Ameriplex development OK'd after 'soap opera' meeting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Travelers using Indianapolis International Airport will soon have another parking option.

Over objections from Mayor Greg Ballard, the Indianapolis Airport Authority and Indy Park Ride & Fly, the city’s Metropolitan Development Commission on Wednesday approved an amendment to a land-use map that will allow Chavez Properties to develop a 31-acre, 3,700-spot parking lot at 8550 Stansted Road in the Ameriplex development on the city’s west side.

Manuel Chavez, the Cincinnati-based company’s president, said work on the development will begin soon with 2,000 covered spots available later this year.

Airport officials are fearful the new parking facility could have a negative impact on their parking operation—which is a primary revenue source—and lead to a diminished number of flights coming in and out of Indiana’s busiest airport.

City-County Councilman Robert Lutz, a Republican who represents District 13, compared the three-hour-plus hour hearing to a “soap opera.”

“You’ve got it all here; money, politics and conflict,” Lutz said. “I don’t come down here often to speak for or against projects, but I do come down when there’s a public-policy issue at stake.”

He warned against governmental and quasi-governmental agencies unnecessarily interfering with and competing against private business developments, adding that the Airport Authority’s opposition to this project was “dead wrong.”

Lutz supported the change allowing the parking-lot development, and the MDC agreed, voting 6-2 in favor of allowing the development after an emotionally charged meeting that included the testimony from lawyers on both sides, a representative of Mayor Ballard, three city-county councilors and several area residents.

More than 75 residents on both sides of the debate attended the meeting at the City County Building. MDC members Tim Ping and Diana Hamilton voted against allowing the parking lot, but exited the meeting without citing reasons for their votes.

Representatives of the new development submitted a petition signed by 130 project supporters, many of which they said were from neighboring residents. Opponents for the project submitted a petition with 88 signatures.

“This is not a sweeping change,” said Murray Clark, an Indianapolis attorney representing Chavez Properties, which does business as Fast Park and Relax.

About one-third of the area was zoned in 1995 in a way that allowed for a parking lot or other commercial development, while two-thirds of the parcel was zoned light industrial.

“This proposed development is of the highest quality,” Murray said. “We think it’s completely consistent with other developments within Ameriplex.”

The only major opposition, Murray said, came from two entities that feared they would suffer financially. He said business competition should not be a zoning issue.

Indianapolis International Airport officials said there’s good reason for protecting the airport’s parking operation.

The airport’s parking lots and garage bring in more than $40 million annually, constituting one of the airport’s biggest revenue streams. The money is needed to cover $200 million in annual debt service, explained Bob Duncan, an attorney representing the Indianapolis Airport Authority.

If that revenue stream declines, Duncan said, airport officials might be forced to raise fees to airlines that use the facility. And that, in turn, could cause the cost of local air travel to increase for passengers and/or cause airlines using the facility to consider reducing the number of daily flights coming and going from the airport.

Daily average occupancy for the airport’s 18,000-space parking space operation is about 60 percent, airport officials told the DMC on Wednesday.

Duncan also argued that the proposed parking lot wasn’t consistent with the blueprint for Ameriplex and wouldn’t create as many jobs called for by the area’s development plan.

Officials for Fast Park and Relax said they would employ 45 full-time staffers initially, including a general manager, two assistant general managers, dispatchers, shuttle drivers, cashiers, maintenance personnel and a mechanic. That number would grow, company officials said, in about seven years as its business matures and the lot is expanded on the site.

Officials for the Indianapolis Airport Authority and Indy Park Ride & Fly in Plainfield argued that the new parking lot would lead to traffic congestion and noise in the area while over-saturating the parking market in the area.

Ballard sided with the airport authority, but Deputy Mayor Michael Huber said it was not an attempt to stifle competition.

“We agree that competition is good,” Huber said. “We think competition is healthy, but we would suggest off-airport parking be put somewhere outside Ameriplex.

Huber added that “there are too many outstanding questions on this project for the mayor to support,” and said the mayor would like to see the site used for a more commercial or light industrial use.

Three City-County Councilors, including Democrat Zach Adamson, spoke in favor of the project.

“I think this development will lead to other economic development for the city and in Decatur Township,” said Adamson, an at-large councilor. “They’re asking for no tax abatements, it’s a green development and I think this goes well with other developments in the area.”

Adamson also chastised airport officials for their opposition.

“I’m concerned about the Airport Authority trying to quash the development of a private business,” Adamson said.

In the end, the Metropolitan Development Commission sided against the mayor and Airport Authority.

“In review of the proposal we thought the development was perfectly appropriate,” said David Hittle, a senior planner of the Division of Metropolitan Development.

“It’s consistent with other developments in that area and with the development plan there,” added Hittle, a city staffer who recommended the MDC approve the parking lot.




  • Playoffs!?
  • Revenue, Revenue??
    There would not be any revenue to share with a train from the airport - plenty of costs, but no revenue.
  • An easy solution
    There is an easy solution to stop this unneeded parking lot. Reduce the airport parking rates by two dollars per day. IND's rates are among the highest in the country, yet I pay them as I fly several times per month. While the revenue will take a short term hit, in the long run the lower rates will make the new lot not quite the good investment the owner expects. And regarding the light rail between downtown and the airport...this is a sorely needed mode and route. It solves our city's issue with the horrid taxi service, demonstrates our progressive nature and, frankly, just makes good sense for the nation's 12 largest city. It's embarrassing, as an Indy promoter, to visit other, smaller, cities and use their well-thought out and traveled public transportation.
  • straight face
    If it was Duncan who said it, he's got years of experience telling westside residents what the airport wanted them to hear---with a straight face. As for Ping's opposition vote, he's the Mayor's guy (just like Ms. Ping is on Liquor Board) and not likely to jump ship which is ironic as he was BRIEFLY on the McANA Board--with Dr. Andrews --supposedly on neighbor's side.
  • Huh?
    "Airport officials are fearful the new parking facility could have a negative impact on their parking operation—which is a primary revenue source—and lead to a diminished number of flights coming in and out of Indiana’s busiest airport."

    Parking is a 'primary' source of revenue?

    Competition for parking (not only that, MORE parking) would "diminish the number of flights"?

    And they said that with a straight face?
    • Mayors Executive Authority
      Time to put a rail line between the Airport and a downtown Multimodal transportation hub.

      The airport and IndyGo could share the revenue.

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      Subscribe to IBJ