Shelby Street Corridor Plan - Amazon Web Services€¦ · Shelby Street Corridor Plan City of Indianapolis. Adopted December 3, 2008 ... Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Guidelines.....20

Shelby Street Corridor Plan

City of IndianapolisAdopted December 3, 200808-CPS-R-015

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................5 CorridorPlanArea.............................................................................5 CorridorPlansAreEvolving..............................................................5 LocatorMap(Exhibit1).....................................................................6History.........................................................................................................7 TransportationHistory.......................................................................7 DevelopmentHistory.........................................................................8 HistoricSitesandStructures.............................................................10 HistoricSitesandCommunityFacilitiesMap(Exhibit2)..................12Adopted Plans and Studies in the Area......................................................15 IndianapolisInsightComprehensivePlan-CommunityValues Component......................................................................................15 PerryTownshipComprehensivePlan2006.....................................16 AdoptedLandUsePlansMap(Exhibit3).........................................17 ConcordCommunityPlan2000......................................................18 HannaAvenueStreetReconstructionProject...................................19 IndianapolisBicyclePlan................................................................19 Multi-ModalCorridorandPublicSpaceGuidelines.........................20 IndianapolisRegionalPedestrianPlan.............................................20 IndianapolisMPORegionalPedestrianPlan(Exhibit4.....................21 PlanningforanActivityFriendlyCommunity...................................22 IndyGoComprehensiveOperationalAnalysis..................................23 DIRECTIONS–RegionalRapidTransitStudy..................................24Planning Process.........................................................................................25 PlanningProcessandPublicParticipation.......................................25 StakeholderInterviews.....................................................................25 DataCollectionandAnalysis...........................................................25 CommunicationProgram.................................................................26 PublicmeetingsinPreparationofthePlan.......................................26 AnalysisofPlanningIssuesintheCorridor.......................................27 EnvironmentalConditions................................................................27 EnvironmentallySensitiveAreasMap(Exhibit5)..............................28 LandUseConcernsandDevelopmentActivity................................29 AccessforAutomobiles,BicyclistsandPedestrians..........................29 Traffic Counts Map (Exhibit 6).........................................................30 MassTransitServices.......................................................................31 BusRoutesMap(Exhibit7)..............................................................32 FutureMassTransit..........................................................................34 TransitReadyDevelopment............................................................34 RegionalTransitSupportiveLandUseReport...................................35 Exhibit#8SevenProposedRegionalRapidTransitCorridors...........36

� ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

Identity............................................................................................37 DistrictMap(Exhibit9)....................................................................38 UniversityofIndianapolis................................................................39 Gateways.........................................................................................40 CommunityPartnerships..................................................................40Connectivity And Infrastructure.................................................................41 Introduction......................................................................................41 Greenways.......................................................................................41 RailCorridor....................................................................................42 GradeCrossings...............................................................................43 ConnectivityPlanMap(Exhibit10)..................................................44Land Use and Redevelopment....................................................................45 ExistingLandUse............................................................................45 ExistingLandUseMapA(Exhibit11)..............................................46 ExistingLandUseMapB(Exhibit12)..............................................47 RetailContext..................................................................................48 SouthKeystoneAvenueCorridor......................................................48 MadisonAvenue..............................................................................48 SouthgatePlaza................................................................................48 EastStreetCorridor...........................................................................48 NearSouthsideBusinessDistrictsMap(Exhibit13)..........................49 SouthernPlaza.................................................................................50 South31Plaza/TargetCenter...........................................................50 FormerZayreStoreandSharpFordsite...........................................50 Conclusions.....................................................................................50 RetailMarketOpportunities.............................................................51 DevelopmentCharacteristicsMap(Exhibit14)................................53 SiteCharacteristicsandRetailPotentials..........................................54 LandUseRecommendations............................................................54 DevelopmentGuidelines..................................................................55 Business/IndustrialDistrict...............................................................55 UniversityDistrict............................................................................55 ResidentialDistrict...........................................................................56 LandUseRecommendationsMapA(Exhibit15).............................57 LandUseRecommendationsMapB(Exhibit16).............................58 LandUseRecommendationsMapC(Exhibit17).............................59 CriticalAreaA:UniversityDistrict.................................................60 CriticalAreaB:4402and4450MadisonAvenue,HillandDale MobileHomePark..........................................................................63 Critical Area C: 4403 Madison Avenue, 1185 and 1189 Moffitt Street ........................................................................................................64 ZoningRecommendationsMapA(Exhibit18).................................66 ZoningRecommendationsMapB(Exhibit19).................................67 ZoningPlan–RecommendedZoningChanges................................68

�ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

Image and Appearance..............................................................................70 GatewaysConcept...........................................................................70 Exhibit #20 Gateway Identification Process......................................71 Wayfinding Signage.........................................................................72 OverallVisionStatement..................................................................72Goals and Recommendations.....................................................................73Appendix...................................................................................................83Endnotes..........................................................................................83 PublicMeetings................................................................................83 Glossary..........................................................................................84 DescriptionofRecommendedLandUseCategories.........................87 TableofContentsforDemographicTables......................................90 Photographs/number/source..........................................................99 ShelbyStreetMaps..........................................................................99 Credits...........................................................................................100 ResolutionDocument....................................................................103


Introduction

Shelby Street is an important street that runs north-south from neighborhoods immediately east of downtown Indianapolis through the Fountain Square and Garfield Park neighborhoods in Center Township. Shelby Street continues south into Perry Township and through the University Heights neighborhood. The street appears again outside I-465 through the Edgewood and Homecroft neighborhoods. Shelby Street extends south to County Line Road on the southern edge of Marion County. Although the street name is the same through this span, each neighborhood has distinctive characteristics that affect how the street is used and how the community should prepare land use and transportation plans.

Corridor Plan AreaThe focus of this plan is Shelby Street from Troy Avenue to Madison Avenue and a portion of Madison Avenue from Hanna Avenue south to I-465. Just as the overall corridor is quite diverse, three distinct sections compose the Shelby Street Corridor Plan Area of this plan. The northern section, from Troy Avenue south to National Avenue is a mixture of retail, commercial, industrial and residential uses. The middle section, from National Avenue to just south of Hanna Avenue, is identified with the campus of the University of Indianapolis and has a mixture of institutional, retail and industrial land uses. South of the middle section is a largely residential section known as University Heights. The plan area also includes a portion of Madison Avenue located south of Hanna Avenue. The plan area’s southern boundary is I-465, which provides a strong division with neighborhoods to the south.

Corridor Plans Are EvolvingCorridors serve to move people and goods. Corridors also define the community’s identity and help to shape the overall quality of life. A corridor planning process can take a fresh look at older business districts where the customer base may have shifted to newer commercial centers. Land use policies, transportation needs and market forces must work harmoniously together to ensure that land use and infrastructure meet the long-term needs of the community. All of these aspects of corridor planning were applied in the preparation of the Shelby Street Corridor Plan.

Corridor plans do not focus strictly on engineering plans for the purpose of added roadway capacity, but to incorporate a more comprehensive view of the roadway and its context. All travel modes must now be considered whereas automobiles dominated in previous plans. It is essential to integrate transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes while maintaining automobile traffic capacity. The public investment in the road infrastructure and related utility infrastructure must be protected as a fully balanced multimodal approach becomes the standard.

�

Locator Map (Exhibit 1)


History

Transportation HistoryThe Shelby Street corridor has a fascinating transportation history, which is intertwined with the growth of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County.

Shelby Street was a county road and later became a city street as the City of Indianapolis grew southward by annexation during the 20th Century. The construction of I-465 in the 1960s included a four-lane bridge for Madison Avenue over the interstate belt-way and the realignment of Lick Creek to a location south of the eastbound interstate lanes. No new streets were created or vacated in the plan area following World War Two. These major transportation elements and the streets platted within individual subdivisions created the framework of streets that exists today. Street widening and intersection realignment projects occurred on Madison Avenue, Hanna Avenue and Troy Avenue during the 1960s.

Madison Avenue’s history dates to Indiana’s stagecoach era of the 1830s to 1840s. A stagecoach route was established to link Madison, Indiana and the Ohio River to the young city of Indianapolis. A stagecoach inn structure from this era is contained within a house at 4367 Shelby Street. From 1860 to 1895, Alexander M. Hannah collected tolls from travelers along his section of the gravel-surfaced road, then known as the Indianapolis-Southport Toll Road. Madison Avenue had a long period in which it was part of the federal and state highway system. As a numbered highway it was first known at State Road 1, then it was named US31 and it was finally known as State Road 431. It was later reclassified and turned over to the City of Indianapolis.

In 1847 The Madison-Indianapolis Railroad was the first steam railroad to reach Indiana’s capital city. This railroad soon had a connection to Jeffersonville and Louisville on a line that met the original Madison-Indianapolis route in Columbus. The railroad was later owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad, Penn Central Railroad and Conrail systems. Currently the line is owned by CSX Transportation north of Hanna Avenue and the Louisville and Indiana Railroad from Hanna Avenue south to Jeffersonville.

The Indianapolis Street Railway Company provided streetcar service on Shelby Street connecting downtown Indianapolis to the looped end of this line at Perry Street. The interurban railroad shared the streetcar tracks north of the Perry Loop. Streetcar services were gradually replaced by local bus routes during the 1930s to 1940s.

The Indianapolis, Greenwood and Franklin Railroad was the first electric interurban railroad to serve Indianapolis, starting service in 1900. Later merging into the

8ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

Interstate Public Service Company, this interurban train ran in the middle of Shelby Street north of Madison Avenue from the 1910s to 1940. The Interstate Public Service Company operated services that linked Indianapolis to Louisville, stopping at many towns and flag stops through its length. A scheduled stop was included at Hanna Avenue and called the “University Heights Station” on railroad timetables.

Photo #1: Interurban train from Indiana Historical Society collection

Development HistoryThe corridor still reflects the forces that shaped its original settlement even several decades after the corridor was largely built out. Like much of Perry Township, the Shelby Street Corridor was essentially rural through the end of the 19th Century. Farms dominated the area until the early part of the 20th Century. No town or village character was evident between the southern edge of Center Township and the Town of Southport. The University Heights area dates to the early 1900s as land was platted for residential lots and an area was set aside for the campus of the Indiana Central College. The residential neighborhoods north of the college were platted in several steps. In the 1910s the Erbrich’s Golden Addition was platted. In the 1920s the Woodland Gardens and Ellis Investment additions were platted.

The Town of University Heights was incorporated in 1907 and annexed into the City of Indianapolis in 1923. The interurban train stopped near the intersection of Hanna Avenue and Shelby Street and a few stores were established during this era. A more substantial and recognizable village center never developed before the era of automobiles. Sprawling land uses then shaped the remaining development of the corridor. The corridor reflects the fact that most residents, customers, visitors and employees used private automobiles to access their chosen destinations.


Photo #2: Karstedt grocery store at Hanna and Shelby

Photo # 3 University Heights Christian Church

The existing sidewalk, street and other public infrastructure reflects varied development standards applicable in the City of Indianapolis versus Marion County’s unincorporated areas. The University Heights section was built with curbed streets, piped storm sewers, sidewalks and alleys while the other area lacked


these features. The foresight of the City in the early part of the 20th century is evident when considering the costs and physical challenges of retrofitting neighborhoods with sidewalks and drainage infrastructure. The lesser development standards in Marion County during this same era makes it much harder to upgrade with the public infrastructure now desired by many residents.

The development history of the corridor is also reflected in the local government service districts. Indianapolis Public Schools serve areas east of Madison Avenue and north of Moffitt Street. The Metropolitan School District of Perry Township serves the remainder of the corridor plan area. The Indianapolis Fire Department serves the entire corridor with two exceptions. The Perry Township Fire Department serves the industrial and warehouse properties at the southwest corner of Troy Avenue and Shelby Street and the shopping center at the northwest corner of Hanna Avenue and Madison Avenue. Indianapolis Fire Department Station #26 is located at 1080 Hanna Avenue. All other local government service districts uniformly cover the corridor plan area, including police, parks, libraries, public water, sanitary sewer and drainage.

The Shelby Street corridor and its surrounding neighborhood can be classified as a “first ring suburb”. Although the corridor area did not become separately incorporated before the Indianapolis/Marion County governments were consolidated, the corridor has many of these characteristics. A significant portion of its development occurred between 1945 and 1965. Before World War Two, a narrow ribbon of developed land hugged Shelby Street and Madison Avenue, widening only at the University Heights subdivision. A surge in development filled in most of the remaining open lands during the decades of the late 1940s through 1960s. The historical pattern of development continues to influence the potential viability of retail land uses.

Historic Sites and StructuresHannah House Hannah-Oehler-Elder House - 3801 South Madison Street* This property was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. The property is also a locally designated historic property by the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission in recognition of the property’s architectural and historic significance.

Alexander M. Hannah was born in Wayne County in 1821. Trained as a harnessmaker, he left his business in 1850 to seek his fortune in California. Joining the Gold Rush, Hannah earned enough money to become part owner of a barley and vegetable ranch in California for five years. After selling his interests, he moved to Indiana, settling in Indianapolis and working for the Indiana Central Railroad. Hannah’s father Samuel was president of the Railroad, and owned extensive property in Marion County.

11 ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

Photo # 4 Hannah House

Alexander Hannah acquired 240 acres south of Indianapolis and began construction of a brick home. The Italianate design of the house with Greek Revival influences is attributed to Hannah; however, it seems likely that he was influenced by the many trade publications and architectural guides that were popular in the 1850s. The sophistication of both design and construction, which uses dimension lumber to form trusses in the attic space, would suggest such an outside influence. In 1872, Hannah married and constructed a service building southeast of the kitchen wing. The new addition housed the smoke house, wash house, milk cooling room, and servant’s quarters. In his later years, Hannah was a member of the Indiana General Assembly and served at various times as postmaster, sheriff, and clerk of the circuit court. The major east-west street south of his house bears the name “Hannah Avenue.” Because he married late in life, he had no heirs and his farm was subdivided and sold after his death in 1895.In 1899, Roman Oehler purchased the house and 21 acres of surrounding property. Oehler was a Civil War veteran and owned a prosperous jewelry business in Indianapolis. During the Oehler occupancy, the porch on the front of the house was replaced with a wider one of concrete, and several outbuildings (which still stand) were constructed. Oehler’s daughter, Romena Oehler Elder, and her husband and family were the third owners of the house, occupying it until 1962. *Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission

Chapman Price Steel Company- 3000 Shelby StreetAround 1920 the Chapman Price Steel Company moved from its location at 1970 Madison Avenue to a new plant at 3000 Shelby Street. This large building at the

12

Historic Sites and Community Facilities Map (Exhibit 2)

1� ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

southwest corner of Troy Avenue and Shelby Street remains in industrial use with several tenants. A 2002 tornado damaged this building and necessitated the removal of part of the structure.*Indiana Steel Mill photographs, 1920–1940, Amy Belcher, 30 June 2005; Manuscript and Visual Collections Department William Henry Smith Memorial Library, Indiana Historical Society 450 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3269

Photo #5 Chapman Price Steel Company

Photo #6 former Chapman Price Steel office building

1�ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

The Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana noted that the steel company’s office building, seen above, was built in the Spanish Eclectic style in 1920. The building was rated as a “Contributing Structure.”


Adopted Plans and Studies in the Area

The Shelby Street Corridor area is contained within the study areas of a number of other planning documents. The other adopted plans and studies that were prepared on larger planning areas must be acknowledged and their recommendations integrated within the corridor plan. Of particular importance are those plans that give attention to improving transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The study area north of Hanna Avenue is contained within the Concord Community Plan (2000). The area south of Hanna Avenue is contained within the Perry Township segment of the Indianapolis Insight Comprehensive Plan update (2006). Both of these plans included land use recommendations based on community participation and guiding principles and goals of their respective planning processes. These plans were valuable references for the public and staff in taking a more focused look at issues within the smaller corridor study area. Both land use plan segments remain the plan of record for land use plan recommendations outside the boundaries of the Shelby Street Corridor Plan.

The plan area is also covered by the Marion County Thoroughfare Plan. This plan identifies a hierarchy of interconnected roadways including freeways, expressways and arterials. The thoroughfare plan recommends priority improvements for all Marion County. None of the arterials within the Shelby Street corridor plan are recommended for expansion and widening. No proposed new arterials are found with the plan.

