Meridian Kessler Draft Interim Plan

As a former President of MKNA, I have followed with interest the campaign in Meridian Kessler to ally with the IHPC. Recent events which have come to my attention in another IHPC designated historic district in Indianapolis, albeit of broader scope than that proposed for MKNA, now require me to vigorously oppose any institution of IHPC guidelines in my neighborhood.  The capricious nature of discovery (depending in part upon neighbor “turning in” neighbor—is this really the kind of neighborhood we would want to embrace) and the ability of IHPC to potentially cause significant financial distress to resident families through severe penalties and requirements with little transparent ability to effectively remonstrate,  prevents me from ever supporting IHPC until significant improvements in the accountability of IHPC’s operations are made… “Accountability” being the operative word.  

1.) I feel that a determination of any sort of historic designation should be based upon a limited renewable term.  A vote should be held at intervals determined by neighbors and IHPC so that neighbors may decide if they would like to continue to move forward under IHPC guidelines, and may discontinue participation if they feel that these guidelines have been too restrictive and have negatively impacted their ability to continue to reside in the neighborhood.  This then will hold IHPC accountable on a regular basis, for its actions towards its neighbors.  While the claim to have been placed here by a popular mandate has been made, keep in mind that neighborhoods are organic, and sometimes see good financial times, and sometimes see bad financial times. To have been “placed here by popular mandate” 10 years ago, may have little bearing on current times. 

2,)Because of the potentially significant economic results to home owners of IHPC requirements, each vote For IHPC designation should be tabulated by a third party and without prejudice to ensure accuracy. 

3.)IHPC should provide “Neighborhood advocates” to neighbors who have inquiries as to allowed improvements or have a need to remonstrate certain restrictions/penalties. These advocates should make it clear to homeowners that they are there to help defend owner rights and aid in understanding and negotiation of terms.  Financial hardship liaisons/advocates should be easily and clearly available up front to aid in tempering requirements so that homeowners may make needed improvements to maintain standards of housing.

4.) Every new homeowner should be made aware of their neighborhood’s IHPC designation and restrictions.  This might be made with a liaison between neighborhood associations (if well formed and strong) and IHPC, but if there is no significant neighborhood association, this should fall under the cover of the IHPC

5.) While IHPC is to be lauded for making entities such as contractors/realtors/mortgage/title companies aware if a given property’s falls within the domain of IHPC, clearly, there are enough homeowners using smaller service entities who “fall through the cracks” and are left unaware of more stringent IHPC requirements.

6.) IHPC should meet with neighbors on a monthly basis to reinforce availability of advocates and assistance in compliance with recommendations. It is easy to stigmatize a particular neighborhood as being recurrent “violators”, but this only demonstrates that IHPC has fallen short of the necessary “conversations” with residents who, for the most part, are compliant with regulations when fully understood.

 IHPC needs to ask itself what standards are being upheld when neighbors must allow their property to deteriorate because they cannot afford certain required materials or construction to maintain their property. Overall, goals of historic preservation may be better kept if there is an active alliance between IHPC and neighbors, rather than the contentious one which currently exists, so that solutions, while perhaps not perfect, may be completely acceptable and neighborhoods will not suffer. Better communication on the part of IHPC is an absolutely necessary component of better governance.

Sent from my iPad

While I appreciate the desire to preserve the M-K "neighborhood," the emphasis on historic preservation is misplaced. As noted in the report, M-K is very diverse with a variety of home styles, building materials, and colors. What makes M-K a wonderful place to live are its homeowners and the care/maintenance they perform on their yards and houses, as well as its many old-growth trees. Not all parts of M-K deserve historic preservation consideration. For example, the homes along the Meridian Street Corridor are very different from other parts of M-K. One size does not fit all.
My 100 year old house on Central Ave. was built for a different era -- small kitchen, tiny closets, tube & knob wiring, duct work for coal fired heating. The maintenance and updating we've done over the 44 years we lived here will not make our house compatible with the needs of 21st Century living. If the next owner wants to add an addition or even gut it and rebuild a newer more modern house, it will improve the neighborhood's property values, not detract from them.
What MKNA and DMD need to focus on instead of historic preservation is to make it difficult for out-of-state investment groups to buy M-K property that they then rent for profit and fail to maintain.

See my comment elsewhere - if they tear down a house (as they did at 55th and New Jersey EXCEPT for the chimney, that seems to allow the complete rebuild without significant permits because they didn't demolish the ENTIRE exterior of the old house, they left the chimney?

Twice in our area we have seen houses torn down except for the chimney, and been told that as long as the chimney is intact, everything else can be (and was) dismantled, demolished, dismembered and rebuilt. Someone indicated that the permitting process could therefore be avoided. Does this effectively neuter the phrase 'If the exterior of the ENTIRE structure is demolished..."

The "differentiated" standard seems a bit inconsistent with some of the other standards. If I wanted to add an addition, I likely would want to match the existing bricks, windows, trim, roof, etc. so that, ideally, it looks original. Is that not allowed because the "differentiated" standard is not met?

Based on my observations, the homes that replaced the torn down homes were more expensive and have modern amenities that buyers desire. They were bought by young families that increased the number of children in the area schools, increased neighboring home prices and increased tax dollars to Indianapolis. The homes increased the desirability of M-K.

I’ve lived in communities with HOAs and knew the restrictions when we built or moved into the communities. To add restrictions requiring approval by the IHPC after we own the home seems unfair and makes our neighborhood less desirable. If people wanted to move into a historical area under the guidance of the IHPC, they wouldn’t have chosen M-K.

A homeowner should be allowed to decide what to do with their property not the IHPC. If I want to tear down my home and replace it so that I can “age in place” or add more square footage, I should be able to do so without the approval of the IHPC.

The list of criteria mentioned in the section titled “Guidelines for Demolition Affecting Residential Primary Structures” is daunting and subject to the wishes of IHPC committee. Instead of improving my home to fit my needs, I’ll probably move to a neighborhood that isn’t under the guidance of the IHPC. It really too bad because M-K is the best neighborhood (people and businesses) that I’ve lived in for the 30+ years that I’ve lived in Indianapolis/Carmel.

What does “entire” mean? If I leave up 1 wall of the original home, does it mean I don’t have to get approval from the IHPC? Can a homeowner add a 2nd floor to a 1 story home without worrying about losing historical elements or style of the home? Would adding a 2nd floor to the original home require approval from the IHPC?

Nowhere in this document or on the MKNA website does it state how or when this will be distributed to the M-K homeowners (not sure how many residents know it’s even up for discussion as we don’t have a mandatory homeowners association), the approval process or when it might go into effect

This is a wonderful document with respect to the goals and description of the property features and architecture to be protected, but offers very little (to my eye) of the due process that will make this effective. If I am a homeowner or contractor that wishes to make changes, I am not at all clear what authority is granted by this proposal, if approved, to prevent or alter changes to properties or structures inconsistent with the preservation goals described. As a Meridian-Kessler resident, I support the current proposal, as in initial step in the overall preservation process

The IHPC has a history of putting historical significance above community needs. Merdian-Kessler is in need of greater density to keep up with demand and ensure housing opportunities for all current and prospective residents of the neighborhood. I suggest that the IHPC be held responsible for ensuring adequate density is built. IHPC should have no authority to deny demolition permits to projects along the red line corridor that have already been zoned for greater density.