Broad Ripple Random Ripplings
search menu
The news from Broad Ripple
Brought to you by The Broad Ripple Gazette
(Delivering the news since 2004, every two weeks)
Subscribe to Broad Ripple Random Ripplings
Brought to you by:
VirtualBroadRipple.com Broad Ripple collector pins EverythingBroadRipple.com

Everything Broad Ripple HomearrowRandom Ripplings Homearrow2006 02 10arrowRandom Rippling

back button return to index button next button
Converted from paper version of the Broad Ripple Gazette (v03n03)
Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
by Alan Hague
posted: Feb. 10, 2006

The Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) voted 4 to 3 to approve the razing of five homes in the 6100 block of Winthrop Avenue to construct 31 condominiums. Kosene Acquisitions had appealed the hearing examiner's decision to deny the construction, which was handed down on January 12, 2006. The full hearing can be seen on cable channel 16 in re-broadcasts. The schedule is published on the internet at: www.indygov.org/eGov/Cable/Gov_TV/16_schedule.htm
The hearing was held at the City-County building during the 1 P.M. MDC meeting. Opposed to this rezoning were the Broad Ripple Village Association, the Broad Ripple Merchants Group, the Greater Broad Ripple Community Coalition, many residents of Broad Ripple, the MDC hearing examiner, the City of Indianapolis planning staff, and the City of Indianapolis' comprehensive plan document. In support of the proposal was the developer, David Kosene, and the owner of one of the houses that the developer will buy to raze, Amy Fisher.
The hearing started with Stephen Mears, the attorney for the developer, describing the petition. The petition proposes to rezone 6137 and 6155 Winthrop Avenue from D-5 to D-P. D-5 is a low-density dwelling district classification, allowing for a maximum of 4.5 units per acre. D-P is a zoning classification that allows the petitioner to specify all aspects of the maximum and minimum requirements, in this case, changing the maximum units per acre from 4.5 to 21.09, and reducing the setbacks.
Next, Amy Fisher spoke to the commission. Amy resides at and owns the property at 6155 Winthrop Avenue. She will sell her house to Kosene Acquisitions now that the petition has been approved. "We got engaged, married, and had a baby while living in this house," explained Amy. "And even though we have not outgrown our house, we have outgrown this street. We want to move and we want to stay in the Broad Ripple area, and would gladly live even one street away, for the difference between Winthrop Avenue and the neighboring streets are worlds apart."
"In the last five years Winthrop Avenue between Kessler and Broad Ripple Avenue has significantly deteriorated. The number of rentals has grown, the rentals have become more rundown and unkempt. And as this happens the street attracts less and less desirable tenants and landlords."
"About 90% of the homes are rentals. The subject doubles to the south are an eyesore - abandoned cars and at one point there were even washers and dryers kept outside, used to store kitchenware. It is disgusting to observe, and a blight to Broad Ripple. You have an opportunity to do something great for Winthrop Avenue. Increasing the number of owner occupied homes will help Winthrop immeasurably."
Attorney Stephen Mears pointed out that the four small doubles at 6137 pay a total of $4,399 of property tax and that the new condominiums would generate $143,431 for the city. In the rebuttal, attorney Jim Holland said that while our neighborhood would have to live with the high-density housing project, this increased property tax revenue for the city would not directly benefit Broad Ripple.

Winthrop current map
Winthrop current map
Quan


A graphic presented by the remonstrators showing the scale of the proposed development for Winthrop Avenue. It also shows the proposed setbacks.
A graphic presented by the remonstrators showing the scale of the proposed development for Winthrop Avenue. It also shows the proposed setbacks.
Quan


Project architect Gary Weaver then showed renderings of the condominiums and how the they would be placed on the site.
Next, Jim Holland presented for the remonstrators. "The opposition is based on the simple fact that this project is too dense, and out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood." He then pointed out that the MDC staff report makes the following points concerning this development:
  • provides for development standards that are inconsistent with the existing residential single family residential district
  • overbuilt and over-developed
  • not consistent with the intent of setbacks
  • not compatible with regards to height or mass
David Kosene listens as Jim Holland presents the case for the remonstrators.
David Kosene listens as Jim Holland presents the case for the remonstrators.
Quan


Jim then said, "For the sake of argument only, if those four bungalows need to be replaced, there's been absolutely no showing by the developer that less dense development is infeasible for this piece of property. Obviously 28 $250,000 condos would be far more profitable than 3 or 4 single family dwellings. With all due respect to the petitioner, their desired profit is not listed in the factors to be considered [in this hearing]." Jim Holland quoted from a court of appeals ruling that says, "The burden is on one who seeks rezoning to show a need for it. And one who buys an area that might be too small to develop under the existing zoning, on the gamble of securing the rezoning, cannot be heard to complain when the governing body declines it."
On property taxes, Jim said that if you take the increased property tax argument into consideration, if increased tax revenue is a prime consideration, then you might as well bulldoze the whole Village and put up expensive condos. That is the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.
He then read from the hearing examiner's memorandum, "The petition, along with the development statement, was not in the best interest to the public. And the economic benefit to the petitioner did not justify the substantial deviation from the comprehensive plan. We respectfully request that you uphold the hearing examiner and staff's recommendation to deny this petition."
Staff Planner Larry Williams stated, "We feel that some density over the [comprehensive] plan might be appropriate, however to provide for something four times the maximum density recommendation would be totally inappropriate... How they propose to develop, and what they propose to develop, at the density they propose to develop, we feel that this request cannot be supported. Some development could be appropriate. We're just saying this one isn't it."
Despite all the testimony, the seven members of the commission (at least one left before the hearing) voted 4 to 3 in favor of the rezoning. In an interview with Channel 13 after the hearing, Kosene stated that the construction should begin in late summer.
Another Kosene condominium development project on Ferguson will have an appeal hearing on February 15, 2006 at 1 P.M.
Remonstrators
Remonstrators
Quan


MDC
MDC
Quan


Amy Fisher
Amy Fisher
Quan


Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
Quan


Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
Quan


Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
Quan


Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
Quan


Village Residents Shocked at MDC Ruling
Quan


Linda Shikany
Linda Shikany
Quan


MDC
MDC
Quan





alan@broadripplegazette.com
back button return to index button next button
Brought to you by:
BroadRippleHistory.com Broad Ripple collector pins EverythingBroadRipple.com
Brought to you by:
EverythingBroadRipple.com RandomRipplings.com Broad Ripple collector pins