Stakeholder groups one week after the Neighborhood Discussion—during the week of June 11.  The Steering Committee will then meet the following week to discuss and tabulate results.

COLLEGE AVENUE—42^nd, 46^th,49^th STREETS

This meeting took place at the College Avenue Branch Library, well attended by 40 neighbors, plus 25 sophomore students from Ball State University.  The meeting began with Vera Adams explaining the design recommendations displayed by her Ball State University Urban Planning 202 class titled “Site Planning and Design”.  The students prepared site designs for each character area on the College Avenue corridor.  The designs were posted on the walls of the meeting space, and will soon be available for review via a link on the MKNA website.

The meeting continued with a presentation by Mary Owens and Tom Gallagher on the topic of Form Based Code—what it means, how it may be used, the advantages it provides for neighbor input into “how we would like our neighborhood to look over the next 25 years”.  Specifics of this presentation are made in the MINUTES of FEBRUARY  16 2012 posted on the MKNA website: www.mkna.org   home page—“Meridian Kessler Plan”.

When asked “What do you like about your neighborhood?, we again heard themes relating to the proximity of local businesses serving local needs. We heard of the preference for businesses and streetscapes which will serve to make our neighborhood a “destination” where a pedestrian sensibility persists, rather than a transit corridor to downtown.

The importance/priority of preserving existing historic buildings is emphasized.

49^TH AND COLLEGE:

Some neighbors referred to a preference for decreased setbacks of buildings, to maintain a “village/pedestrian” sensibility.  Others preferred increased setbacks to allow for better visibility upon entering traffic if parking is located in front of businesses. Options for parking to allow for limited setbacks included improved maintenance of the alleys with parking behind buildings, as well as striping of curbside parking to maximize the efficiency of streetside parking.

The request for the limitation of heights of buildings to 2-3 stories was made, out of respect to the single story residences situated on the side streets behind the businesses.  Neighbors request that the same sensibility used to create a “sense of space” along the College corridor, should be considered to maintain a “sense of space” for the homes a block on either side of the corridor. Others felt that we may need some flexibility in the heights of buildings facing College, in order to promote the increased density needed to support transit along the corridor.

Consideration should be made for the preservation of the brick building on the NW corner of 49^TH and College.

A persistent theme, heard throughout our sessions, is the need for more “green space”.  Neighbors acknowledge that this does not require entire blocks for use as a park, but may be as simple as tree planting, addition of planters to paved areas, and even consideration for temporary plantings in vacant lots still awaiting development, such as on the northwest corner of 49^th and College.

There is a need for more bike racks throughout the neighborhood.  Cyclists are reluctant to ride their bikes to destinations if there is no safe parking space for them.

All agreed on the desirability of deeper sidewalks to promote a sense of safety when walking on College.

Neighbors would like to see attention paid to store front window signage which might be more obtrusive than necessary to promote business. Residents would like to see more façade improvement of older storefronts, especially along 49^th St.

Again, mention was made of the corner of 52^nd and College, and the use made of setbacks, landscaping, and barriers to promote a pleasant pedestrian/outdoor dining experience.

Extension of sidewalk “café” dining might be encouraged.

46^th AND COLLEGE:

Discussion addressed the vacant Marathon lot. One neighbor requested another gas station at the location which has been remediated and certified by IDEM to a commercial, but not residential standard.  Other neighbors noted concerns over increased trash, crime, and noise associated with gas stations. A parking lot was mentioned as a use for the space, if it utilized appropriate landscaping to minimize the appearance of the asphalt.  Others sought more “destination” uses for the space, such as a restaurant, a gym or other recreational space, or a “village mixed use” type of structure. One neighbor suggested copying the buildings along Delaware and 16^th with overhanging second and third stories to promote a sense of space, but allow denser use.

Consideration should be made for the fact that lurking under the Double 8 Foods and Big Al’s store are some fabulous historic architecture.