The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan and Sanitary Sewer Master Plan are also segments of the Indianapolis-Marion County Comprehensive Plan but do not list any major projects scheduled within the boundaries of the Shelby Street corridor plan area.

The City of Indianapolis also prepares various capital improvement plans and economic and community development plans that address short range and long range needs of the city. All of these plans help to shape how the city guides private development and how it delivers public services within the plan area and its surrounding neighborhoods. Adopted plans are more fully described in the following section.

Indianapolis Insight Comprehensive Plan - Community Values Component A process of broad-based and balanced citizen participation was employed in the preparation of the first phase of the Indianapolis Insight Comprehensive Plan. The Community Values Component (CVC) was adopted in 2002. Consistent with


national trends in comprehensive planning, this plan improved upon previous plans by:● Placing more emphasis on policies rooted in common community values,● Focusing more attention on ways to positively position Indianapolis within

the context of total metropolitan growth, and● Tackling issues on a comprehensive, countywide basis.

In order to provide a philosophical structure to the plan, a series of value statements was adopted. The actions and policies recommended by this plan are expected to both reflect and respect these values. Of the nine value statements, one was specifically related to transportation:

We should continue to improve our transportation system so that it is well-connected, convenient, and safe. We should provide a variety of transportation choices so that all people regardless of age or ability can travel throughout the region. Both the transportation system and the infrastructure system should anticipate and guide growth of the metropolitan area.

The Community Values Component has guided changes in development methods and regulations of the City of Indianapolis since it was adopted. The Community Values Component also continues to guide segmental updates of the Comprehensive Plan. Of particular interest in the Shelby Street corridor are recommendations that deal with the interrelationship of local plans for land use and transportation. Among the CVC’s recommendations are these:● Closely coordinate future land use planning with transportation systems

plans. Work toward greater transportation options over time.● Within the Thoroughfare Plan, establish standards for the visual

appearance of thoroughfares.● Provide for connectivity between various modes of public transportation.● Provide for sidewalk, multi-purpose paths and other pedestrian mobility

infrastructure to improve access to all public transportation.● Retrofit existing neighborhoods with sidewalks or multi-purpose paths

where appropriate and wanted.● Implement traffic calming standards for new neighborhoods and, where

feasible, for existing neighborhoods.

The values and principles within the Community Values Component apply to the Shelby Street corridor and how this segment will be integrated with the City’s overall comprehensive plan.

Perry Township Comprehensive Plan 2006The Perry Township Comprehensive Plan was adopted on March 1, 2006, and is a segment of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. The Marion County Comprehensive Plan is required by state statute as a basis for zoning and must

1�

Adopted Land Use Plans Map (Exhibit 3)


include objectives and policies for future land use development and development of public ways, place, land, structures, and utilities. This plan covers the Shelby Street Corridor south of Hanna Avenue. Land use recommendations within the Shelby Street Corridor plan area generally matched proposed land uses with existing land uses. The corridor area does not contain large tracts of developable land found elsewhere in Perry Township.

A church-owned property at 4540 Madison Avenue was recommended Special Use and indexed to Park with a secondary index to Residential of a density from 3.5 to 5 units per acre. (Indexing is a method of assigning an alternate land use recommendation to an area. Indexing is most often used in those areas where the primary or secondary land use recommendation requires some public expenditure for implementation, such as a park.)

No other parcels in the 2006 plan received an indexed land use recommendation. The 2006 Perry Township Plan did not make zoning recommendations.

Concord Community Plan 2000The Concord Community Plan was adopted in 2000 to cover the area served by the Concord Community Development Corporation. The plans covers a somewhat triangular service area that is large and quite diverse. It extends from the southern part of downtown Indianapolis to industrial districts along the east side of White River and has a long eastern boundary on the west side of I-65. The southern boundary, formed by Hanna Avenue, is over five miles wide.

Neighborhood residents, businesses, churches, and nonprofit agencies provided input and guidance on various community issues in the preparation of the Concord Plan. The plan addresses community issues, land use, zoning and the physical direction of development for the area. It serves as a guide for implementing public improvement programs and steering public investment. The plan has general recommendations that applied to its entire plan area and targeted recommendations for smaller parts of the plan area.

The goals identified by Concord community in order of priority were:1. improve community relations with the police department2. foster crime reduction efforts3. improve safety in the community4. rejuvenate the appearance of the neighborhood5. preserve and maintain affordable housing6. reduce the amount of air pollution7. attract new businesses8. increase employment opportunities9. strengthen the access to, maintenance of and programming in park facilities


The Concord Community Plan includes a list of “Development Issues” with comments linked to selected locations. One of these areas is inside the Shelby Street Corridor plan area; the east side of Shelby Street from Sumner Avenue to Norton Avenue. The comment is “reduce encroachment of Commercial Retail and Service on Single Family Residential Areas.” The Concord Plan also recommends zoning changes on a map exhibit without additional commentary.

Table #1 Concord Community Plan Zoning Recommendations in Shelby Street Corridor.

Address Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning3750-3800 Shelby I3U I2U3808 Shelby I3U C73995 Shelby C4 UQI3801 Madison C7 & I3U C7 & I2U3807 Madison I3U I2U3901 Madison I3U I2U1080 E. Hanna I3U C7

Hanna Avenue Street Reconstruction ProjectThe Indianapolis Department of Public Works has scheduled a reconstruction and rehabilitation project on Hanna Avenue from East Street to Carson Avenue for 2009 to 2010. The project will address the deteriorating condition of the existing pavement, improve pedestrian safety and enhance aesthetics to this important east-west arterial street. The railroad crossing west of Shelby Street will be reconstructed. Traffic signals will be improved at four intersections, and storm sewers will be improved. The project will also incorporate enhanced pedestrian crossings, street lighting and landscaping elements within the University of Indianapolis campus that will be paid for by the university. New sidewalks will be constructed on the south side of Hanna Avenue between Madison Avenue and East Street. The Hanna Avenue project overlaps the Shelby Street Corridor plan with improvements planned to Hanna Avenue and its intersections with Madison Avenue and Shelby Street.\

Indianapolis Bicycle PlanThe Indianapolis Bike Plan and User Map project was initiated in 1999 by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. The plan has been used by the Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation to develop a system of bike routes, bicycle lanes, off-street trails, and other types of facilities that connect residential areas with shopping, employment centers, and recreation. Bike routes within the Shelby Street Corridor Plan are #30 on Hanna Avenue and #59 on Shelby Street.


Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space GuidelinesThis document of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization makes recommendations for the development of multi-modal facilities in order to realize the vision of a balanced transportation system. A multi-modal transportation system is defined as a network of facilities designed for joint use with connections between two or more modes of transportation. The recommendations of this document were developed with the intent of implementation over time, as new streets are constructed, as existing streets are reconstructed, and as land is developed or redeveloped. Within the Shelby Street corridor plan area, these guidelines could be implemented to allow for a more efficient connection to other modes of transportation such as sidewalks, bus lines, bike paths, and other forms of mass transit in the future. The guidelines do not include specific recommendations for the Shelby Street plan area. A Regional Multimodal System Plan is being developed to provide guidance for the implementation of different types of roadway layouts and streetscape strategies. When the system plan is completed it will provide specific multimodal strategies for roadway corridors in the Shelby Street plan area.

Indianapolis Regional Pedestrian PlanRegional level planning has occurred through the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO). From 2004 to 2006 the IMPO prepared the Regional Pedestrian Plan. This plan documents and highlights the pedestrian demand, both for transportation and recreational purposes for the eight county region. This plan is a guide to integrating the pedestrian mode of travel into the overall regional transportation system. The IMPO’s purpose in developing a regional plan for pedestrian connectivity is to meet its regional transportation goals, which include:● Reducing reliance on the automobile;● Developing a balanced and intermodal transportation system;● Emphasizing accessible multi-modal opportunities; and● Improving the quality of life for citizens in the region.

The regional plan serves as a guide as local governments prepare comprehensive plan updates and neighborhood and corridor focused plans. The following IMPO Vision Statement from the Regional Pedestrian Plan addresses the same range of connectivity issues present in the Shelby Street plan area. The vision statement should be applicable to the corridor level vision as well.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area will be a regional network of diverse, walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly communities linked by a comprehensive multimodal system that provides access to home, work, education, commerce, transit, and recreation. This vision recognizes the importance of balance among all transportation modes, connects transportation and land use, and understands that economic and community development is sustained by the region’s quality of life and environmental health.

21

Indianapolis MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit 4)


The plan documents the demand for pedestrian connections based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Results from these analyses are recorded as recommended pedestrian facilities, corridors, and districts. Within the plan area, the plan recommends collector sidewalks along Madison Avenue, Shelby Street, Hanna Avenue and a portion of National Avenue.

Six “pedestrian districts” are described in the plan:As these districts develop, continue to develop, or redevelop, it is important to include an internal pedestrian network of local sidewalks, with connections to an external pedestrian system, in the district’s overall plan and construction. They have been selected based on the following criteria: 1) district hosts cluster of related or complementary uses within a quarter mile, or five-minute, walk; 2) distance between district destinations does not exceed a quarter mile, or five-minute, walk; and 3) district is linked by a recommended pedestrian facility (collector sidewalk or multi-use path).

The plan recommends a “campus pedestrian district” encompassing part of the plan corridor and all of the University of Indianapolis east of the corridor plan area.

Campus Pedestrian District. A campus pedestrian district is an area characterized by a concentration of similar or related non-retail, non-residential uses such as a cluster of education, corporate, governmental or institutional uses. A growing trend within campus environments is the provision of closely linked day-care, restaurant, and convenience retail uses, as well as adjacent residential. Such inclusion becomes more viable along a contiguous accessible multi-modal corridor. This pedestrian district is typically located along or bounded by a multi-modal corridor and is organized around a central open space, plaza, or shared recreational / athletic resources. The environment is pedestrian in nature with the ability to circulate within the campus by alternative transportation modes that reduce the need for short automobile trips within the district, as well as provide mid-day recreational walking. The adjacent multi-modal corridor provides an external link to the regional alternative transportation network.

Planning for an Activity Friendly Community Recent years have seen increasing interest among the public health, planning, transportation and design professions to increase the physical activity of citizens through modifications to the built environment. In the Indianapolis area much of this effort has been guided by the Health by Design Coalition. The Marion County Health Department has been a leader within the coalition.

In 2007 the Marion County Health Department prepared a research document: Mapping the Intersection of Physical Activity & the Built Environment: A Baseline Profile of Indianapolis. This document points to compelling evidence about public


health trends related to inactivity of citizens and how physical barriers contribute to these problems. The document offers recommendations for improvements. The report included findings about the decline in walking and biking among school children and the decline in persons who walked to work. During the same reporting periods the number of obese and overweight adults increased. The report highlighted the importance of regular physical activity in reducing the risks for heart attack, colon cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure and possibly lower risk for stroke. The report also pointed to a growing movement to reverse these trends by promoting active living, which is based on increased physical activity in the daily routines of persons in their communities.

The Shelby Street Corridor Plan recommends practical measures that will increase active living within the plan area and its surrounding neighborhoods. Improvements in sidewalk infrastructure and bicycle and transit options return many benefits including the health of residents and visitors.

IndyGo Comprehensive Operational AnalysisIn 2005, IndyGo* and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) prepared a long range planning document known as the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). This project was conducted as part of the Regional Rapid Transit Study known as DIRECTIONS. The objective of the effort was to perform a complete analysis of IndyGo’s existing services provided in the Indianapolis region and provide a basis for the development of improved bus services. The plan addresses current demand and services needed for the region as the economy continues to expand. The objectives of the study were to:● Provide a reliable database and a statistical picture of the overall ridership

by stop, route productivity and performance (by segment) upon which existing transit service can be evaluated with respect to measures of efficiency and effectiveness.

● Evaluate existing IndyGo fixed route bus service to determine changes to route alignments, schedules and service frequencies that will improve individual route and system wide service efficiency, effectiveness and productivity.

● Reduce operating costs initially, and provide for an opportunity from which to build future efficient and effective service initiatives.

The COA includes recommendations in the Shelby Street Corridor area for service enhancements such as greater frequencies on existing bus routes, new services and a transit center in the long range plan. Some of the recommendations affecting the Shelby Street Corridor have been implemented. Many other recommendations wait IndyGo’s obtaining additional funding for expanded services.*IndyGo is the informal name for the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IPTC), incorporated under Indiana Code(I.C.) 36-9-4.


DIRECTIONS – Regional Rapid Transit StudyBegun in December, 2002, this multi-phase study evaluates the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a region-wide rapid transit system. If implemented, such a system could help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and increase mobility options throughout Central Indiana. Concluded in 2003, Phase I of the study focused on developing a concept for the system, including the identification of potential travel corridors and preferred transit technologies. During this phase, planners analyzed seventy of the highest capacity routes for frequency and duration of peak hour congestion to yield a travel demand/capacity ratio. Routes with the highest ratios were then evaluated for characteristics that might recommend or discourage their use for transit, such as having existing rail infrastructure (asset) or sensitive environmental elements (constraint).

Through preliminary evaluation, seven potential rapid transit corridors were identified for further study. During Phase I, planners also narrowed the range of potential rapid transit technologies by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of those currently used in existing systems. Each was evaluated for technological constraints, alignment feasibility, affordability, attractiveness and user-convenience.

In Phase II of DIRECTIONS, which began in 2003 and concluded in 2004, feasible route alignments were developed for the seven commuter corridors identified in Phase I. From these, the Northeast Corridor was selected for further study as the site of a possible starter system. Phase II also involved the further evaluation of potential rapid transit technologies, in part, using information gathered during an MPO-sponsored telephone Survey of Commuter Practices and Preferences.

One of the feasible route alignments that leads from downtown Indianapolis southward to Southport, Greenwood and Franklin overlays the Shelby Street Corridor plan area. The corridor has a high level of commuting traffic on Madison Avenue and Shelby Street and has an existing railroad corridor paralleling these streets.

The center of the Shelby Street corridor plan area falls approximately at Hanna Avenue. Improvements in transportation can complement the revival of existing commercial properties and the continued growth of the University of Indianapolis and its surrounding neighborhoods. Enhanced rapid transit, improved fixed route bus service and new pedestrian and bicycle facilities can help to stimulate added investments in land and buildings. The integral relationships of land use planning, smart growth and multimodal transportation are becoming better understood and appreciated by planners, policy makers and transit operators. The Shelby Street Corridor Plan benefits from the growing body of knowledge and community acceptance of these principles.


Planning Process

Planning Process and Public ParticipationThe Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) determined that a corridor plan was warranted in order to help future growth and enhancement of the plan area.

The plan area covers sections with active neighborhood level organizations and other areas that were not represented by active neighborhood organizations. Acknowledging this challenge, the public participation plan was carried out to include as many contributors as possible. All meetings were held within or very close to the plan area. A list of meeting dates and locations is found in the Appendix.

Stakeholder InterviewsFrom January to March 2007 the Division of Planning staff collected initial stakeholder concerns through a series of one-on-one interviews. Public officials, business owners, neighborhood residents, university staff and faculty provided their ideas and observations on needs and issues in the corridor. These interviews were very helpful in the identification of major planning themes and in refining the public participation and communication program.

Interviewees expressed their concerns about the lack of sidewalks and the need for better transit services through the corridor. Drainage along Shelby Street was also cited as a concern. Concerns were also expressed about changing retail businesses with recent closures of several valued stores and the resulting vacant and under-used properties. Many interviewees suggested that the image of the corridor could be improved for the benefit of residents, businesses, commuters and visitors to the area. Interviewees stated their desire for the Shelby Street Corridor planning process to strengthen the linkages to the Garfield Park and Fountain Square neighborhoods. Several people interviewed felt that successful community development efforts within the Garfield Park and Fountain Square neighborhoods could point the way to similar progress for the neighborhoods south of Troy Avenue. They observed that community based leadership had waned over the years, especially in the neighborhoods north of the campus. Others noted that the University Heights neighborhood was experiencing a revival of activity and participation.

Data Collection and AnalysisPlanning staff conducted multiple site visits to document and to understand the corridor’s land uses, physical condition and infrastructure. Staff researched land use changes and development activity, code enforcement and trends in the corridor. Staff met with Mayor’s neighborhood liaisons, current and long range planning staff and planning staff from the Department of Public Works, Department of Parks


and Recreation and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Through the use of geographic information systems, base maps were prepared for public meetings. Other adopted public planning documents were reviewed for their relevance to the plan area. These documents included plans for land use, parks, transportation, transit and infrastructure.

