web analytics

MDC Hearing Rundown – August 4th

As with Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission hearings, I will keep readers up-to-date on cases before the Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) that will receive public hearings.  Unlike the IHPC, the MDC does not provide individual staff reports for cases — all cases for this hearing are collected and available here.  Commission rulings will be updated after the hearing.

Address: 7301 E. 46th St.
Township: Lawrence
Case: Variance of development standards of the Sign Regulations to provide for an 80-foot tall, 14 by 48-foot digital outdoor advertising sign (digital outdoor advertising signs are not permitted),

  1. being 160 feet from a protected district (600-foot separation required
    from protected districts for electronic variable message signs), and
  2. with the digital sign being 100% of the total sign area (maximum 40%
    permitted).

Staff Recommendation: Denial
Commission Ruling:
MAP
_________________________________________

Address: 7402 N. College Ave.
Township: Washington
Case: Variance of Development Standards of the Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance to provide for eleven lots with a minimum 20-foot front yard setback (minimum front yard setback in the Meridian Hills R-2 District is required to be the lesser of 40% of the average lot depth on the block or 75 feet).
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Commission Ruling:
MAP

7402 N College Ave

An overview of the development site, College Ave. at right, Park Ave. at left.

Urban Indy Note: It is my opinion that a senselessly-winding, cul-de-sac-terminated road has no business being built within the Indianapolis city limits, particularly when it is so obvious that the road could be built to connect to the existing Park Ave. to the west of this plot of land.

_________________________________________

Address: 3801-4005 Meadows Dr. and 3805-3806 Dearborn St.
Township: Washington
Case: Rezoning of 101.9 acres, from the D-8 (W-5), D-9 (W-5), SU-2 (W-5), C-4 (W-5) and C-S (W-5) Districts, to the D-P (W-5) classification to provide for:

  1. single-family, two-family and multi-family residential uses,
  2. commercial uses permitted within the C-1, C-3 and C-4 Districts,
  3. special and institutional uses permitted within the SU-1, SU-2, SU-6, SU-7, SU-9, SU-37, SU-38, SU-39 Districts,
  4. mixed-use areas of residential and commercial in the same building as well as Live/work units, including light manufacturing and assembly and residential, commercial and institutional uses within the same building and
  5. uses permitted within the SU-3 and SU-9 Districts and agricultural uses, including a community garden and the sale of products produced therein.

Staff Recommendation: This case should be continued from the August 4, 2010 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission to the August 18, 2010 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission to allow for clarification relative to the submitted legal description, as well as evaluation of additionally requested information.
Commission Ruling:
MAP

Urban Indy Note: “Mixed-use areas”, “Live/work units” and a “community garden”?  This project could be interesting.

Social Media

4 Responses to “ “MDC Hearing Rundown – August 4th”

  1. Kevin says:

    Depressing news on the cul-de-sac just north of Park Tudor. Once again, thanks for your research.

  2. Kirsten says:

    I’m trying to focus on the potentially exciting redevelopment of the Meadows area and not the silliness of putting a cul-de-sac where it is completely out of character. Winding roads are not unusual in that part of Meridian Hills, but a dinky road to nowhere is not appropriate.

  3. Chris Corr says:

    Winding roads may not be unusual in Meridian Hills, but there’s usually an obvious cause — be it the Monon Railroad (now Monon Trail) or the White River — that makes the winding necessary. In this case, you have a perfectly square piece of land with no obvious topography to dictate the road course. The winding just creates a whole array of oddly-shaped plots simply for the sake of curving the road.

    If you look closely, you’ll also note that the developers have planned a single sidewalk on the road. Oddly, it only passes directly in front of 3 of the 11 plots.

  4. Kevin says:

    Good point Kirsten. This Meadows project seems like a big deal indeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>