42^ND AND COLLEGE:

Attention focused on “re use” of existing, historical buildings. The adaptive use of the former Kroger building was considered—perhaps a specialty grocery, farmer’s market type of use.  The request was also made for and Entertainment/theatre venue for the Prather Masonic Hall—with a focus on uses for younger neighbors.  The statistic was cited that the demographic of “0-18” years of age is the second largest demographic in the neighborhood, yet we fall short of providing destinations within the neighborhood for that age group.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Attention turned to infrastructure needs along the corridor. 

Traffic calming measures were again approached, to include curb bumpouts, bicycle lane and curbside parking markings not only to promote more efficient and safe use of bicycles and of curbside parking, but to remind motorists that they are “sharing” the road. The request was made that such markings need to be easily visible, and that some consideration be given to “intuitive” lane changes to avoid motorist confusion. The concern over “traffic calming” and its potential effect on maintaining unobstructed transit through the neighborhood was addressed.  These “traffic calming” measures are not intended to obstruct traffic, but will promote safer transit along the corridor in that they will help maintain legal speed limits and other traffic statutes currently being ignored by some commuters. A suggestion was made for more stop signs along College.  Although that might cause obstruction of traffic flow, the possibility of stop lights coordinated to allow fluid passage of cars IF they are following the speed limit might better serve the purpose. Another neighbor suggested that “lane markings” might vary along the corridor with one type of marking to serve the needs of businesses, and another to serve the needs of residences along other blocks of the corridor.

A general request was made for better pedestrian crosswalk markings with pedestrian scale lighting for the corridor.

The need for paving, lighting, and maintenance of alleys was, once again, emphasized.

Green Infrastructure:

Discussion ensued after Karl Selm’s presentation on aspects of Green Infrastructure and its potential for the College Corridor. Specifics of this presentation, including bioswales, and green plantings of curb bumpouts, may be found in the MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16.

The use of permeable paving for the alleys was discussed.  Although the durability seems equivalent to other forms of paving, some expressed concern over the increased cost of these materials, and hence fewer miles of alleys which would be repaved for the same amount of money. Others spoke of the long term savings, in that with more efficient use of the run off of rain water and sewer overflow, the resultant cost of damage and remediation might provide a cost savings in the long run. We also discussed suggestions made at previous meetings, to “keep the design bar high”.  We emphasized that this current form of neighborhood interaction is to compile a “wish list” of needs.  Although all suggestions may not be implicated initially due to cost, we would like to list all our wishes with the hope that as future funds become available, more and more of our wishes may be realized.

Another suggestion for parking pavements included driveable, permeable pavements which would allow for some green grass, but also allow parking.

Note was made that the technology for “green roofs” is advancing, such that these might be considered for structurally sound existing buildings as well as new construction..

All agreed on the need for increased landscaping, green space, and trees throughout the corridor.

MINUTES NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGFEBRUARY 16,2012:  COLLEGE AVENUE—KESSLER TO 52^nd

The meeting opened with a power point presentation by Tom Gallagher introducing the concept of Form Based Code (FBC) and its use as it pertains to the Meridian Kessler Plan (MKP).  He described this effort as “a moment of opportunity” with FBC functioning as the tool offered by the City to neighbors who will compile a “wish list” for how our neighborhood will look over the next twenty years.  When completed, FBC, incorporated into the MKP, will serve as an aid to local leaders and boards as development decisions are made for our neighborhood.   Zoning is protection from the bad; Form Based Code is focused on “getting to the good”.  The two work hand in hand—with zoning being general and flexible, and FBC (an “over lay” to zoning) being detailed and specific to place. FBC represents the visual, and, apart from code, addresses specifics such as streetscape, materials, building heights etc.  It includes a study of proportions to create a pedestrian/visual sense of well being.  He asked the question “How do we want to live together as neighbors?” and ended with the quote “we make our places, thereafter they make us”.