Communication ProgramA mailing list was prepared containing churches, organizations, schools, businesses and individual property owners. Neighborhood organizations, institutions and individual participants were enlisted to disseminate information about the public meeting opportunities. A project website was created to announce upcoming meetings and provide public access to written summaries of all project meetings. Over 1300 website visits were recorded during the preparation of the plan. Staff also sent meeting summaries to meeting participants by mail and electronic mail throughout the course of the project. Staff provided meeting participants with pertinent articles, links to educational opportunities and announcements about related planning events as the corridor plan was being prepared.

Public meetings in Preparation of the PlanFifteen public meetings were held in preparation of the plan beginning in May 2007 through the final meeting on October 16, 2008. The meeting process included settings where overall corridor issues were presented and discussed and other meetings which focused on three major groups of issues. Land use and redevelopment, image and appearance; and connectivity and infrastructure were explored in focused sessions. Two progress report meetings were held on September 25, 2007 and on March 27, 2008. A list of the meeting topics, dates and locations is in the Appendix. Public meeting attendance totaled 163 persons attended through March 27, 2008. Eighty-six individuals attended at least one meeting.

Photo #7 Planning Meeting at University Heights United Methodist Church


AnalysisofPlanningIssuesintheCorridor

Environmental Conditions The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map of the 2006 Perry Township Land Use Plan update indicates very few significant features within the Shelby Street Corridor plan area. Areas with natural woodlands can be found at the rear of a property at 3448 Shelby Street. Additional natural woodlands are located on the Hannah House site and on parcels at 4367 Shelby Street and 4540 Madison Avenue. Aerial photographs from 1937 and 1941 indicate that much of the open land was in crop land and pasture at those junctures. Trees planted since the 1950s have added tree canopy to the corridor in many locations. The corridor section between Moffitt Street and I-465 has tree canopy at the edge of Madison Avenue. An organized tree planting program along public streets has not occurred within the corridor area.

Photo #8 Shelby Tree Canopy Photo #9 Madison Tree Canopy

The plan area is generally flat with some steeper slopes on the south end of the corridor near I-465. The flat character of the plan area positively affects travel options. There are no steep streets that cause difficult braking, climbing or maneuvering for trucks or other large, heavy vehicles. Walking and bicycling are not negatively affected by steep streets. There is a lack of hills and distinctive earth forms within the plan area.

The plan area does not contain any wellfield protection areas or classified wetlands. The southern portion of the plan area drains to the south through storm sewers to Lick Creek. The middle section of the plan area drains westward through storm sewers and an unnamed ditch to Highland Creek. The north section drains northward through combined sanitary and storm sewers into the Bean Creek watershed. All three watersheds drain to White River in western Perry Township. Visitors to the corridor will likely not gain a sense of the Lick Creek stream valley nor the other drainageways and watershed boundaries. The interfaces of Shelby Street and Madison Avenue with the drainage systems are dominated by the street infrastructure. The corridor does not impress visitors with its natural qualities.

28

Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map (Exhibit 5)


Environmental conditions, however, are not a major deterrent to maintaining and enhancing investments in building, land and infrastructure.

Land Use Concerns and Development Activity City planning staff reviewed those conditions and activities that reveal how the plan area might be changing. Land use indicators included properties that are often vacant and hard to lease or sell and sites with difficult edges and a lack of stability. Complaints to city departments about property appearance, noise or hours of operation could point to locations where land uses are not well situated. A lack of investment and poor maintenance also warranted attention. Staff also looked for those growing businesses that lacked room to expand. Staff examined development activity that included new construction, demolition, rezoning, and use variances. Code enforcement cases were additionally of interest.

In the case of the Shelby Street Corridor, no obvious pattern existed for properties that stood vacant for extended periods. Building and property conditions were found to be generally good. Property owners continued to invest in their buildings and sites. Several businesses reported that expansion would be difficult as their businesses grew.

Despite its generally good physical condition, the corridor was not experiencing significant new construction activity. Demolitions were rare in recent years. The city had received very few applications for rezoning or variances of land use. The city also had limited cases of code enforcement actions within the plan area.

Access for Automobiles, Bicyclists and PedestriansStreets in the plan area that provide easy access to destinations outside the corridor can also act as major barriers to pedestrian and bicycle trips within the corridor. Shelby Street and Madison Avenue provide convenient access for southside commuters to reach destinations in and near downtown Indianapolis. Automobile and truck speeds and volumes can be daunting to anyone who tries to ride a bicycle on these streets.

The full environmental, energy conservation and personal health benefits that non-motorized vehicles offer as transportation options cannot be easily achieved without extensive changes to the arterial, collector and local streets. This plan seeks to identify those infrastructure changes that can make the corridor better connected internally and to jobs, shopping, recreation and schools. A careful balance must be struck to maintain the essential functions of the arterial streets while refitting this corridor to be friendlier to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.

�0

Traffic Counts Map (Exhibit 6)

�1 ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

Mass Transit ServicesThe Shelby Street corridor is currently served by three local IndyGo bus routes. The neighborhood is also served by IndyGo’s Open Door reservation-based para-transit service. This flexible bus serves the needs of customers who, because of a disability, are unable to use IndyGo’s regular fixed route system and who meet the criteria established by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. All IndyGo fixed route buses are equipped with bicycle racks mounted on the front of each bus.

Photo # 10 Route 31 Madison Avenue bus. Photo # 11 Route 22 IndyGo bus at Walgreens.

Route 16-Beech Grove connects downtown Indianapolis to the corner of South Emerson Avenue and East County Line Road. The route runs along South Meridian Street from downtown then east along Troy Avenue. This route meets Route 22 at the corner of Carson Avenue and Troy Avenue. The route continues eastward through the Beech Grove business district then turns south along Emerson Avenue. The south campus of Saint Francis Hospital and retail outlets along South Emerson Avenue are served by this route.

Route 22 – Shelby begins in a loop through downtown Indianapolis and connects with Fountain Square. The route continues south on Shelby Street to Troy Avenue, then south on Carson Avenue and State Street to run along the east side of the University of Indianapolis campus. The route then runs westward along Hanna Avenue to South East Street. The route ends in a loop west of Greenwood Park Mall along South County Line Road.

Route 31- Greenwood also begins in downtown Indianapolis and runs south along Madison Avenue to Greenwood Park Mall. This route meets Route 22 at Hanna Avenue.

These existing routes are typical of the “hub and spoke” model applicable to most of the existing IndyGo bus network. This model uses “spoke” type local routes that radiate from the “hub” in downtown Indianapolis and then terminate in suburban locations. Bus riders who have destinations along other “spokes” on the southside

�2

Bus Routes Map (Exhibit 7)

�� ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

have to travel downtown and then transfer to another route. Destinations within the corridor, such as the University of Indianapolis or employment sites are not linked by cross-town and circulator routes with other activity centers and residential neighborhoods. IndyGo does not currently operate any express bus services through the Shelby Street corridor. An express service bus service is anticipated that would link downtown Indianapolis with Greenwood travelling on I-65. IndyGo’s long range plan calls for additional cross-town routes on the southside that will give bus riders more travel options.

In 2001 an On-board Survey of IndyGo riders was conducted as part of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization – Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). All existing IndyGo routes were surveyed. Examples of on-board survey data examined included origin and destination information, socioeconomic data, frequency of use, and suggestions for service adjustments and expansion. Results are shown in the tables below for riders on the entire route, not just for riders boarding in or destined to the Shelby Street corridor.

TABLE #2 IndyGo Rider Survey

Vehicle availability and usageCar available for trip Days per week trip is made

Yes No Less than 5 5 6 to 7Route 16 19.7% 80.3% 34.7% 47.4% 17.9%Route 22 19.5% 80.5% 39.1 % 46.6% 14.3%Route 31 33.8 % 66.2% 19.3% 57.9% 22.8%Average oflocal routes

22.5% 77.5% 33.2% 43.7% 32.2%

Service improvements most desired by weekday ridersEasier downtown transfers

Start AM service earlier

End PM Service later

Increase frequency of service

Improve Access to bus stops

Add new route

Route 16 6.6% 8.8% 35.1% 33.8% 0.9% 10.5%

Route 22 17.5% 6.9% 35.5% 24.2% 5.3% 6.9%

Route 31 7.3% 8.7% 31.9% 24.4% 14.3% 7.6%

Average of local routes

12.5% 12.4% 26.8% 30.6% 7.9% 6.3%

Riders on Routes16 and 22 had a higher than average dependence on the bus for their regular transportation needs. Riders on all of these routes desired a later end to evening bus services. Route 31 riders expressed a higher than average desire for improved access to bus stops. Route 16 has been revised since the time of the

��ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

ridership survey with a four mile extension of service on Emerson Avenue south of Thompson Road to County Line Road.

Future Mass TransitThe future looks brighter as regional mass transit plans are being refined with important service enhancements for locations within the corridor. The Comprehensive Operational Analysis contains recommendations for twenty eight “park and ride” lots in the metropolitan area. Park and ride lots provide long term automobile parking for bus riders. One of the proposed park and ride lots is listed with a general location of Hanna Avenue and East Street. A specific site was not identified in the COA. Generally these lots are placed where several bus routes meet and at locations on the outer edges of a scheduled bus route.

The COA also recommends that a “transit center” be located near the intersection of Hanna Avenue and East Street. A transit center may start out as a simple shelter where riders will wait to embark on a bus trip or wait to transfer between routes. Transit centers can also evolve to contain services and facilities such as visitor information and bus schedules, rest rooms, vending machines and access to other modes of transportation such as rapid transit, bike routes, greenways, long distance buses and taxis.

The corridor plan needs to reflect the fact that successful mass transit systems depend upon the careful integration of bicycle and pedestrian networks with transit stops. While the corridor plan cannot increase the funding necessary for IndyGo to add or enhance bus services, the plan can embody a new commitment to shape land use and corridor infrastructure in a manner that is more transit supportive.

Mass transit trips generally involve a walking trip or bicycle trip to or from the transit rider’s home and her place of work or school. It is imperative that corridor plans assess the potential barriers that may prevent or reduce transit use by people that live, work, visit and learn in the plan area. Land use and infrastructure plans need to both reflect long term transit systems plans and the ongoing need for pedestrians to access all parts of their neighborhoods. Pedestrians seeking to walk from residential areas to transit stops currently must cope with considerable gaps in public sidewalk networks. Such sidewalk gaps also act as barriers for residents who want to walk to many other destinations within their neighborhoods including retail stores, churches and schools.

Transit Ready DevelopmentMany communities are gaining the understanding that land use policies and mass transit planning must be mutually supportive and functionally integrated. Where high quality mass transit services are clustered, land use policies often support “transit oriented development”. In the case of the Shelby Street Corridor plan


area, the level of current transit services has not stimulated land use densities and arrangements that are notably different from what is seen in nearby commercial areas that have no transit services at all. Fixed route local bus services usually do not by themselves provide real estate investors the assurance that transit service is a long term amenity. Investors may also be concerned that prospective tenants would place less value on bus services than on a higher density rapid transit service such as light rail or commuter rail. An active rail station with frequent services in a downtown area, by contrast, is viewed as a long term amenity for real estate investors and their tenants.

In anticipation of increased IndyGo bus routes and service frequencies and the arrival of regional rapid transit services, it is wise to ensure that the Shelby Street Corridor is planned to be “transit ready”. Land use strategies need to be flexible given the uncertain funding for additional city bus services and the location and timing of a transit center.

The DIRECTIONS Rapid Transit Study of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization identified a total of seven potential rapid transit corridors. (See Exhibit #8). The preferred “starter corridor” was the “Northeast Corridor” from downtown Indianapolis to Fishers, largely using the former Nickel Plate railroad corridor. The preferred transit technology was a “diesel light rail” technology that operates on a standard gauge railroad.

The “South Corridor” centered on the CSX Railroad/Louisville and Indiana Railroad corridor that runs from downtown Indianapolis to Greenwood and Franklin. The regional rapid transit system has not narrowed its focus to a specific corridor serving the southern part of the metropolitan area. The Hanna Avenue and University of Indianapolis neighborhood, four miles from downtown Indianapolis, is a strong candidate for a station in a south corridor of the planned regional rapid transit system if the CSX/Louisville and Indiana Railroad were to be used.

Regional transit plans have not set a timetable for services on the seven corridors, including the South Corridor. Station locations on this corridor have not been determined. However, given the long lead time for transit system development and the importance of adopting supportive land use policies, it is critical to make recommendations based on the best information available at the time.

Regional Transit Supportive Land Use ReportAs part of the DIRECTIONS Rapid Transit Study a report was completed in 2008 titled “Indy MPO Regional Land Use ‘Smart Growth’ Study Transit Supportive Land Use Strategies Final Report.” The strategies recommended in the report are intended to help the Central Indiana region realize many of the quality of life benefits that a major investment in regional rapid transit can encourage. The report uses land use planning criteria of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts


program funding. This report also identifies Pedestrian District Types and Station Types. The University District as defined in the Shelby Street Corridor Plan most closely matches a “Campus District” type. A transit station in a campus district is described as a “destination station.”

“Destination Stations are generally located in regional employment areas, potentially near special-use venues like sports stadiums and convention centers. Destination stations are typically supported by moderate-density mixed-use development including retail and entertainment uses, office and commercial development, and moderate- to high-density housing development. These station areas also may take the form of a campus

UNIVERSITYDISTRICT

Graphic taken from the document “Land Use Strategies final 2008-02-12.pdf”

Exhibit #8 Seven Proposed Regional Rapid Transit Corridors


that is characterized by a concentration of similar or related non-retail, nonresidential uses such as a cluster of education, corporate, governmental and institutional uses with adjacent housing. Regional Land Use “Smart Growth” Study, P.6

The report also presents four major community planning principles for Transit Supportive Development (TSD). Density refers to the population density of a given area and is used by the Federal Transit Administration to measure TSD feasibility. Higher densities indicate stronger support of proposed transit systems because they suggest greater future ridership potential. Design aesthetics refer to TSD’s aesthetic treatment considerations including design guidelines, such as scale and variety, and building standards. Diversity of Uses involve key points to consider when planning transit-oriented development, such as having an established employment base within close proximity of a transit station and maximizing mixed-use development opportunities even within the same building and between adjacent sites. The process by which planners Distinguish Typology of transit stations helps facilitate the TSD design process by providing a framework for determining appropriate design and development standards.

Identity The identity of a corridor is composed of the appearance of the roadway and other physical infrastructure of the road such as curbs, ditches, sidewalks, lighting, utilities and landscaping in the public right of way. The corridor’s identity is also composed of buildings, parking lots, signage and privately maintained yards and landscaping. The Shelby Street Corridor has a varied identity which has elements that should be maintained and other elements that should be enhanced. A unified overall identity has not emerged over decades of public and private actions.

Three sub-districts within the overall corridor have distinctive characteristics that can be enhanced. A largely residential character exists south of Hanna Avenue. Between Hanna Avenue and National Avenue the district is strongly related to the University of Indianapolis campus and established businesses that serve the neighborhood and a wider commercial and industrial market area. North of National Avenue the corridor is a mixture of land uses such as small retail, commercial service, wholesale, light industrial, logistics, used automobile dealers and automotive services. A few houses remain scattered in this section of Shelby Street. Within this district of the corridor there also exists a cluster of health care and elder residential facilities. This northern district is the most diverse of the three districts within the corridor.

Creating a unified plan for identity is a particular challenge given the mixture of land uses and property ownership. Larger parcels are generally found on the west side of the street and smaller, residential scale parcels are found on the east side of the street.

38

District Map (Exhibit 9)


University of IndianapolisThe main campus of the University of Indianapolis is a distinctive asset in the Shelby Street corridor. Founded in 1902 as the Indiana Central College, the university grew up with the University Heights neighborhood. The campus was established in a rural and suburban setting that retained much of this character through the 1950s. Like its surrounding neighborhoods, the university has filled most of the existing open land from that decade. Originally located entirely south of Hanna Avenue, the campus has grown to the north, west and east and has significant frontages along Shelby Street, National Avenue and State Street.