COLLEGE AND KESSLER:

Comment was made that we should “set the bar high” as we move forward with design issues.  Although not every request may be fulfilled, we should not hesitate to define all the parameters we would like to see in the FBC. These requests may be recorded, with the understanding that some items on our “wish list” may not be currently obtainable due to cost.

When asked “what do you love about your neighborhood”, responses included businesses like “Binkleys”, a neighborhood pub, and other similar businesses which serve our community. Neighbors would like to move away from the concept that the area exists as a conduit for moving traffic downtown, to the concept that it is a “destination” in and of itself. Neighbors are looking for consolidation of single service vendors which will provide a “shopping experience”.  Comment was made that due to cost restraints, it is unlikely that single vendors could afford new building, and might require a retro fit into existing buildings in order to be viable. The suggestion followed that perhaps the “village mixed use” concept might help alleviate some of these cost issues. Referring to the AT&T building, the audience sought a building façade which better integrated with the surrounding architecture.  It was agreed that setbacks may vary in order to maintain an organicity to the visual spaces.  Note was made that there exist standards defining a 2:1 height to setback ratio in order to provide an uncrowded  sense of space for pedestrians.

COLLEGE AND 54^th:

Comment was made that these business nodes/intersections found their origins as trolley stops. We should seek to limit further impingement of business east and west into residential spaces unless such uses will interface smoothly with surrounding homes.

The “wish list” included burying electric lines, getting rid of all bill boards, and consideration of moving toward unified and unique lighting and signage to further define the area as Meridian Kessler. On the other hand, some preferred unbranded signs as a deference to the individuality of the ambiance of our neighborhood. Throughout the discussion, emphasis was placed on “improved connectivity for pedestrian movement”—improved walkability of College Avenue. The question was made as to the feasibility of charging “impact fees” to developers, to be used to fund improvements.

Concern was voiced about the narrow width of the sidewalk on the NW corner of  Sam’s Gyros and the placement of a utility pole in the middle of the sidewalk.  Residents claimed they were afraid to cross College Ave. at this intersection and forbade their children to ride bikes in this area because it is unsafe, both crossing College Ave. and riding east to the Monon.  A desire for improved connectivity to the Monon was also expressed.

COLLEGE AND 52^nd:

It was generally acknowledged that this intersection represents the better urban experience described above. The “high bar” should be set to always move toward better integration of facades and setbacks into the surrounding area.  The Aristocrat was cited as an example of façade and landscaping which allows the restaurant to integrate into the general area and still maintain its primary goal of serving customers.

Suggestion was made that the parking area of Moe and Johnny’s is in dire need of appropriate sidewalk markings to allow for safer pedestrian passage.

Allowance was made for some consideration, on a case by case basis, for a change from residential to business, only in the sense of “village mixed use” as described in FBC.

STREETSCAPE

Traffic calming: Use of measures, noted to have been successful in other parts of the city to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety and the pedestrian experience were discussed.  These include,

1. Curb bump outs to prevent high speed traffic from “jockeying” for position to pass on the right at intersections, this endangering pedestrians and encouraging high speed traffic. Consideration will have to be made for necessary “right turn” lanes, and room for buses to maneuver where applicable.
2. Marking of bicycle lanes, which will give drivers a visual reminder that they are sharing the road.
3. Striping “on street parking” which will provide for more efficient use of potential parking spacing, and will, at the same time, further discourage high speed travel on thecurbside lane, further improving pedestrian and bicycle safety.
4. Clear designation of pedestrian crosswalks—again, providing a visual reminder to drivers of the presence of pedestrian traffic
5. We would like to see these calming measures extended to the east/west streets in the area, particularly the connector streets between the Monon and College.
6. As an aside to those who feel that slowing traffic on College to within the legal limit will only drive high speed traffic on to other MK streets, we feel these traffic calming measures should be applied to all streets in the MK neighborhood, so that traffic will not  be tempted to substitute one high speed route for another.

                Bus shelters for all bus stops

                Improved lighting—the suggestion was made that rather than the current “industrial style” of lighting, we might have lighting aesthetically more conducive to the mixed use nature of our area but still providing the necessary lumens for safety

                Alleys—we would like to see all alleys paved and lighted such that they may become walking and bicycle routes apart from street traffic

                Green infrastructure:

1. The use of permeable pavements on alley surfaces to avoid the flooding so often seen
2. The use of “bioswales” to include landscaping in the curb “bump outs”, which will provide conduits for rain water and relieve some of the pressure from the sewer overflow
3. Use of “rain gardens” with native species to accommodate the above
4. Look at storm water as a resource rather than a problem with the use of “rain barrels”, etc in order to divert the rainwater to useful purposes.

All agreed that more trees and green space are needed within the neighborhood—a concept integral to the aesthetic design sought by residents and businesses alike,  where we may “work, walk, bike, shop, and play”—the beautifully descriptive phrase from the College Envision sessions

While some neighbors decried the efforts toward a Meridian Kessler Plan utilizing Form Based Code as unnecessary due to the wonderful state of the neighborhood as it is, the majority of attendees recognized that, while the neighborhood is wonderful indeed, change is an integral part of all neighborhoods, and supported the efforts to pro-actively choose the manner in which future changes may occur as well as encourage the types of development preferred by neighbors.

Come Participate in a Neighborhood Discussion!

“How will Meridian-Kessler look and feel in the next 20 years?”

Topics Include:

• Neighborhood Planning Discussion for New Zoning Overlay

  • Dialogue regarding non-residential properties along College Avenue 49th Street south to 40th Street

  • Other topics:  Infrastructure, alleys, parking, lighting

• North Midtown Economic Development Area Overview

Monday, February 27th, 6:30-8:00 PM

College Avenue Branch Library ~ 42nd & College Ave.

Check the MKNA website for more information on the planning process underway in conjunction with the City of Indianapolis Dept. of Planning

ALL ARE WELCOME!

MERIDIAN KESSLER NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 2010-30

Area #1 - Central Avenue

Description:  Central Avenue corridor between 40^th Street and 46^th Street.

Central Avenue in this area carries a significant traffic volume.  It is classified as a two-way secondary arterial which serves a higher percentage of short trips than do primary arterials.

Properties along Central Avenue are residential, with the following exceptions:

1. Girls Inc. – southeast corner of Central Avenue and 40^th Street
2. St. Joan of Arc – northeast corner of Central Avenue and 42^nd Street
3. Meridian Psychological Associates PC – northeast corner of Central Avenue and 44^th Street

Each of these three properties present special consideration and will be treated as critical areas within the Meridian Kessler neighborhood.

Neighborhood Quality of Life

• Mass transit should be promoted and supported.
• Traffic calming elements should be installed throughout the neighborhood, particularly along streets classified as arterials and/or carry a high volume of traffic.  Following are some examples of traffic calming measures:
  • Bump outs/curb extensions (narrows lane width at pedestrian crossings).
  • Chokers (narrows the roadway to a single lane at points).
  • Mini-circles (raised circular islands constructed in the center of residential or minor street intersections - generally not intended for use where one or both streets are arterial streets).
  • Traffic circles (larger circular islands at the intersection of major roads).
  • Paving pattern variety (colors and materials).
  • Road humps (similar to speed bumps, but less aggressive).
  • Chicanes (serpentine lanes that require a decrease of speed to navigate).
  • Islands (provides pedestrian refuges).
  • Median diverters (prevents left turns or through movements into residential areas).
  • Decrease the turning radius.
  • Speed cushion (a series of three small speed humps that slow cars down but allow emergency vehicles to straddle them so as not to slow response time).