Photo # 12 Campus from south with Shelby on Photo #13 Campus and neighborhood, 1954.the far left 1947

Currently the University has more than 4,600 students at its main campus in Indianapolis, including more than 1,000 graduate students. In recent years the university adopted a strategic plan that includes goals for developing the campus and developing partnerships with the City of Indianapolis, business community and neighborhood. The university is implementing a campus improvement plan which includes a 48,000 square foot addition to the Schwitzer Student Center. The Krannert Memorial Library is planned for an overhaul and a new residence hall is planned for a location currently used as a softball field. An even stronger campus presence is expected along Shelby Street in coming years. Like many colleges, the University faces challenges to provide convenient parking and traffic circulation for students, faculty, staff and visitors. This need is balanced against the desire for a campus that contains attractive open space areas that have a high level of walkability and bikability.

The corridor plan seeks to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit access to the entire corridor. The campus warrants special attention throughout the plan for the impacts that it has on the corridor and the impact that an enhanced corridor will have on the continued growth of the university.

The institution has significant economic impacts on the corridor and surrounding neighborhood. The principal commercial district nearest the campus is focused on the intersection of Madison Avenue and Hanna Avenue. This intersection is within

�0ShelbyStreetCorridorPlan

one-half mile of much of the campus, including residential halls and academic buildings. Pedestrian access to the retail district is provided by sidewalks on both sides of Hanna Avenue. The Hanna Avenue reconstruction project will improve the walkability of this pedestrian route. The Shelby Street corridor provides access to the west side of the campus with its intersections at Hanna Avenue, Campus Drive and National Avenue. The campus attracts traditional day time students and non-traditional evening students. Faculty and staff also are part of the influx and outflow of automobile traffic in morning, late afternoon and evening hours. Various academic, community, arts and sports events are hosted on the campus and utilize the same streets and parking facilities.

GatewaysAlong with Garfield Park, the University of Indianapolis campus is a significant destination for visitors from beyond Indianapolis. Currently there is minimal directional signage along streets that link the I-465 and I-65 interchanges to the campus. The South Keystone Avenue Corridor Study serves as a companion document to the Shelby Street Corridor Plan. The South Keystone study includes recommendations about the gateway aspects of the I-65 and Keystone interchange.

The Shelby Street Corridor plan seeks to collaborate with the university as plans are refined for campus facilities along Shelby Street. The west side of the campus will be further enhanced as a prominent campus entry point. The intersection of Hanna Avenue and Shelby Street provides opportunities to direct motorists to campus destinations. Signage on street approaches to the campus should inform motorists that they are entering a district which contains a higher proportion of pedestrians and bicyclists than found elsewhere in the corridor.

The intersection of Shelby Street and Hanna Avenue is an ideal location for a campus gateway. This concept is described in detail in the Image and Appearance section.

Community PartnershipsA university is considerably more than a collection of buildings and travel destinations. The university also represents many talented people and creative resources. These resources should be fully enlisted in fulfilling the potentials of the Shelby Street corridor. The plan includes recommendations for continuing engagement of the university, neighborhood and city.


Connectivity And Infrastructure

IntroductionThe transportation history of the corridor is poised to have a new chapter as pedestrian, bicycle and transit access will be planned and integrated into infrastructure that has been long dominated by automobiles. Existing streets will remain as the essential framework upon which a more balanced transportation network will be built. Each of the modes must be thoughtfully integrated over coming years as infrastructure improvement projects and private development and redevelopment projects occur.

The guiding principle is to increase connections between people and their desired destinations. The term “connectivity” is used in many settings. Related to transportation, connectivity ideally means that multiple routes and multiple modes exist to reach the same destination. Applied to a largely established corridor and its adjoining neighborhoods, a realistic connectivity goal is to increase the number and desirability of transportation options for all ages, incomes and mobility. Connectivity also means that convenience and safety should be central principles with an increasing response to energy and environmental considerations. It is a goal of this plan that the plan area has many highly walkable destinations.

GreenwaysDuring the early to mid-1990s the City of Indianapolis developed the Indianapolis Greenway Plan. The plan represented the community’s vision for an interconnected regional network of open space that supports recreation, fitness and conservation. Stream valleys and abandoned rail corridors provided the base for many of the fourteen corridors identified in the plan. The Shelby Street Corridor area and much of central and eastern Perry Township lacked such linear open spaces upon which greenway corridors could be identified.

The closest greenway is the Pleasant Run Greenway located north of the study corridor. The Pleasant Run Greenway is one of the parkway corridors of the original George Kessler park plan for Indianapolis in the 1909. Shelby Street intersects this greenway at Pleasant Run Parkway, approximately 1.50 miles north of Troy Avenue. The Pleasant Run Greenway may also be accessed within Garfield Park. The trail connects Ellenberger Park and Christian Park with Garfield Park. The greenway will eventually connect westward with the White River Greenway. The Indianapolis Greenway Plan has not identified additional locations for greenways to the south or east of the Pleasant Run Greenway.

The City of Beech Grove operates a municipal park system and has developed a greenway plan. Of relevance to the Shelby Street Corridor plan are plans to establish a greenway system that would connect Beech Grove’s parks using the Lick Creek


stream corridor. The proposed greenway would connect Sarah Bolton Park, located at 1�0 South 1�th Street, with other parks and schools in Beech Grove. Hanna Avenue and Troy Avenue provide the most direct east-west routes from the Shelby Street corridor to the proposed Beech Grove greenway system. These streets have significant gaps of sections with sidewalks.

In addition to their recreational and open space functions, greenways can serve as valuable components of regional bicycle and pedestrian networks. This set of multiple functions makes existing and planned greenways attractions for walkers, joggers and bicyclists. Greenways can serve as multi-use pathways for regular trips such as commuting to work and school. The same paths can be used on evenings and weekends for exercise and recreational purposes.

Rail Corridor The presence of an active railroad running the entire length of the study corridor poses several challenges but it also represents opportunities. The railroad is owned and operated by CSX Corporation north of Hanna Avenue, which connects to the Indianapolis Beltline Railroad and the CSX main line in downtown Indianapolis. The Louisville and Indiana Railroad Corporation (LIRC) owns the railroad from Hanna Avenue southward. The LIRC line is the only direct rail connection between Indianapolis and Louisville.

The railroad is a single track configuration with a freight siding serving industrial facilities at 3000 Shelby Street, located between Sumner Avenue and Troy Avenue. The track is actively used for regularly scheduled freight trains. The nation faces serious congestion on many rail routes after decades of rail corridor abandonment. Occasionally railroads carry unscheduled trains over corridors such as this due to accidents, repairs or congestion on other routes. Increased freight traffic may be directed to railroads given the continuing increases in petroleum costs and the inherent energy efficiency of rail compared to trucking.

Currently there is no inter-city or commuter passenger rail service on this corridor. Amtrak’s “Kentucky Cardinal” used this railroad from 1999 to 2003. This rail corridor may see the restoration of intercity passenger rail service with Midwest Regional Railroad Initiative planning now underway. The corridor is also under consideration for possible commuter rapid transit services with the DIRECTIONS studies of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization.

This rail corridor is not scheduled for abandonment. Alternative uses of the corridor such as “rail to trail” conversions are not planned. However, Indianapolis Insight, the Comprehensive Plan for Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana includes the following recommendation: “Should the Louisville and Indiana Railroad cease to function as a rail line or rapid transit line, the land use recommendation for the rail corridor shall change to Linear Park for the provision of an active greenway trail.”


Grade CrossingsAll east-west streets that link Shelby Street with Madison Avenue have public street crossings of the rail line at grade. Only Hanna Avenue currently has sidewalks up to the railroad tracks. This crossing will be reconstructed with the DPW Hanna Avenue street project 2009-10. Rail crossings are marked with signs and flashing lights but have no gates to control automobile traffic or pedestrians. The other intersecting east-west streets lack sidewalks (Lawrence, Edwards, and National and Sumner). Troy Avenue has limited sidewalks. In the short span of less than 500 feet the railroad crosses Hanna Avenue and the intersection of Shelby Street, Windermire Street and Weaver Avenue. This is a complex location in which passing trains stop both east-west and north-south street traffic. In this location pedestrians must also be especially alert to train and street traffic.

Photo #14 Photograph of railroad crossing at Shelby Street

Strategies for better pedestrian crossings must be provided at each street crossing. The current railroad usage and prospects for increased services suggest that pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic plans must consider the inherent conflicts and potential hazards. Efforts should be made to support a broader community awareness of the railroad. Safety education programs such as Operation Lifesaver are advised as multimodal transportation and redevelopment is anticipated in the corridor.

��

Connectivity Plan Map (Exhibit 10)


Land Use and Redevelopment

Existing Land UseExisting land use in the corridor is shown on Exhibits 12 and 13. The northern section, from Troy Avenue south to National Avenue, is a diverse mixture of retail, commercial, industrial and residential uses. The west side of Shelby Street consists primarily of large tracts that contain industrial operations, truck terminals and wholesale and automotive businesses. A cluster of houses exists near the intersection with Murry Street. A group of health care and senior residential services occurs in the 3500 block of Shelby Street. The east side of Shelby Street in the northern section contrasts with the west side in the preponderance of small parcels. Used car dealers, small retail outlets, a veterinary clinic, tool and machine business, a truck equipment business and contractors occupy parcels that are smaller and shallower than those found on the west side of the street. Several houses exist south of Sumner Avenue. Fifteen intersecting streets and alleys occur on the east side compared with two street intersections on the west side.

The middle section, from National Avenue to just south of Hanna Avenue, is strongly identified with the campus of the University of Indianapolis. The west side of Shelby Street contains a vending supply company, bowling alley and former restaurant and automobile dealer business. The east side of Shelby Street contains an apartment complex, bank and parking and campus entry drive, all owned by the University of Indianapolis.

South of the middle section is a largely residential section known as University Heights. Non-residential uses are limited to two churches, small retail outlet, professional offices, barber shop and an automobile repair business and a tavern.

Madison Avenue, between National Avenue and Hanna Avenue, is largely a retail street. The Hannah House is used for catering and special events. A well drilling equipment company and a construction supply company are located in this block. The former LoBills grocery store is under redevelopment as a mixed use retail center under the name University Shoppes.

The block of Hanna Avenue within the Shelby Street corridor contains Indianapolis Fire Department Station #26. On the south side of the street is a drug store, an automotive audio shop and four houses.

Madison Avenue south of Hanna Avenue is principally residential in use on the east side of the street. The west side of the street has a group of retail businesses between Castle Avenue and Edwards Avenue. Apartments exist at Markwood Avenue and Lawrence Avenue. Two trailer parks and a church are located south of Moffitt Street.

��

Existing Land Use Map A (Exhibit 11)

��

Existing Land Use Map B (Exhibit 1)


Retail ContextThe Shelby Street Corridor is situated near four corridors that provide significant attractions for retail customers and offer potentials for new investment. These corridors are predominately developed with retail business uses with a few residential, wholesale, service and industrial uses. Each of the competing sites has frontages on streets with equal or higher traffic volumes, good accessibility to interstate interchanges and desirable redevelopment sites. While each of these competing business districts is reasonably close to the University of Indianapolis campus, the districts lack businesses that have a distinctive association with the nearby college campus or a campus oriented neighborhood. None of these business districts could currently be described as friendly to pedestrians, bicyclists or transit users. All of the arterial street and intersecting local streets that serve these corridors are deficient in sidewalks.

South Keystone Avenue Corridor This district offers ready access to I-65, a selection of fast-food outlets, a full service grocery store, offices and convenience stores and gas stations. A catering hall and two motels round out the retail offerings. This business cluster serves local commuters, daytime employees and interstate travelers. The Keystone study recommends strategies to strengthen this corridor as a retail destination.

Madison AvenueThis corridor has a mixture of large and small retail business and several vacant or underused sites. An existing Kmart store was remodeled to add grocery and pharmacy sections. New fast food restaurants have been built in this corridor along with a new automobile parts store. Several sites have been cleared and are large enough to accommodate a variety of retail businesses. During the 1960s, this corridor was known as the “Miracle Mile”. It is the focal point of revitalization efforts of the Gateway Community Alliance. The alliance has prepared a Visioning Study for parts of South East Street and Madison Avenue. The visioning study’s southernmost section is Madison Avenue south of National Avenue. This section overlays the Shelby Street corridor plan study area.

Southgate PlazaBuilt in the mid 1970’s, this 6.5 acre site no longer has a large retail anchor tenant. The Southside Office of the Marion County Superior Court Probation Department occupies the largest tenant space. This center is within one quarter mile of the western edge of the University of Indianapolis campus. Outlots exist on the site provide fast-food services that serve campus, neighborhood and commuting patrons. Several of these businesses recently were built or remodeled.

��

Near Southside Business Districts Map (Exhibit 13)


East Street CorridorA commercial corridor of approximately two miles in length exists on South East Street. A cluster of restaurants and motels exists around the East Street (US31) and Thompson Road intersection. These businesses serve local and interstate highway customers at the first intersection south of I-465.

Southern Plaza This shopping center opened in 1961 and was redeveloped in the 1990s with improvements to storefronts, façade, landscaping and parking lot. The center sits on 36 acres and is located between I-465 and Hanna Avenue and contains 270,000 total square feet with the largest store being the 60,000 square foot Kroger grocery store. A 16 screen cinema was added to the site in 1999.

South 31 Plaza/Target CenterA Target department store is the largest retail tenant in this strip center, located between National Avenue and Sumner Avenue on the west side of East Street. An MCL cafeteria occupies a space on the Sumner Avenue side of the center. The Target store was originally an Ayrway store. The center dates to the 1960s and sits on 18 acres. The center has not undergone any recent remodeling or modernization.

Former Zayre Store and Sharp Ford siteA former discount department store, vacant automobile dealership and restaurant are located on the east side of East Street between National Avenue and Hanna Avenue. Much of this site is vacant or not performing up to its business potential. All the parcels together contain 17 acres.

ConclusionsThe Shelby Street corridor and each of these retail districts have potential to capture more of the market of Indianapolis’s near southside neighborhoods and from commuters and visitors to these corridors. All of the districts have experienced changes from their original composition of retail businesses, especially in grocery stores and general merchandise businesses as well as in the loss of automobile dealerships. These districts can take steps to enhance their competitiveness for a larger market area.

New partnerships are needed between merchants, property owners, institutions, economic development organizations and local government. An example of a successful local partnership is the FOCUS initiative, an acronym for Fostering Commercial Urban Strategies. FOCUS is creating vibrant neighborhood business districts and establishing long-lasting relationships that connect neighborhoods with


businesses and new resources to revitalize urban markets. FOCUS is a partnership between the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Central Indiana Chamber of Commerce, and Indianapolis Coalition for Neighborhood Development and the City of Indianapolis.

Retail Market OpportunitiesAny retail business seeking to locate within the Shelby Street corridor boundaries must consider the demand and supply for that type of retail business. Existing businesses also must analyze market demands as they adjust to changing consumer tastes. A Claritas Market SiteReport was prepared for the plan corridor. The Claritas’ RMP data is derived from two major sources of information. The demand data is derived from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE Survey), which is fielded by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The supply data is derived from the Census of Retail Trade (CRT), which is made available by the U.S. Census.

The difference between demand and supply represents the opportunity gap or surplus available for each retail outlet in the specified reporting geography. When the demand is greater than (less than) the supply, there is an opportunity gap (surplus) for that retail outlet. For example, a positive value signifies an opportunity gap, while a negative value signifies a surplus.

Given the Shelby Street corridor’s location near the retail corridors on South East Street, Madison Avenue and South Keystone Avenue and the small population residing within the plan corridor boundaries, a general pattern of oversupply exists for many retail categories.

The list below represents the major categories where there is an oversupply.

Supply in Excess of demand (surplus)Foodservice and Drinking PlacesMotor vehicle parts dealersFurniture Electronics and Appliance StoresHealth and Personal Care StoresGasoline Stations & Gas with ConvenienceClothing and AccessoriesMiscellaneous Store Retailers (includes office, stationary, used merchandise) Non-store retailers (vending machine operators, direct selling)Building Materials, Garden Equipment StoresFood and Beverage Stores (includes Grocery Supermarkets)

The Claritas SiteReport also indicates that several retail types that represent opportunities. Demand exceeds supply in the following categories.


Demand in excess of supply (opportunity)Home furnishingsGeneral merchandiseRadio, television and electronicsComputer and softwareCamera and photographicConvenience storesSpecialty foods Cosmetics, beauty supplies, perfumeOptical GoodsPaint and wallpaperHealth and Personal Care StoresFamily clothingSporting goodsHobby, toys, gamesSew, Needlework, Piece GoodsBook stores and news dealersPrerecorded tapes, CDs, record storesElectronic shopping, mail order

The Claritas SiteReport suggests that opportunities exist for certain retail business types including: camera, photographic, optical goods, computer, software, specialty foods, hobby, toys, games, book stores, news dealers and music stores. These businesses can be successful in smaller shopping centers and in freestanding retail locations. Many of those businesses also benefit from being clustered close to each other and near to a college campus. This set of retail business types should be recruited into a compact and mutually supportive district. The Campus District offers this potential.