• Prepare a tree preservation plan.
• Maintain the historical character of the neighborhood.  See appendix #?
• Provide for strong pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood, including the Monon Trail.
• Alleys should be paved, lit, and promoted as pedestrian connections.
• Evening and weekend hours should be limited for commercial uses adjacent to residences.
• Striped curbside parking should be provided where appropriate.
• Promote the use of rain gardens and bio swales throughout the neighborhood.
• Topographic variations throughout the neighborhood should be maintained to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

Design Guidelines

• Any new structures should be consistent with the setbacks, height, style, material, and mass of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Chain link fencing should be discouraged.
• Signage near residences should not be internally illuminated.
• Appropriate trash containers shall be provided on non-residential properties.
• Parking lots should be landscaped and screened.
• Topographic variations throughout the neighborhood should be maintained to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

Critical Area #1 – Girls Inc. Property

Location:  This property is located on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and 40^th Street.

Why Critical:  This property is owned by Girls Inc., but is no longer used by the organization.  It is developed with a three-story brick building (constructed 1916) and parking area for approximately 30 vehicles.  The building is vacant and currently for sale.  It is zoned SU-38, which permits the site to be used as a community center.

The location within this residential neighborhood and size of the building presents special challenges.  Any reuse of the building or redevelopment of the property would have immediate impact the surrounding neighborhood.  Any new use or redevelopment of the site would require either a variance of use or a rezoning.

Recommendations:

• Any new use of the site should have minimal impact upon the adjacent residential properties and the neighborhood.
• Historical character of the existing building should be preserved.
• Any new structures should respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood and be consistent with the setbacks, height, style, material, and mass of the existing residential structures.
• Except for low intensity office uses, the site should not be used for commercial operations.
• Exterior lighting should be directed inward to minimize impact upon adjacent properties.
• Any illuminated signage should be illuminated, by spotlights or other lighting apparatus directed upon the sign structure either from the ground or from a lighting fixture attached to the exterior of the sign structure.
• Interior illumination or neon signs shall not be permitted.
• Vehicular ingress/egress should be upgraded to improve safety.

Critical Area #2 – St. Joan of Arc

Location:  This property is located on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and 42^nd Street.

Why Critical:  St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church occupies the site.  Through the years the church has expanded by purchasing adjacent properties and vacating an alley and a portion of Ruckle Street.  It is currently zoned SU-1 for religious purposes. It is noted that the zoning code defines religious use as “[a]s a land use devoted primarily to divine worship together with reasonably related accessory uses, which are subordinate to and commonly associated with the primary use, which may include but are not limited to, educational, instructional, social or residential uses.”

If the need arises for future expansions, the impact upon the neighborhood should be carefully studied and kept to a minimum.

Recommendations:

• If new structures are constructed setbacks, height, style, material, and mass should reflect the surrounding neighborhood.
• As resources become available, site access should be improved, including upgrading of the alley that connects Central Avenue and Park Avenue.
• Any site improvements should consider children and pedestrian safety.
• Curbside parking should be permitted, organized, and striped.
• As expansion plans are made, demolition of adjacent houses should be discouraged.

Critical Area #3 – Meridian Psychological Associates PC

Location:  This property is located on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and 44^th Street.

Why Critical:  This property is zoned residential, but has a use variance to permit the building to be used for “office-type businesses generally accepted to be permitted by the C-1 Office Buffer District of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance,” with certain limitations.  The use variance is not tied specifically to the current operation.  The use variance, therefore, runs with the land until a new use would be proposed, at which time a public hearing would be required.  If the use would be returned to residential, no public hearing would be necessary.

Recommendations:

• Any future expansion or new structures should be consistent with setbacks, height, style, material, and mass of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Future uses should not intensify above the current office use.
• Any outdoor seating area for the facility should be placed on the interior of the site and away from adjacent neighbors.
• If the current use would leave the building, future use should be consistent with the current residential zoning.

Come Participate in a Neighborhood Discussion!

“How will Meridian-Kessler look and feel in the next 20 years?”

Thursday, February 16th, 7:30 PM
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ 52nd & Central

Topics Include:

• Neighborhood Planning Discussion for New Zoning Overlay
• Dialogue regarding non-residential properties along College Avenue - Kessler Blvd. south to 52nd St.
• Other topics:  Infrastructure, alleys, parking, lighting
• North Midtown Economic Development Area Overview

ALL ARE WELCOME!

Check the MKNA web site soon for information on the next Neighborhood Discussion re: College Ave from 52nd St. to 42nd St. for Feb. 27th

Minutes MKP January 10, 2012

Attendees:  Kent Pinaire (architect), John Albrecht (architect), Kathleen Blackham (senior planner, DMD), Scott Lacy (realtor), Karl Selm (urban planner), Tom Gallagher (architect), Jim Garrettson, Mary Owens, Alicia Byers

Guest: Judy Goldstein (President, MKNA)

The meeting opened with introductions followed by a discussion of the Conflict of Interest document.  It was pointed out that this form was designed to protect all members of this committee from any accusations of involvement for the purpose of personal/professional financial benefit.  Kent requested time to study the document prior to signing, all agreed this is reasonable.  Everyone was encouraged to contact Mary or Alicia if they have any particular concerns about the wording of the document.  All were asked to return the forms ASAP, but no later than the next Neighborhood Discussion meeting scheduled Feb 16^th.

Kathleen followed with a broad overview of the Planning Process and the city’s role.  She passed out copies of Broad Ripple’s Regulating Plan to be used as an example.  The “Regulating Plan”, which is the ultimate outcome and will be the updated and governing Meridian Kessler Neighborhood Plan (MKP) , is the enforceable document compiled by the DMD, based upon and guided by the “Neighborhood Plan”.  The Neighborhood Plan is compiled by the DMD, based upon the input of neighbors of the Meridian Kessler  area.  This input will be compiled by the MKP Committee in the following way:

Neighbor Discussions will be held for each "character area" (defined as a sub area of the neighborhood consisting of contiguous properties of similar type architecturally) within the Meridian Kessler neighborhood, to be decided upon as the process moves forward.  Neighbors in each character area will be notified of the meeting which will be attended by Mary and Alicia, at least one of our architects, Kathleen Blackham, and Scott Lacy and Karl Selm as their schedules allow.  Neighbors will be provided with a power point presentation introducing the concept of FBC with photographs of the area to reinforce the concept of a unifying “typology” or “character” with which to begin the conversation.  We will guide the discussion with a handout prepared by Kathleen, which will outline general points of “Neighborhood Quality of Life” and “Design Guidelines” which apply to all the sub units. Neighbors will be asked to consider why they choose to live here. Neighbors will be asked “What are problem areas and how do you envision the solution?”, as well as “What aspects do you not want to see change?” They will be asked to think not only in terms of what best suits them, but also, what guidelines might serve to strengthen the neighborhood as a whole.  While the focus will be upon form (architectural style, setbacks, lighting, signage, street and bicycle markings, landscaping,) we will also address use issues, as these might have an impact upon form as well.  We will include a section on “deal breakers” to place on record those uses neighbors feel would never be acceptable to them, followed by those types of businesses to be discouraged.  Immediately after each Neighborhood Discussion, the Steering Committee members in attendance will meet briefly to review the neighbor comments/ requests, with the goal of condensing them into a realistically obtainable format which may be applied to a Neighborhood Plan.  Alicia will then prepare the minutes in a narrative form, including a list of specific neighbor requests as well as an explanation of those requests which the committee did not feel could be applied to the Plan.  These minutes will be posted on the MKNA Land Use website within 14 days of the meeting for comments/corrections by neighbors. If neighbors strongly oppose the deletion of their specific requests, members of the Steering Committee will meet with them to discuss subsequent action.