Comments received during the preparation of the plan suggest that there is an unmet demand for specialty restaurants than would offer to customers menus and dining atmosphere that is more distinctive that currently available. The desire was also expressed for establishments that offered music and other entertainment. While establishments of this type can be found in business districts such as downtown Indianapolis, Fountain Square and Broad Ripple, there is no grouping of such restaurants on the south side. Southside residents that want these restaurants, cafes and clubs must spend their consumer dollars outside of their neighborhood. Participants in interviews and public meetings pointed out that the University of Indianapolis offers music, theater and sports programs that regularly draw patrons from locations well beyond the immediate neighborhood. These arts and sports patrons often want to have a meal before an event and have dessert or drinks and socialize after an event. It was reported that these customers cannot find what they seek nearby.

Restaurants and hotels that offer meetings rooms were also mentioned as lacking in the plan corridor area. Such facilities were considered to be attractive for business, civic and educational groups to conduct recurring meetings and for special events.

��

Many of these functions currently must occur outside the plan area. A related need was mentioned for a full service conference-type hotel for extended meetings and larger special events. Again, other business districts offer these facilities but they are undersupplied in the near southside and in particular the I-65 and Keystone Avenue and I-465 and US31 interchange areas.

Additional market studies are warranted to more clearly define how these retail segments could be supported in the corridor. Successful strategies for reinvestment in retail corridors depend upon strengthening existing stores and attracting new stores. Retailers individually and in association have special challenges in older corridors where measures of buying power based on average household income or values of owner occupied housing are less attractive than in newer retail corridors.

Site Characteristics and Retail PotentialsCompared to Madison Avenue and East Street, Shelby Street lacks large parcels with frontages on those highways. From Troy Avenue to Hanna Avenue, most of the parcels on the east side of Shelby Street are small lots created with residential subdivisions. These parcels are relatively shallow, less than 150’ deep, and narrow. These physical characteristics make difficult the assembly of parcels into competitive retail sites.

A few parcels on the west side of Shelby Street in this same street range are larger and similar in size to modern retail land uses. However, these sites contain viable heavy commercial and light industrial land uses and have the appropriate zoning for such uses. These sites are not recommended for retail uses

LandUseRecommendations

Most of the land uses within the corridor are relatively stable and function successfully under their current zoning districts. The Development Characteristics Map Exhibit 16 indicates those sections that are stable and which locations have problematic edges between land uses. Four sites are shown that have potential redevelopment opportunities. Land uses are recommended as indicated on the proposed land use map Exhibits 15, 16 & 17.

Redevelopment opportunities exist in three locations with multiple parcels in each site. These potential redevelopment sites are presented as Critical Areas. Critical Areas exhibit an unusual character, important location or significant infrastructure need that warrants a high degree of scrutiny. Critical area recommendations address significant land use issues that require more detailed information than that shown on a general land use map. Once critical areas are identified, explanatory text provides guidance for subsequent land use decisions.


Development Characteristics Map (Exhibit 14)


DevelopmentGuidelines

Business/Industrial DistrictBetween Troy Avenue and National Avenue there is a largely commercial section along the east side of Shelby Street. This commercial section abuts residential uses to the east. As commercial sites are redeveloped or intensified, rezonings or use variances may be requested. Businesses that require significantly larger and deeper sites should be encouraged to seek locations on Madison Avenue or East Street.

On the east side of Shelby Street between the alley north of Knox Street and the alley north of Martin Street, a number of small lots are used partially or entirely for commercial uses. Most of these lots are occupied by used car sales. Given the small size of these lots and their frontages on the east-west intersecting streets, conversion of houses to additional commercial uses would be problematic. The edge of the corridor study boundary corresponds with the edge between commercial uses along Shelby Street and a uniformly residential neighborhood to the east. The conversion of residential lots to car sales and other uses with extensive parking lots is discouraged here. Potential land use conversions to office commercial uses would be considered if there is careful consideration of the impacts on the existing homes on the side streets.

It is recommended that potential rezoning or use variance petitions be evaluated carefully to ensure that the current boundary of commercial and residential land use and zoning be maintained and that light, noise, loading docks, parking, maneuvering and storage lots do not impede the quiet enjoyment of abutting residential properties. Deviations from the minimum landscape and screening requirements of the Commercial Zoning Ordinance should not be permitted. In some cases enhancement screening and landscaping may be necessary to ensure a compatible boundary between commercial and residential land uses.

Changes in use in the commercial section should be accompanied with a plan of operation that ensures that business hours and operational characteristics will be compatible with the abutting residential neighborhoods. Many business sites within this section have parking lots lacking defined curb cuts. These sites lack landscaped front yards. As sites are redeveloped, parking lots should be reconfigured to control and minimize access points, add landscaped yard areas and sidewalks and to define pedestrian zones along the public streets.

University DistrictThe University District has the potential for becoming a cluster of mixed commercial, institutional and residential uses. An incremental redevelopment pattern is anticipated but could accelerate with the likelihood of intensified mass transit services within this district. Three sub-districts have particular characteristics that warrant attention with development guidelines.


South side of Hanna AvenueA mixture of residential and office commercial uses along the south side of Hanna Avenue between Madison Avenue and Shelby Street can provide a transition between the existing single family residential uses to the south and more intensive land uses north of Hanna Avenue. Residential densities in the range of five to eight units per acre would complement a walkable, mixed use and transit supportive development to the north. Heavy commercial and regional commercial land uses are not appropriate in this section. The alley should remain open to serve residential lots that front on Windermere Street to the south. This boundary should be enhanced with landscaping and fencing that will protect the abutting residential properties from light, noise, parking and maneuvering. Changes in use in this section should be accompanied with a plan of operation that ensures that business hours will be compatible with the abutting residential neighborhoods.

Shelby Street north of Hanna AvenueThis section of the University District is becoming more strongly associated with the campus of the University of Indianapolis. Additional university uses and supportive land uses are appropriate in this section. Locations of existing tree canopy should be preserved and redeveloped tracts should add tree canopy. Sidewalks should be added with street treatments that will highlight pedestrian and bicycle usage of this section.

Madison Avenue north of Hanna AvenueThe University District in this section contains the most diverse mixture of land uses within the corridor. The University Shoppes project at Madison Avenue and Hanna Avenue should restore this location as a competitive retail destination. Continued industrial use is anticipated in the near term for 3807 and 3901 Madison Avenue. Redevelopment of these sites for heavy commercial uses would not be appropriate. As regional transit plans advance, an integrated redevelopment plan is recommended that would guide the transition of this section to a transit supportive mixed use development. Such a plan must coordinate the addition of transit services and infrastructure with complementary land uses. Internal walking paths, common areas and green space should be integral elements of an overall redevelopment plan. The historic, educational and cultural amenities of the Hannah House should be carefully joined together with land uses to the south through landscaped pedestrian and bicycle paths.

Residential DistrictSouth of Hanna Avenue the neighborhood is largely residential. A few commercial uses exist south of Windermere Street and north of I-465. Commercial development is confined to small lots and should continue to be limited in this district. It is recommended that potential rezoning or use variance petitions be evaluated carefully to ensure that the current boundaries between commercial and residential land use and zoning be maintained. This boundary should be enhanced with landscaping

��

Land Use Recommendations Map A (Exhibit 15)

58

Land Use Recommendations Map B (Exhibit 16)

��

Land Use Recommendations Map C (Exhibit 17)


and fencing that will protect the abutting residential properties from light, noise, loading docks, and parking, maneuvering and storage lots. Any changes in use in the commercial section should be accompanied with a plan of operation that ensures that business hours and operational parameters will be compatible with the abutting residential neighborhoods.

CriticalAreaA:UniversityDistrict

Location:The east side of Madison Avenue and east and west sides of Shelby Street between National Avenue and Windermere Street and Hanna Avenue between Madison Avenue and Bowman Avenue.

Why Critical:The University District corresponds to the Campus Pedestrian District of the Indianapolis MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan. The entire Campus Pedestrian District is shown in Exhibit 4. The Campus District contains retail uses, industry, wholesale business, the Hannah House, the University of Indianapolis and residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the University. The Campus District’s western edge overlays the recommended Pedestrian Corridor on Madison Avenue.

Transit Related Redevelopment ScenarioOther land use scenarios may become feasible as regional rapid transit plans advance with the selection of routes and stations. This University District is well situated to be redeveloped in stages from an automobile dependent suburban retail district into a transit-ready mixed use district. Planning for these possibilities must occur before firm commitments are made on transit services. Near term and long term recommendations are presented.

Overall District Recommendations:● Adopt measures that will ensure that the University District becomes more transit supportive over time. ● Use zoning tools to restrict the expansion of non-conforming uses;● Encourage new and remodeled stores, offices and entertainment destinations to be walkable destinations with amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Provide internal pathways for safe and enjoyable walking and biking.● Encourage redevelopment sites to complete missing sidewalks in accordance with the Shelby Street Corridor Connectivity Plan and the MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan. Sidewalk construction required by zoning should not be diverted to locations outside the redevelopment sites.● Encourage greater use of existing mass transit services.


● Discourage in-fill development within the district that is auto-dependent and may be better suited to under-used sites outside the Shelby Street Corridor area along East Street and Madison Avenue.● Encourage residential development at a minimum density of 15 residential units per acre within the University District. Mixed use structures are encouraged to contain residential uses above ground level retail, office or institutional uses.

Recommendations:Indianapolis Fire Station #26, 1080 East Hanna AvenueNear TermMaintain this fire station for the foreseeable future. Long TermTransit supportive land uses are recommended should the site no longer operate as a fire station.

Mobile Drilling Co. Inc., 3807 Madison AvenueNear TermThis is a 65,000 square foot building on a five acre parcel. The company manufactures and sells geo-technical drills, parts and accessories. The facility was established in 1947. The factory and warehouse operations should remain for the foreseeable future. Resist changes in land use that could complicate later assembly into a mixed use site, such as industrial uses that pose more significant environmental challenges.Long TermThe site is well situated to provide both a large building and parking suitable for a variety of reuse potentials. The site has frontage on Madison Avenue and Atlantic Street and abuts the CSX Railroad.

Midwest Construction Products, 3901 Madison AvenueNear TermThis company is a supplier of geo-textile products, gabions and storm water chambers for construction sites and for stormwater management. The business has a warehouse and office building with approximately 8,700 square feet on a site of 4.06 acres. Much of the site is devoted to yard storage of construction products. This business should remain for the foreseeable future. This site has frontage on Madison Avenue and the stub street named Atlantic Street. The site also abuts the CSX Railroad.Long TermGiven the relatively small building coverage, this site would be suitable for interim use as parking in support of a transit center with increased bus services. In a still longer time horizon, this site could be combined with the adjoining parcels in a phased redevelopment plan.

University Shoppes, 3915 and 3919 Madison Avenue


Near Term● Encourage the continuing redevelopment of the “University Shoppes” shopping center with a tenant mix that appeals to the campus and neighborhood. Encourage restaurants to have exterior seating areas. ● Change sites zoned C-7 to more appropriate commercial zoning that better matches current uses.Long Term● Along with the parcels to the north, the center has potential for more intensive land uses that would enhance the near-university setting. ● Lodging and conference facilities related to academic and community programs could complement office and research facilities.

Hannah HouseHannah House is a unique historic and architectural asset to the corridor and the city. The facility is currently used for catering and special events. The site adjoins industrial and retail uses and is currently zoned C-7 Commercial and I2U Light Industrial. Despite having a national and local historic designation existing zoning districts do not fully protect the historic site from adverse effects of industrial operations nearby. The Hannah House is historic structure that is isolated from any similar historic structures. The adjacent land use to the south is a well drilling manufacturing company in a large factory building with little transitional area between them. The Hannah House should remain a distinctive cultural asset in a redevelopment plan for this area. It is situated at the northern edge of a site that could support a variety of transit supportive land uses. Being at the edge instead of within a potential redevelopment site is advantageous as it would not significantly complicate the reassembly of two industrial sites and the integration of transportation modes within this larger block of ground. The grounds have mature trees around the house and outbuildings. An open area on the east could accommodate some additional facilities to welcome visitors to the site.

Recommendations:Near term● Preserve this historic structure and its grounds. ● Change the C7 and I3U zoning to either the C-1 Commercial District or SU-7 Special Use District.● Explore ways to promote this facility to customers and visitors in a manner that would support its long term viability. ● Discourage intensification of land uses on the site that would alter the historic and essentially residential character of the site. Do no add parking lots or site paving near the historic buildings.


CriticalAreaB:4402and4450MadisonAvenue,HillandDaleMobileHomePark

Location:The west side of Madison Avenue, south of the intersection of Madison Avenue and Shelby Street. Why Critical:The Hill & Dale Mobile Home Park, Hafely’s Produce store and Indianapolis Christian Fellowship together occupy approximately thirty acres on the west side of Madison Avenue. The site is visible from Madison Avenue and I-465. The site offers potentials to serve as a gateway to Madison Avenue and neighborhoods northward approaching downtown Indianapolis. Redevelopment options should be considered for this site that could address its current condition and offer desirable land uses. The corridor would benefit from more transit supportive housing options to take advantage of its location on a bus route and nearness to the University of Indianapolis. Few other sites within the study corridor could be feasibly reassembled to offer thirty acres of land for redevelopment.

Analysis:The 2006 Perry Township Land Use Plan recommends that the mobile home park and produce store have a land use classification as Community Commercial. The church site is recommended to remain in Special Use, with additional recommendations for Park and residential use as land use indexes.

A three acre lake was created to build the overpass of Madison Avenue to I-465. This is an amenity with several potential uses. The IPL & Duke Energy power line corridor is recommended as a multi-use path within off street right of. Some of this land might be available for redevelopment as open space or non-structural uses with a redeveloped residential site to the south. IndyGo route 31 along Madison has stops at Moffitt Street. Madison Avenue has sidewalks from Moffitt Street southward toward Thompson Road. The Hill and Dale Trailer Park contains trailers that are old and small and closely arranged. The trailer park lacks amenities.

Recommendations:Near TermThe trailer park and produce store sites are recommended for Community Commercial land use under the Perry Township Comprehensive Plan. Long Term● Residential land use at a density of 5 to 8 residential units per acre would be an acceptable alternative for these parcels provided that a site development plan met certain conditions. ● A redevelopment plan would have to remove all existing trailers from the site. ● The access drive from Madison should be improved. ● A redevelopment plan should incorporate tree preservation along Madison

Avenue and the property lines that abut the church property.


CriticalAreaC:4403MadisonAvenue,1185and1189 Moffitt Street

Location:The east side of Madison Avenue, south of Moffitt Street, north of I-465 and west of the Louisville and Indiana Railroad.

Why Critical:This 10.50 acre site is at a prominent location in the Madison Avenue corridor. The site is visible from Madison Avenue and I-465. It offers potentials to serve as a gateway to the University Heights neighborhood and neighborhoods to the north. Redevelopment options should be considered for this site that could address its current condition and offer desirable land uses otherwise absent in this corridor. The corridor would benefit from more transit supportive housing options to take advantage of its location on a bus route and nearness to the University of Indianapolis. Few other sites within the study corridor could be feasibly reassembled to offer ten or more acres of land for redevelopment.

The prospect of additional transit services and added pedestrian infrastructure in the future suggest that this site should be identified for transit supportive residential land uses. Residential densities of 8 to 15 units per acre are currently recommended in the 2006 Perry Township Land Use Plan for the trailer court. This density is appropriate for mass transit corridors.

Analysis:The Happy Hollow Trailer Lodge is located on 6 acres. The trailer park has approximately 65 units. The trailer park was developed in an era when local government lacked development standards for such facilities. Current regulations require a minimum of 15 acres along with other site development standards that could not likely be met if a new mobile home park was proposed on this site. Two houses located on the south side Moffitt Street are situated on a total of 2.88 acres. An additional 1.35 acres sits on the north side of Moffitt Street on a parcel which serves as a powerline corridor for Duke Energy.

Access to the site comes from Madison Avenue at its intersection with Moffitt Street. This street becomes a one-lane driveway beyond McConnell Way, which is the entrance to the trailer park. There are no through streets.