The minutes and list will be used by Kathleen to compile the first draft of a Neighborhood Plan.  The MKP Committee will then meet to review the Neighborhood Plan, looking at each area in detail, to further, and more specifically fill out the guidelines. The completed character area Neighborhood Plan will be posted on the MKNA website for neighbor review and input.

This process will be repeated until all areas of the Meridian Kessler neighborhood have been consulted/studied. At that time, Kathleen will present the consolidated Neighborhood Plan to the Metropolitan Development Commission of the DMD for approval.  If approved, it will serve as the basis for the “Regulating Plan” which will be compiled by the DMD.  This Regulating Plan must be approved by the neighborhood which is considered by the city to be represented by MKNA, the largest and most widely recognized neighborhood organization representing Meridian Kessler.  For this reason the President of MKNA (a position currently held by Judy Goldstein), will be invited to attend all committee meetings in an effort to keep the Board of Directors up to date with the committee’s work.  Judy has confirmed that MKNA, as one of several representative stakeholder groups offering input with the MK plan,will not specifically direct the workings of the MKP Committee. When approved by MKNA, the plan will be moved for approval by the City County Council, where, upon approval, it will be filed as THE resource document and reference point (which will overlay the current zoning plan) for all future development within Meridian Kessler.           

Review of the Central Avenue Neighborhood Plan:

            Suggested additions to the plan drafted by Kathleen Blackham include placing “Enforcement of posted speed limits” and “decrease of the speed limits” as sub categories along with inclusion of other measures under “traffic calming” elements.

            Screening of parking areas will need specific landscaping details

            Also suggested were the inclusion of specific measures for alley improvements under the general category of Neighborhood Quality of Life. Alleys will be addressed in terms of pedestrian use in addition to utility use only.  Comments on the three "critical areas" (defined as specific properties being studied) include:

             Girls Inc:

                        The suggestion was made that we establish a priority to keep the existing building and maintain its current exterior appearance.  It was also suggested that there be no curb cut (vehicle ingress/egress) off of Central Avenue, as current form standards seek to limit curb cuts, the existing alley access should be sufficient, and a curb cut on Central Avenue will further limit curbside parking.

            Meridian Psychology Associates:

                        Concern was voiced, contemplating an upward addition to the building.  It was noted that considering the architectural style of the current one story unit which does not mix with that of the neighborhood in general, a second story in a similar style would likely be too obtrusive.

          St Joan of Arc:

                    Kathleen will confirm whether the current SU-1zoning classification for religious purposes includes use of all the property for the school so that in the future, if the primary use of the rectory building should be changed to school use, there wouldn't be a need for a variance.  Because the school is "land locked", the word "prohibition" of house demolitions for future expansion will be amended to "discouraged".

Kathleen will include these suggestions and make revisions to the Neighborhood Plan for Central Avenue with the above suggestions, and if acceptable to committee members, it will be posted on the MKNA website for neighbor review.

Planning for the next Neighborhood Discussion:

            The College corridor was the unanimous choice, in order to be ready to participate in the discussion of TIF funding for the recently declared Economic Development District.  We will try to coordinate with Vera Adams’ urban planning students of Ball State who will be studying the various intersections along the corridor.  We will divide the corridor into 2 character areas:

            1) Kessler Avenue south to 52nd Street with the Neighborhood Discussion to be held on February 16

            2) 49th Street south to 42nd St with the Neighborhood Discussion to be held Feb 27

The 38th St and College area will be included in the discussion of the 38th Street/Maple Road corridor.

 Kathleen will take the material from these Neighborhood Discussions, after review by members of the committee immediately following the discussion, as indicated above, and create the Neighborhood Plan for these two character areas.  We will try to expedite passage of this portion of the Neighborhood Plan by the MKNA and the MDC so that it may be incorporated into a “Regulatory Plan” with guidelines for the discussion of TIF improvements.  Kathleen believes that DMD will refer to and be guided by this document, even before its final passage by the City County Council.