IndyGo bus service is located on Madison Avenue. The site is within 0.50 mile to 0.75 mile of most of the University of Indianapolis campus and within 0.50 mile north of retail land uses at Madison Avenue and Thompson Road.

Sidewalks exist on part of Madison Avenue to the south but are largely missing to the north. The Perry Township Vision Plan of the Indianapolis MPO Regional


Pedestrian Plan identifies Madison Avenue as a recommended Pedestrian Corridor. The plan also recommends the electric utility corridor as an off-right of way Multiuse Path. The Shelby Street Corridor Plan recommends additional sidewalk connections to the north and along east-west streets that would connect this site to nearby schools, churches, shopping and to the nearest city park.

Recommendations:● An integrated development primarily of residential land use in the range of 8 to 15 units per acre for all parcels but the utility corridor. The utility corridor should provide for the future multi-use path along with potential open space, traffic circulation and parking to serve the redevelopment site to the south. No structures should be allowed in the utility corridor. ● Preserve and enhance trees and other landscaping along Madison Avenue, I-465 and along all other boundaries. Existing trees within the site should be preserved. Provide an landscaped buffer along the interstate frontage Plan for future pedestrian and bicycle access points to the future multi-use path.

��

Zoning Recommendations Map A (Exhibit 18)

��

Zoning Recommendations Map B (Exhibit 19)


Zoning Plan – Recommended Zoning Changes

Address Current Use Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning

Discussion

3801 MadisonAvenue

Hannah House C-7 & I3U SU-7 or C-1

The historic, cultural, educational and special event uses of this site would be better served by the C-1 Office Buffer Commercial District or the SU-7 Special Use District for charitable, philanthropic and not-for-profit institutions. The current zoning is partially C-7 High Intensity Commercial District, which permits uses that are characterized by major outdoor storage or display of sizeable merchandise and the outdoor parking and storage of trucks, materials or equipment. The remainder of the site is I-3-U Medium Industrial Urban District. This urban industrial district’s permitted uses and development regulations do not match the operations of the Hannah House. These intense uses permitted in the C-7 and I-3-U districts are not consistent with the need to protect and preserve this locally and nationally registered historic site.

3807 and 3901 MadisonAvenue

Mobile Drilling Co. and Midwest Construction Products

C-7 and I-3-U

I-2-U A recommendation for the I-2-U District was included in the Concord Community Plan and continues to be recommended.

3915-19 Madison

University Shoppes (shopping center)

C-7 C-4 The current zoning is C-7 High Intensity Commercial District, which permits uses that are characterized by major outdoor storage or display of sizeable merchandise and the outdoor parking and storage of trucks, materials or equipment. The C-4 Community-Regional Commercial District is designed to provide for the development of major business groupings and regional-size shopping centers to serve a population ranging from a community of neighborhoods to a major segment of the total metropolitan area.

3225 Shelby Street

Vacant CS C-3C The recommended C-3C zoning district is a better fit for a variety of small scale commercial uses on this site.

1100 E. Perry Street(south side of Perry)

Used cars sales C-2 and D-5

C-3C Three parcels are arranged for used car sales. The recommended C-3C zoning district is a better fit for a variety of small scale commercial uses on this site.

3131 Shelby Street

Tavern C-2 and D-5

C-3C The recommended C-3C zoning district is a better fit for a variety of small scale commercial uses on this site.


Address Current Use Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning

Discussion

1105 E. Martin Street (north and south side of street)

Rose Engineering Company and parking lot.

C-2 and D-5

C-3C The recommended C-3C zoning district is a better fit for a variety of small scale commercial uses on this site.

4050 Shelby Street

University Heights Christian Church

D-3 SU-1 The SU-1 Special Use District is appropriate for this long established church and its parking lot north of the church.

1034 Edwards Avenue

Vacant lot C-1 D-3 This vacant lot fronting on Edwards Avenue is better zoned for residential purposes than commercial.

4239 Madison Avenue

Photocopy business D-3 C-3C The recommended C-3C zoning district is a better fit for a variety of small scale commercial uses on this site.

3902 Shelby St.

Parking lot C-3 UQ1 This parcel was formerly used for automobile sales and as a restaurant. The University of Indianapolis owns the site and uses it for campus parking.

4005 and 4011 Shelby St. and 1109 Hanna Ave.

Vacant C-3 and D-4

UQ1 Houses have been cleared from these parcels which are owned by the University of Indianapolis. Commercial and residential uses are not anticipated to be reestablished at these locations.

1080 E. Hanna Ave.

Indianapolis Fire Dept. Station #26

I-3-U SU9 The fire station should be in the Special Use district for government facilities.


Image and Appearance

Gateways ConceptCertain locations within a corridor may serve as a “gateway”. In 2005 the Rotary Gateways Partnership identified fifteen potential gateways in Indianapolis. The Shelby Street and Madison Avenue corridors were not included in that initial gateway identification process. The process utilized the Indy Gateways Toolbox to evaluate potential gateway locations. The toolbox includes this description:

A Gateway is a landmark, streetscape or other area that a visitor or resident first sees when entering the city, a neighborhood, a cultural district, downtown or other attractions or destinations. It can be simple or complex, small or large in scale, specific to a single site or linear in form extending over a several block area. No matter what form a gateway takes, it should be readily associated with the location it is designed to “announce”. In addition to location, the concept or theme of the gateway is critically important. The gateway concept should draw on the assets of the area being “announced” by the gateway. For example, the concept selected for an art district gateway should make it clear to a visitor that they are entering an area where the arts are featured.

Equally important is the scale or scope of the gateway. Certain gateways that are intended to serve as icons of the community as a whole may take a monumental scale. Gateways announcing neighborhoods or smaller districts are generally much more discreet in scale/scope. All Content Copyright ©2007 City of Indianapolis and Rotary Club of Indianapolis

Using the identification principles of the Indy Gateway Toolbox, potential gateway locations were reviewed as part of discussions of methods to improve the image and appearance of the corridor. Three locations emerged from stakeholder meetings as potential gateways. The Shelby Street corridor planning process confined itself to locating potential gateway locations and suggesting general themes for each location. Exhibit #20 indicates the limits of this exploration within the corridor planning process. Stakeholders had consensus that the following three locations merited further exploration using the full steps found in the toolbox.

Shelby Street and Hanna AvenueThis location was considered to be the strongest candidate for a gateway. The intersection is already contains a landscaped entrance to the campus of the University of Indianapolis. The University controls three of the four quadrants of the intersection and has indicated its desire to make long-term improvements in the appearance of these parcels. The southwest quadrant is dominated by the existing railroad track and does not lend itself to gateway enhancements. Hanna Avenue


will be reconstructed with significant improvements in the street and sidewalk infrastructure. The University will participate in this project with streetscape enhancements on Hanna Avenue through the middle of the campus. This location appears to meet the standards of a single Landmark Gateway. The location could also be considered as a Multiple Landmark Gateway if its design was integrated within the planned enhancements with the campus eastward along Hanna Avenue.

Shelby Street and Madison AvenueThis intersection has an important historical foundation that is not evident in its current condition. Potential historical references include the Madison – Indianapolis Road from the stagecoach era and the former alignment of the electric interurban train. Nearby the former Madison-Indianapolis Railroad corridor brings added historical interest to this location. These historical transportation elements could serve as a theme. This location appears to meet the definition of a Landmark Gateway.

Shelby Street and Troy AvenueTroy Avenue is the boundary between Center Township and Perry Township and marks an edge between the south Garfield Park residential neighborhood that was developed before World War II and a neighborhood that developed largely after the war. The largest and most impressive building within the Shelby Street plan area is the former Chapman Price Steel Company mill on the southwest corner. A Landmark Gateway here could draw upon the industrial heritage of the site and the variety of industrial and business operations that currently operate within this corridor.

IdentifyLocation (s)

ObtainCommunity

Support

IdentificationStep

Shelby StreetCorridor Plan

EstablishScale/Scope

SecureAdministrative

Approvals

ImplementationPhase

SecureFunding

Indy GatewaysToolkit

DevelopConcept(s)

Exhibit #20 Gateway Identification Process


Each of these locations has unique characteristics and potentials. The plan recommends that a single design theme for the entire corridor seems inappropriate and each potential gateway should be evaluated independently. Stakeholders would likely be quite different among these three potential gateways.

Wayfinding Signage The establishment of an overall “wayfinding” signage system for the corridor is recommended whether or not corridor stakeholders elect to proceed with a gateway evaluation process for the potential locations named above. Visitors to destinations within the corridor and beyond the corridor would greatly benefit from a unified directional sign system. Often called “wayfinding signs”, a system of directional signs complements standard traffic control and street signage placed by state and local transportation departments. Wayfinding signage aids visitors in vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians to destinations within a campus or district. The following destinations warrant inclusion in a wayfinding signage system:

University of IndianapolisNeighborhood churchesIndiana Bible CollegeGarfield ParkSouthside ParkSchoolsShopping DistrictsFuture transit facilitiesFuture pedestrian and bicycle pathsFountain Square

Overall Vision StatementConnect area destinations and revive community activity by creating a pedestrian-friendly, safe, mixed-use oriented corridor, which invokes a sense of place through historic preservation and beautifying enhancements


Goals Implementation ScheduleShort-term 1-3 yearsMid-term 4-7 yearsLong-term 8-15 years

Implementation responsible parties and partners

Comments

Vehicular Traffic GoalMaintain traffic capacity of existing streets while increasing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Short term Establish a communication program in the neighborhood with Department of Public Works during the Hanna Avenue construction project 2009-2010 (DPW Project # SR-39-002)

Citizens and businesses should utilize the Department of Public Works Street Closings and Traffic Restrictions notification service.

Neighborhood should work with their City County Councilors, DPW, Mayor’s Neighborhood Liaisons and Mayor’s Action Center to inform the City of infrastructure maintenance needs in the corridor.

The corridor has businesses that use delivery and service vehicle fleets.Maintenance of traffic flow is essential for their operations as well as the regular needs of local residents and the University of Indianapolis.

Mid-term Maintain an ongoing communication program on future infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects.

Long-term Maintain an ongoing communication program.

Improve stormwater drainage along Shelby Street

Short-term Identify specific locations where stormwater accumulates causing hazards to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

DPW Shelby Street has long sections without curbs and gutters or well-defined side ditches

RailroadSafety GoalEnsure a high level of community knowledge of safety around the railroad corridor.

Short-term The community should respect the potential hazards of the active railroad within the corridor and participate in safety education programs such as Operation Lifesaver.

Community, CSX Railroad and Louisville and Indiana Railroad with programs of Operation Lifesaver

Community Health Goal Improve community health through increased walking and biking

Short-term Begin health promotions using walking as a central theme

Marion County Health Department with FIT-City &Indy In Motion UIndy health education programs

Walking is a healthful and enjoyable activity for all generations. Hanna Avenue will be a more walkable and attractive corridor with street improvements.

Goals and Recommendations




Comments

Land Use and Development GoalsIncrease community collaboration in the development review process to implement connectivity objectives.

Ongoing The community should participate in development and zoning case review to support pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly measures on private development and redevelopment sites.

Support additional walkable destinations within corridor as land use plan affects in-fill and redevelopment

UINDY, Gateway Community Alliance Neighborhood associationsIndianapolis Neighborhood Resource Center

As new development and redeveloped sites are proposed in corridor, advocates can help to link public sidewalks with internal circulation systems

Stabilize residential areasFrom commercial encroachment.

Ongoing Establish better edges of commercial and residential uses on the east side of Shelby Street from Troy Avenue to National Avenue.

DMD Division of Planning,Property owners

Support infill development according to land use plan.

Ongoing Allow conversions of the remaining houses on the east side of Shelby Street within recommended commercial land use section.





Comments

Adapt existing land uses to become a more pedestrian friendly environment, especially in designatedPedestrian Corridors.

Ongoing Support the recommendations of the Indianapolis MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan on the Madison Avenue Pedestrian Corridor and the Campus Pedestrian District.Adopt and maintain land use policies that: • Create destinations

that attract people;• Builds the community

to a more of a pedestrian scale with distances short enough to walk and buildings close to the sidewalk;

• Connects destinations by a continuous, safe, convenient, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian network; and

• Adds Facilities that are safe from crime, traffic, and weather conditions.





Comments

Pedestrian and Bicycling Goals

Implement Connectivity Plan in Corridor

Short-term Investigate a “road diet” approach on Shelby Street from Hanna Avenue to Madison Avenue. Evaluate all proposed sidewalks and refine priority list with community input.

DPW with continuing community input

This segment of Shelby Street has significant pedestrian and bicycle usage but lacks sidewalks and bike lanes.

Mid-term Begin implementation of Priority One sidewalks

Long-term Begin Implementation of Priority Two and Three Sidewalks

Establish programs for a neighborhood basedSafe Walking program

Short-term Initiate a “Safe Routes to School” program with neighborhood K-8 schools, parents and community

Mid-term Conduct Walkability Surveys to give detailed list of safety, design, maintenance and traffic conflicts. Walkability Surveys should be conducted first in areas with higher pedestrian traffic

Indianapolis MPOEmma Donnen Middle SchoolCentral Catholic SchoolChristel House AcademyBrandes Elementary SchoolUniversity of IndianapolisIndiana Dept. of Transportation Indiana Safe Kids Coalition AARPNeighborhood groups

Walking to school, parks and other destinations should be encouraged but must be done with safety in mind. The Indiana Safe Kids Coalition – Walk this Way Task Force is an effective model to use. Safety around railroad crossings should also be stressed.

Long-term Continue as an annual education program




Comments

Improve maintenance of sidewalk infrastructure

Short-term Establish sidewalk maintenance priorities with community involvement. Begin pilot community sidewalk maintenance partnership projects, evaluate annually.

DPW operations, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, property owners & merchants,neighborhood associations.

Maintenance must be done as sidewalks are repaired and new sidewalks are constructed. Much of the routine maintenance must be done by abutting property owners and the community such as fallen leaves, and ice and snow.

See examples of “adopt a highway or median” programs.

Mid-term Ongoing program

Long-term Ongoing program

Increase bicycling within the corridor and through the corridor .

Short-term Initiate bicycle promotion events such as an annual bike to work day, biking to events at Garfield Park, University of Indianapolis sports and music and other community events.Conduct research with other communities that have strong bicycle programsMid-term Begin to establish bike lanes on highest priority streetsLong-term Bike lanes established on second priority streets

CIBA, Marion County Health Dept., MPO, DPW, UIndyIndiana Bicycle Coalition

Reducing automobile trips helps to reduce street congestion and air pollution. Bicycling also provides an economical alternative to driving for many short trips.




Comments

GoalsImage and MaintenanceDiscover the unique identity and visual character of the corridor.

Short-term Have a charrette to develop design guidelines. Create a branding strategy.

Local businesses, UIndy, neighborhood organizations and residents.

Strengthen the community’s sense of place.

Short-term Keep properties clean through regular maintenance.

Local businesses, neighborhood organizations and residents.

Short-term Reflect the character of the local businesses in the planning and design of banners to hang on existing or new light polls.

Local businesses, neighborhood organizations and residents.

(see photograph examples)

Short-term Adopt bus shelters and add local attractions’ advertisements to the shelters.

Local businesses, Indygo and neighborhood organizations.

This objective also relates to building transit ridership.

Short-term Add landscaping throughout the corridor.

Local businesses and neighborhood organizations.


Mid-term Add way-finding signage throughout the corridor to welcome and inform visitors to the corridor as well as to provide directions.

DPW (see photograph examples)

Mid-term Incorporate the “Road Diet” within the “residential district”.

DPW This objective also relates to Connectivity goals.

Mid-term Add street trees along corridor and preserve existing trees.

Local businesses, residents, neighborhood organizations and KIB.

Tree canopy offers many environmental as well as aesthetic benefits.

Long-term When street lighting is replaced do not use cobra head standards. Incorporate decorative lighting fixtures.

DPW




Comments

Serve as a catalyst for economic development.

Short-term Maintain the three districts by approving land use petitions that reflect each distinct district.

City of Indianapolis During the planning process three distinct districts were identified The northern area - Business and industrial district, Middle area –University district and Southern area – Residential District.

Embrace local heritage and history.

Short-term Research past or present events to discover places to install memorial markers or corridor themes.

Local businesses, neighborhood organizations UIndy and residents

Short-term Maintain and protect the historic character of the Hannah House (Hannah-Oehler-Elder House).

Owner

Incorporate public art where possible throughout the corridor.

Short-term Work with the University of Indianapolis art students to create art work to place throughout the corridor that reflect local businesses, culture and heritage.

Local businesses, business owners and UIndy



Photo #15 Example of “Adopt A Median Project”.

Photo #16 Example of banners that reflect the neighborhood.


Photo #17 Example of corridor landscaping.

Photo #18 Example of wayfinding signage. Photo #19 Example of wayfinding signage.


Photo #20 Example of public art.


AppendixEndnotes1. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission 2. *Indiana Steel Mill photographs, 1920–1940, Amy Belcher, 30 June 2005;

Manuscript and Visual Collections Department William Henry Smith Memorial Library, Indiana Historical Society 450 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202-3269

3. IndyGo is the informal name for the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IPTC), incorporated under Indiana Code (I.C.) 36-9-4.

Public Meetings

2007May 15: Kick-Off Meeting – University Heights United Methodist ChurchJune 14: Land Use – University Heights United Methodist ChurchJune 28: Image and Appearance – University Heights United Methodist ChurchJuly 12: Connectivity and Infrastructure – University Heights Baptist ChurchJuly 24: Land Use – University Heights Christian ChurchAugust 7: Image and Appearance – University Heights Christian ChurchAugust 13: Land Use and Redevelopment – Zink Distributing CompanyAugust 28: Connectivity and Infrastructure – University Heights Christian ChurchSeptember 25: Progress Report – University Heights Christian ChurchOctober 23: Image and Appearance – Schwitzer Hall, University of IndianapolisNovember 14: Vision and Goals – Esch Hall, University of Indianapolis

2008January 16: Connectivity – Pedestrian - Schwitzer Student Center, University of IndianapolisFebruary 21: Connectivity – Bike & Transit – Schwitzer Student Center, University of IndianapolisMarch 27: Progress Report – University Heights Christian ChurchOctober 16: Final Draft - UniversityHeights Christian Church


Glossary

Excerpts from the Division of Planning Owner’s Manual – 7th Editionhttp://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/9D2B53A5-151F-436F-9109-77EAEC59AFD5/0/owners_manual.pdf

Concord Community Development Corporation: A community development corporation south of downtown Indianapolis. Formed in 1993 Concord CDC has helped to improve the neighborhood environment with numerous projects including construction of new houses, renovation of existing houses, sponsoring youth programs, and othergeneral neighborhood improvements. For more information, contact Concord Neighborhood Development Corporation, 1310 S. Meridian, Indianapolis, IN 46225 or call 637-4376.

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS): A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetics, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility, CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. For more information go to www.contextsensitivesolutions.org.

Department of Public Works (DPW): A City department that plans, designs, and constructs streets and roads in Marion County and is responsible for sanitation, including trash pickup and sewage disposal. DPW is also responsible for planning infrastructure and designing sanitary and storm water systems, wastewater treatment systems, drains andlevees, and completing flood control projects. Other activities include wastewater treatment and disposal, maintenance of infrastructure, street maintenance, and the protection of City environmental resources. For more information, call 327-4000 or visit the website at www.indygov.org/egov/city/dpw.

Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD): A City department that plans and implements projects and services focused on jobs, economic development, affordable housing, and the empowerment of neighborhoods through citizen participation. For more information, call 327-3698 or visit the website at www.indygov.org/dmd.

Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc (KIBI): KIBI engages residents in beautifying the City, improving the quality of the environment and fostering pride in the community. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful is a 501c (3), private, nonprofit organization and is supported by corporations, foundations, individuals, civic groups and a professional service contract with the City of Indianapolis. KIBI has beautification programs, education and youth initiatives, litter reduction activities and recycling programs. 264-7555 or visit the website at www.kibi.org.

Land Bank: A pool of acquired and assembled land in urban areas packaged into sites suitable for redevelopment.

Landmark: An individual, physical element that serves as a reference point in locating a node or district. The Soldiers and Sailors Monument is a good example of a landmark.

Land Use Plan: A plan that recommends appropriate uses for property.

LEED: The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System™is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. For more information, visit the website visit the website at www.usgbc.org/leed.


Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO): The Department of Metropolitan Development is the designated MPO for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area. The IMPO has the responsibility, together with the state and IPTC, for the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process required of urbanized areas to qualify for federal transportation funds. For more information, contact Mike Dearing at 327-5139 or visit the MPO website at www.indygov.org/indympo.

Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC):The policy-making body of the Department of Metropolitan Development, consisting of nine appointed members who serve a one-year term. For more information, call 327-3698.

Mixed-Use: Mixed-use development is designed to encourage a variety of community activities, locales and services to co-exist in close proximity, thereby reducing the need for extensive vehicular travel.

Tax Abatement: A reduction in taxes granted to a property owner in a locally designated Economic Revitalization Area who makes improvements to real property or installs new manufacturing equipment. Used manufacturing equipment can also qualify as long as such equipment is new to the State of Indiana. Equipment not used in direct production, such as office equipment, does not qualify for abatement. Land does not qualify for abatement.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF): A method of raising additional capital within declared districts to pay for needed improvements within those districts. The districts are established by the Metropolitan Development Commission. The base of existing assessed valuation is frozen with the incremental revenues obtained by the taxes on new developmentin the TIF District then becoming available to fund improvement projects.

Traffic Impact Study (TIS): An analysis of certain new developments to determine the impact on the surrounding transportation system.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD): A compact, mixed-use development within an easy walk of a transit station. Its pedestrian-oriented design encourages residents and workers to drive their cars less and ride mass transit more. These “transit villages” are usually moderate to high density, matching the existing scale of development and can be new construction or redevelopment.

Transportation Planning Terms

Accessibility: The ability to reach a location; a way or means of approach

Capacity: The volume of vehicles the road was designed to carry in a unit of time, such as an hour; can also be applied to transit or bicycle/pedestrian paths

Mobility: The ability to move or be moved easily.

Mode: A way people or goods get from one place to another, such as using cars and trucks, freight and passenger trains, walking, bicycling, and riding buses.

Paratransit: Use of small buses or vans on flexible routes, usually serving people who cannot easily get around

State Implementation Plan (SIP): The statement of how the transportation, environmental, and health communities expect to meet federal air quality safety standards.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): The multi-year capital program of transportation


projects updated each year

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): The guiding document for all federally funded transportation planning efforts, with a twenty year horizon and updated every three years.

Traffic Calming: is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.Measures to reduce the negative effects of vehicles, and improve conditions for walking or bicycling.

Traffic Model: A traffic model is a tool for representing and analyzing the major ways people get around. Usually this tool is a software package which incorporates a road network, land use data, and a mathematical formula to distribute and route trips. The model is calibrated to existing traffic counts. Then it can be used to forecast traffic and test the effect of changes in the road network.

Travel Time: The time it takes to travel door-to-door.

Unified Work Program (UWP): The statement of transportation planning tasks to be completed for the year & the budget for them

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT): The sum of all the miles traveled by vehicles (not people) in a specified amount of time

Volume: The number of vehicles that actually pass through a given mile of road in a unit of time such as a day; can also be applied to transit or bicycle/pedestrian paths.Talking the Talk: A Guide to the Language of Transportation Planning (St. Louis, MO: East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, 2000). ftp://ftp.ewgateway.org/library/trans/talkingthetalk.pdf


Description of Recommended Land Use Categories

Residential Development greater than 0.00 and equal to or less than 1.75 units per acre. Color: Light YellowIndex Number: 1This density is consistent with rural development patterns and could also limit the impact of development on property with extreme topography or other significant environmental considerations such as floodplains, wetlands and old-growth woodlands. Additionally, this density would be conducive to agricultural and estate development.

Residential Development greater than 1.75 and equal to or less than 3.50 units per acre. Color: Dark YellowIndex Number: 2This density is consistent with single-family residential development in transitional areas between rural and suburban development patterns and is the typical density for single family residential development in suburban areas of the City. Development at this density should not take place in rural and suburban areas where surrounding development patterns exhibit characteristics suitable for higher densities (property on mass transit corridors, near concentrations of employment, or near major commercial centers, for example).

Residential Development greater than 3.50 and equal to or less than 5.00 units per acre. Color: Bright YellowIndex Number: 3This density is consistent with single-family residential development in suburban areas of the City and in transitional areas between suburban and urban patterns of development. Development at this density should not take place on mass transit corridors. Multi-family residential development is acceptable, but is unlikely considering the density ranges recommended.

Residential Development greater than 5.00 and equal to or less than 8.00 units per acre. Color: Dark OrangeIndex Number: 4In suburban and rural areas this is a common multi-family density and typically the highest density single-family category in suburban areas. In urban areas, it is common for both single-family and multi-family development. Development at this density is appropriate along bus corridors but should not take place in proximity to planned light rail transit stops.

Residential Development greater than 8.00 and equal to or less than 15.00 units per acre. Color: Light BrownIndex Number: 5This density is typically the highest density serviceable in suburban areas. In suburban areas it would typically be a multi-family (apartment or condominium) category. In urban areas, this is the highest density single-family residential category and a common multi-family category. Development at this density is appropriate for all types of mass transit corridors.

Residential Development greater than 15.00 units per acre. Color: Dark BrownIndex Number: 6This density is appropriate only within relatively intense urban areas where there is a full range of urban services and where those services have the capacity to accommodate the development. It may be appropriate in rare circumstances in suburban areas as assisted living housing and as a buffer between major retail commercial uses and lower density residential uses. Development at this density is appropriate for all types of mass transit corridors.


Village Mixed-Use Color: PeachIndex Number: 8This land use category consists of a development focused on a mixed-use core of small, neighborhood office/retailnodes, public and semi public uses, open space and light industrial development. Residential development densities vary from compact single family residential development and small-scale multi-family residential development near the “Main Street” or “Village Center” and progress to lower densities outward from this core. Village mixed use areas are intended to strengthen existing, historically rural, small towns and cities within Indianapolis, which are intended to continue as neighborhood gathering places and should allow a wide range of small businesses, housing types, and public and semi public facilities. This category should be compatible in size and scale to existing villages in Marion County. It will allow development of residential and limited commercial uses on smaller lots than in other sections of rural and suburban Indianapolis. Potential development in these areas should focus on design issues related to architecture, building size, parking, landscaping and lighting to promote a pedestrian-oriented “village” or “small town” atmosphere, rather than focusing on residential density. Strip commercial development (integrated centers setback from rights-of-way by parking areas), large-scale freestanding retail uses and heavy industrial development are generally inappropriate within this land use category. The Plan anticipates that this category will typically be designated as a critical area. The Plan also anticipates that development of property with this recommendation would result from a public input process.

Office Commercial Uses Color: PinkIndex Number: 9This land use category is for low-intensity office uses, integrated office development and compatible office-type uses. Retail uses are not promoted in this category, unless those uses are significantly subordinate to the primary office use or the retail use exclusively serves an abundance of office uses in proximity to the retail use. Office Commercial Uses can exist either as buffers between higher intensity land uses and lower intensity land uses or as major employment centers. The following uses are representative of this land use category: medical and dental facilities, education services, insurance, real estate, financial institutions, design firms, legal services, day care centers, mortuaries, and communications studios.

Community Commercial Uses Color: RedIndex Number: 10This land use category is for low-intensity retail commercial and office uses, which serve a predominantly residential market adjacent to, or very near, the location of the use. The uses in this land use category are designed to fulfill a broad range of retail, personal, professional and business services and are either freestanding or part of a small integrated center typically anchored by a grocery store. These centers contain no, or extremely limited, outdoor display of merchandise. Generally, these uses are consistent with the following characteristics: Maximum Gross Floor Area: 125,000 square feet Maximum Acreage: 25 acres Service Area Radius: 2 miles Location: On an arterial or at the intersection of an arterial with a collector. Maximum Outlots: 3

Regional Commercial Uses Color: RedIndex Number: 11This land use category is for general commercial and office type uses, which serve a market that encompasses several residential neighborhoods or communities. The uses in this land use category tend to benefit greatly from major business grouping and regional sized shopping centers; therefore, this land use category may consist of a collection of relatively large freestanding


commercial uses and integrated centers. These uses are generally characterized by indoor operations, but may have accessory outdoor operations limited to approximately 5 to 10 percent of a use’s gross floor area. Generally, these uses are consistent with the following characteristics: Maximum Gross Floor Area: 1,000,000 square feet Service Area Radius: 15 miles Location: On a primary arterial near the intersection with a secondary or primary arterial.Maximum Outlots: As needed.

Heavy Commercial Uses Color: RedIndex Number: 12This land use category is for general commercial and related office type uses. The uses in this land use category tend to exhibit characteristics that are not compatible with less intensive land uses and are predominantly devoted to exterior operations, sales and display of goods; such as automobile sales and heavy equipment sales. Location: On a primary arterial

Light Industrial Color: Light PurpleIndex Number: 13This land use category consists of industrial uses, which are conducted within enclosed structures and which may have no, or extremely limited outdoor storage requirements. Those industrial uses that require no outdoor storage can be considered appropriate buffers, provided the use does not exhibit characteristics incompatible with less intensive land uses. This category, regardless of the amount of outdoor storage, is considered an appropriate buffer between general industrial uses and less intensive land uses. Light industrial uses should create minimal impact on adjacent property.

General Industrial Color: Dark PurpleIndex Number: 14This land use category consists of industrial uses, which are intensive and are characterized by outdoor operations, significant requirements for outdoor storage, and/or intense emissions of light, odor, noise and vibration. These uses may have significant impacts that are difficult, expensive or impossible to completely eliminate or buffer from adjacent properties.

Special Use Color: GreyIndex Number: 17This land use category consists of a variety public, semi-public and private land uses that either serve a specific public purpose (such as schools, churches, libraries, neighborhood centers and public safety facilities) or are unique uses exhibiting significant impacts on adjacent property (such as the Indianapolis International Airport, Indiana State Fair, andIndianapolis Motor Speedway).

Park Color: GreenIndex Number: 15This land use category consists of public or private property designated for active and/or passive recreational amenities.


Table of Contents for Demographic Tables

Table 1 Population 1990, 2000, 2008 and 2013Table 2 Population by Single Race ClassificationTable 3 Median Age Corridor, Perry Township and Marion CountyTable 4 Population Distribution by Age for Shelby CorridorTable 5 Population Distribution by Age for Perry Township and Marion CountyTable 6 Age Distribution Estimate 2002Table 7 Household and Per Capita IncomeTable 8 Households by SizeTable 9 Average Household SizeTable10 Households by Presence of People under 18 yearsTable 11 Households by Presence of People no one under 18 yearsTable 12 Housing Units Owner and Renter OccupiedTable 13 Housing Values Owner Occupied UnitsTable 14 Median Value of Owner Occupied UnitsTable 15 Housing Units in StructureTable 16 Housing Units by Year BuiltTable 17 Transportation to WorkTable 18 Travel Time to WorkTable 19 Workforce Population Shelby CorridorTable 20 Education Attainment Estimate 2002

All tables except Table 9, 10 and 20 were prepared by Claritas Inc. Site Reports. The estimates are for the area contained within the boundaries of the Shelby Street Corridor Study Area for 1990, 2000 and 2008 and projected to 2013 found on Exhibit #1 on page #.

Table 5 is based on 2000 US Census data for Perry Township and Marion County.

Tables 6 and 20 were provided by IndySite Finder based on estimates for 2002 within 1, 2 and 3 mile radii from the point of Shelby Street and Hanna Avenue.