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTES
Central Ave  10/24/11

1. Traffic calming measures along Central and its cross streets to include curb bump-outs, better marking for crosswalks, curb-side parking, bicycle lanes

2. A stop sign at 40th and Central Avenue

3. A ban on chain link fences—this request is not feasible, in that it would require an ordinance establishing a restrictive convenient which goes well beyond the powers of this effort.

4. Guidelines for signage and its lighting as it impacts private residences

5. Repair/upgrade of alleys—to include improved drainage.  The exclusive use of bricks (to maintain the historic nature of the alleys) may be cost prohibitive, but the request will be made of DPW for review

6. Lighting of the alleys

7. If density is increased at the Girl’s Inc property, an ingress/egress off Central Avenue which will have to be reviewed by DPW

8. If usage at the SJA Rectory is intensified, stricter monitoring by IMPD of the 25 mph limit, curbside parking markings to ensure visibility for residential driveways

9. If the MPA building is to be expanded, no height elevations beyond the current structure

10. Careful determination of adequate numbers of outdoor trash cans to ensure that patrons of commercial buildings do not use private residence trash facilities

11. Outdoor seating in a common area for all non residential properties

12. A limitation of evening and week end hours for non commercial buildings along Central Avenue which are deeply embedded in residential areas (ie, single commercial amidst blocks of residential)

13. Speed limit change to 30 mph on Central Avenue

Questions asked of audience members who were given a promise of a response:

1. For MPA—a request that the owners provide outdoor seating for clients so that they don’t sit on the property of homeowners.  Also a request was made for more trash cans outdoors—residents are finding client trash on their property for disposal.  Finally, a request was made to explore the possibility of restricted week end and evening hours, although the neighbor was aware that that might not be a negotiable point at this time.

• Use restrictions may be required for “Special Use” variance requests, but must be negotiated at the time of the variance.  This current location carries with it the accord for hours Mon- Fri of 8-8 with one Wed evening group session which must vacate the building by 8PM.  Saturday hours are from 8AM-4 PM.  MPA office manager, Debby at 923-2333 remains very sensitive to honoring the hour restrictions set forth in the original variance.    It is not feasible to change this accord at this point in time, although if a future variance is needed for new owners, obviously this would be the time to revisit hours.
• We also spoke with Debby about neighbors’ concerns regarding more outdoor trash receptacles, and some type of seating as clients await transportation.  They have regularly discussed outdoor seating, but have held off due to concerns about potential loitering.  We asked that MPA keep these neighbor concerns in mind as they search for ways to prevent clients’ use of neighbors’ property.  She was encouraged to contact the immediate neighbors and she, likewise, encouraged neighbors to call the above telephone number and speak with her about these concerns.

1. For Kathleen—neighbors would like the current statutes regarding the reversion of a property given a variance for a specific use and which, when vacated, seem to be allowed to keep that variance for future owners. They would like to know if the current statutes support this continued variance use, and if so, what efforts would need to be undertaken to change those statutes?

• In the case of special use variances, the use returns to its original zoning designation at the time of change of property owner.  However, there is almost always an immediate request on behalf of the new owner for a continuance of the special use zoning, leaving it to neighbors to remonstrate if they oppose the zoning.  However, “use restrictions” specific to a property may be included in the Neighborhood Plan.  It is the responsibility of the Steering Committee/DMD to ensure that these restrictions are not so rigid that they would effectively preclude future use and lead to an abandoned property. As above, this might be an opportunity for neighbor input as to any specific “hours” restrictions.
• In the case of “bars”—the definition of what constitutes a “bar” is not well defined in statute.  However, because of restrictions pertaining to  proximity to residence, set backs, etc , this is an instance of where “form” may, in fact, dictate function—with the form being designated in such a way that a bar could not locate at that site.