Population by Sex, Race and Ethnicity

Table 1 – Population 1990, 2000, 2008 and 2013

Shelby Corridor Perry Township Marion County

2013 Projection 749 93,236 871,363

2008 Estimate 791 93,186 867,592

2000 Census 907 92,838 860,454

1990 Census 892 85,060 797,159

PopulationGrowth 1990-2000 1.68% 9.1% 7.9%

Table 2 - 2000 Population by Single Race Classification

ShelbyCorridor

%

PerryTownship

%

Marion County

%White Alone 828 91.29 88,004 94.80 606,502 70.49Black or African American Alone 32 3.53 1,539 1.66 207,964 24.17American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 2 0.22 164 0.18 2,181 0.25

Asian Alone 8 0.88 1,002 1.08 12,325 1.43Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 0 0.00 29 0.03 365 0.04

Some Other Race Alone 22 2.43 1,098 1.18 16,998 1.98Two or More Races 15 1.65 999 1.08 14,119 1.64

Total 907 92,838 860,454

Population by Age

Table 3 - Median Age

Shelby Corridor2000 Census

Shelby Corridor2008 Estimate

Shelby Corridor2013 Projection

2000 CensusPerry Township

2000 CensusMarion County

34.27 36.61 37.88 35.02 33.60

Table 4 – Age Distribution in Shelby CorridorPopulation

By AgeShelby Corridor 2000 2008 Estimate 2013 projection

907 % 791 % 749 %

0-4 62 6.84 62 7.84 58 7.745-9 53 5.84 57 7.21 58 7.74

10-14 45 4.96 48 6.07 53 7.0815-17 28 3.09 21 2.65 24 3.20


Table 4 – Age Distribution in Shelby CorridorPopulation

By AgeShelby Corridor 2000 2008 Estimate 2013 projection

18-20 46 5.07 28 3.54 29 3.8721-24 80 8.82 38 4.80 26 3.4725-34 150 16.54 124 15.68 93 12.4235-44 116 12.79 114 14.41 117 15.6245-49 56 6.17 48 6.07 47 6.2850-54 39 4.30 44 5.56 42 5.6155-59 36 3.97 39 4.93 39 5.2160-64 33 3.64 29 3.67 34 4.5465-74 71 7.83 53 6.70 49 6.5475-84 67 7.39 58 7.33 51 6.81

85 and over 25 2.76 29 3.67 29 3.87

18 and over 719 79.27 602 76.11 555 74.1021 and over 673 74.20 575 72.69 527 70.3665 and over 163 17.97 139 17.57 128 17.09

Table5 – Population Distribution by Age in Perry Township and Marion CountyPerry Township Marion County

total 92,838 % 860,454 %0-4 6,488 7.0 63,640 7.45-9 6,294 6.8 63,107 7.3

10-14 6,146 6.6 60,397 7.015-19 6,739 7.3 57,565 6.720-24 7,278 7.8 62,811 7.325-34 13,422 14.5 141,612 16.535-44 14,431 15.5 141,604 16.545-54 12,149 13.1 108,922 12.755-59 4,071 4.4 35,766 4.260-64 3,498 3.8 29,426 3.465-74 6,245 6.7 50,148 5.875-84 4,536 4.9 33,873 3.9

85 and over 1.521 1.6 11,513 1.3

18 and over 70,092 75.5 638,705 74.221 and over 65,581 70.6 603,825 70.2


Table5 – Population Distribution by Age in Perry Township and Marion County62 and over 14,282 15.4 112,460 13.165 and over 12,302 13.3 95,534 11.1

65 and over male

4,701 5.1 37,177 4.3

65 and over female

7,601 8.2 58,357 6.8

Table 6 - Age Distribution - Population 2002 - Radius from Shelby Street and Hanna Avenue Source: Indy Site Finder

Age distribution

2002

One mile radius

% Two mile radius

% Three mileradius

%

0-4 979 7.2% 2,763 7.2 5,717 7.25-17 2,074 15.3 6,157 16.1 13,976 17.7

18-20 1,329 9.8 2,378 6.2 4,038 5.121-24 1,235 9.1 2,817 7.4 4,942 6.225-34 2,033 15.0 5,753 15.0 11,396 14.435-44 1,867 13.7 5,809 15.2 12,477 15.845-54 1,471 10.8 4,633 12.1 9,906 12.555-59 514 3.8 1,666 4.4 3,401 4.360-64 414 3.0 1,321 3.5 2,823 3.665-74 836 6.2 2,473 6.5 5,177 6.575-84 654 4.8 1,937 5.1 3,904 4.9

85+ 187 1.4 533 1.4 1,335 1.713,593 38,240 79,092

Households

Table 7– Household and Per Capita Income

Shelby Corridor Perry Twp. Marion County

2000 Average Household Income $42,525

$52,903 $52,505

2000 Median Household Income $29,630

$42,378 $40,421

2000 Per Capita Income $19,298 $22,005 $21,789


Table 8– Households by Size

2000 Households by Household Size

ShelbyCorridor

408

%

38,112

Perry Township%

352,164

Marion County

%

1-person household 154 37.75 11,130 29.20 111,990 31.82-person household 138 33.82 13,042 34.22 111,983 31.83-person household 56 13.73 6,118 16.05 55,398 15.74-person household 39 9.56 4,882 12.81 42,543 12.15-person household 14 3.43 2,011 5.27 19,266 5.56-person household 5 1.23 661 1.73 7,070 2.07 or more person household 3 0.74 268 0.70 3,914 1.1

Table 9 – Average Household Size Shelby Corridor

Perry Township Marion County

Average household size 2.14 2.39 2.39

Table 12- Household by Presence of People


Households with 1 or more people under 18

% % %

Married Couple Family 54 13.24 8,513 22.34 68,698 19.51Other Family, Male Householder

13 3.19 962 2.52 9,927 2.82

Other Family, Female Householder

36 8.82 2,938 7.71 37,807 10.74

Non-family, Male Householder 2 0.49 166 0.44 1,475 0.42Non-family, Female householder

0 0.00 31 0.08 420 0.12



Households with no people under 18

% % %

Married Couple Family 81 19.85 10,054 26.38 76,463 21.71Other Family, Male Householder

6 1.47 552 1.45 6,064 1.72

Other Family, Female Householder

19 4.66 1,325 3.55 14,495 4.12

Non-family, Male Householder 81 19.85 5,937 15.58 63,915 18.15




Households with no people under 18

% % %

Non-family, Female householder

115 28.19 7,607 19.96 72,900 20.70

Housing

Table 12 – 2000 Tenure of Occupied Housing Units


408 38,111 352,164

Owner Occupied 42% 62.0% 59.3%

Renter Occupied 58% 38.0% 40.7%

Table 13 - 2000 All Owner-Occupied

Housing Values

Shelby Corridor

PerryTownship

Marion County

174 % % %

Value Less than $20,000 5 2.87 411 1.74 6,412 3.07Value $20,000 - $39,999 5 2.87 307 1.30 10,819 5.18Value $40,000 - $59,999 18 10.34 798 3.38 23,294 11.15Value $60,000 - $79,999 49 28.16 2,612 11.06 32,980 15.79Value $80,000 - $99,999 60 34.48 6,092 25.79 36,635 17.53Value $100,000 - $149,999 29 16.67 9,983 42.27 62,247 29.79Value $150,000 - $199,999 5 2.87 2,279 9.56 18,494 8.85Value $200,000 - $299,999 1 0.57 813 3.44 11,050 5.29Value $300,000 - $399,999 1 0.57 137 0.58 3,268 1.56Value $400,000 - $499,999 0 0.00 113 0.48 1,469 0.70Value $500,000 - $749,999 0 0.00 59 0.25 1,295 0.62Value $750,000 - $999,999 0 0.00 0 0.00 430 0.21Value $1,000,000 or more 0 0.00 17 0.07 539 0.26

Table 14 – Median Value of Owner Occupied Housing 2000

ShelbyCorridor

Perry Township

Marion County

Median Value of All Owner Occupied Housing

$83,279 $107,968 $99,000


Table 15 – Housing Units in Structure Shelby Corridor

Perry Township

Marion County

2000 Housing Units by Units in Structure 438 %

% %

1 Unit Attached 15 3.42 4.79 7.3 1 Unit Detached 202 46.12 59.59 58.2 2 Units 14 3.20 1.17 2.7 3 to 19 Units 145 33.11 25.56 21.9 20 or more Units 7 11.6 7.34 7.7 Mobile Home or Trailer 14 3.20 1.54 2.3 Boat, RV, Van, etc 0 0.00 0.0 0.0

Table 16 – Housing by Year Built Shelby CorridorPerry Township Marion

County2000 Housing Units by Year Built 438 % % % 1999 to March 2000 7 1.60 2.0 2.0 1995 to 1998 18 4.11 6.7 6.1 1990 to 1994 16 3.65 6.6 6.5 1980 to 1989 68 15.53 12.3 13.4 1970 to 1979 63 14.38 20.9 15.7 1960 to 1969 106 24.20 22.3 16.8 1940 to 1959 105 23.97 21.7 23.8 1939 or Earlier 57 13.01 7.5 15.82000 Median Year Structure Built****1939 will appear when at least half of the housing units in this reports area were built in 1939 or earlier

1965

1969 1966

Employment, Transportation & Education

Table17 - 2000 Workers Age 16+,Transportation To Work 419

ShelbyCorridor

% 48,057

Perry Township

%

Marion County

% Drove Alone 291 69.45 40,492 84.25 80.4 Car Pooled 92 21.96 5,268 10.96 12.2 Public Transportation 3 0.72 328 0.68 2.3 Walked 16 3.82 659 1.37 1.9 Other Means 3 0.72 212 0.44 0.8 Worked at Home 13 3.10 1,098 2.28 2.5

Table 18 - 2000 Workers Age 16+

by Travel Time to Work 406

ShelbyCorridor

% 47,022

Perry Township

%

Marion County

% Less than 15 Minutes 122 30.05 12,445 26.47 106,046 25.6 15 - 29 Minutes 183 45.07 21,454 45.62 195,914 47.1 30 - 44 Minutes 60 14.78 8,706 18.52 79,413 19.2 45 - 59 Minutes 19 4.68 2,706 4.40 15,729 3.8 60 or more Minutes 21 5.17 2,448 4.99 16,872 4.1

Average travel time to work - minutes 24.24 25.49 24.62


Workforce Population

Table 19 - Workforce Population Shelby Corridor

PerryTownship

MarionCounty

Total Employment 1,314 % 41,977 % 678,729 %

Executive and Professional 351 26.7 14,376 34.2 233,005 34.3

Management 99 2,931 50,464

Sales and Marketing 178 6,069 77,071

Health-Legal-Social 23 1,700 41,634

Engineer-Science-Computer Professional 22 564 16,764

Educators 2 2,530 32,734

Journalists-Creative Professional 26 583 14,338

Administration and Support 314 23.8 9,549 22.7 192,115 28.3

Management Support 34 1,059 23,733

Admin-Clerical Support 229 7,259 137,347

Technical Support 51 1,231 31,035

Service Personnel 152 11.6 7,540 18.0 88,620 13.1

Health Care Personnel 66 822 13,431

Food and Beverage 71 4,938 47,750

Personal Services 11 1,368 16,852

Protective Services 4 412 10,587

Trade and Labor 498 37.9 10,152 24.2 164,989 24.3

Construction 68 1,871 23,181

Installation and Repair 86 3,116 44,113

Craft Production 37 604 13,604

Machine Operators 116 703 18,243

Assemblers 35 413 12,434

Transportation 88 1,729 23,721

Agriculture 13 438 6,593

Laborers 53 1,637 23,100


Table 20 - 2002 Education Attainment - Radius from Shelby Street and Hanna Avenue Source: Indy Site Finder

Radius from Shelby & Hanna

1 Mile Radius

% 2 mile Radius

% 3 Mile Radius

%

Population Age 25+

7,976 24,125 50,419

< Grade 9 771 9.7% 1,914 7.9% 3,759 7.5%Grade 9-12 2,128 26.7% 5,424 22.5% 11,758 23.3%High School 1,505 18.9% 5,214 21.6% 10,220 20.3%Some College 1,861 23.3% 6,018 24.9% 11,907 23.6%Assoc. Degree 389 4.9% 1,287 5.3% 2,665 5.3%Bach. Degree 964 12.1% 3,006 12.5% 6,769 13.4%Grad. Degree 358 4.5% 1,262 5.2% 3,341 6.6%


Photographs/ number/ source

1. Interurban train on Shelby Street, Indiana Historical Society 2. Karstedt Grocery Store, University of Indianapolis, Frederick D. Hill Archives3. University Heights Christian Church, 1922, courtesy of UHCC4. Hannah Oehler Elder House, Planning Staff5. Former Chapman Price Steel Company, 3000 Shelby, Planning Staff6. Former Chapman Price office building, Planning Staff7. Planning meeting at University Heights United Methodist Church, staff photo8. Shelby tree canopy near Markwood, Planning Staff9. Madison tree canopy, Planning Staff10. IndyGo Bus Madison, Planning staff11. IndyGo bus at Walgreens, Planning Staff12. UIndy Campus, pre 1947, UIndy Collection ibid13. UIndy Campus and neighborhood, 1954, UIndy ibid14. Louisville and Indiana Railroad crossing Shelby Street, planning staff 15. Example of “Adopt a Median Project”, Planning Staff.16. Example of banners that reflect the neighborhood, Planning Staff.17. Example corridor landscaping, Planning Staff.18. Example of wayfinding signage, Web Graphic.19. Example of wayfinding signage, Web Graphic.20. Example of public art, Planning Staff.

Shelby Street Maps

Exhibits (full page unless noted)1. Shelby Street Locator Map2. Shelby Street Historic Sites and Community Facilities Map3. Shelby Street Adopted Land Use Plans Map4. Indianapolis MPO Regional Pedestrian Plan5. Shelby Street Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map6. Shelby Street Traffic Counts Map7. Shelby Street Bus Routes Map8. Transit Corridors Map (with symbol for Shelby corridor)9. District Map10. Shelby Street Connectivity Plan Map11. Existing Land Use A12. Existing Land Use B13. Near Southside Business Districts14. Shelby Street Development Areas Map15. Shelby Street Land Use Recommendations Map A16. Shelby Street Land Use Recommendations Map B17. Shelby Street Land Use Recommendations Map C18. Shelby Street Zoning Recommendations Map A 19. Shelby Street Zoning Recommendations Map B


Credits

City of IndianapolisGregory A. Ballard, MayorPhillip Borst, City County Councilor, 200�Jeff Cardwell, City County Councilor, 2008Dane Mahern, City County CouncilorSusie Day, City County CouncilorAt-Large City County Councilors

Ed ColemanBarbara MaloneJoannne SandersKent Smith

Department of Metropolitan DevelopmentMaury Plambeck, AICP, Director

Division of PlanningMichael Peoni, AICP, AdministratorKeith Holdsworth, Principal Planner IIDennis Slaughter, AICP, Senior PlannerAlice Gatewood, PlannerPhillip Roth, AICP, Master PlannerTom Beck, Principal PlannerAndrew Swenson, Principal PlannerKevin Mayfield, Senior PlannerBob Wilch, Principal Planner II

Division of Neighborhood ServicesGary Loveless, Mayor’s Neighborhood LiaisonLori Hill, Mayor’s Neighborhood Liaison

Division of ComplianceDanny Hayes, Manager, Zoning Inspections

Department of Public WorksBob Harris, Senior Needs CoordinatorAndy Lutz, Senior Project Manager

IndyGoMichael Terry, Interim President and CEO

IndyParksAndre Denman, Principal PlannerChristina Jones, Park Planner

Meeting ParticipantsJohn Elrod, State RepresentativeJoe WilsonMarilyn SaundersLori LawsonDavid CoudenDonald DayGeorge SmithRuta ZekonisRichard HoelMary WymanDenny RusherJames PennellGreta PennellNancy CollinsScott BarnhartPhillip BorstTom BryantKenny CochoranDavid NoelDave HowardLeon HumphreyPete MorrisGail SmithBob BarnettLouise BarnettJoyce KratzMilton JohnsonSusan JohnsonJerry StewartTeresa StewartMike NealMark TimbsBill ToombsCharles LytleJudy CookJeanne ShermanMary MatzkeMark MatzkeRandall HackworthChristopher LeeDon Weber


Christina WeberDale MiddletonBetty MiddletonPat UnderwoodJeff CardwellErin BrownTom ChamberlinRich WeddleBob PriceWilliam H. JonesDavid WantzRichard CurtsRobert SandersMelissa WootenRobert RollinsonMary RollinsonMike WymanMarjorie NackenhorstDebbie NackenhorstPhillip HeilmanLinda HeilmanRobert D. WhitePat Sowders

Melvin BenderMarilyn BenderSteve WickerRuth Ann Noe Mike RogersChristine GuyonneauJack GerhardtMike BakerJessica KlipschBeth MasonKyleigh TurnerKim HarveyAndrew HalterJames CarverJosh RogersJudith CarverScott PlummerRandy WheeldonRoy KellerPat WeaverJeanette StinnettJoseph SchembraMrs. Joseph Schembra


10�

Documents

Shelby Street Corridor Plan - Amazon Web Services€¦ · Shelby Street Corridor Plan City of Indianapolis. Adopted December 3, 2008 ... Multi-Modal Corridor and Public Space Guidelines.....20