IBJNews

Disagreement about parking delays project on Meridian Street

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

A local developer’s plans to renovate a long-vacant and graffiti-covered 1915 building along Meridian Street have hit a snag over a lack of parking. Riley Area Development Corp. has proposed 24 apartment units for the three-story brick building at 1773 N. Meridian St.  

Real Estate A restoration of this long-vacant apartment building is on hold. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The city’s planning department endorsed the developer’s request for a variance to a requirement for 24 off-site parking spaces. The building is surrounded by surface parking lots and metered spaces, and several IndyGo routes travel along Meridian Street.

“Urban sites should be developed to the highest intensity possible,” the staff report notes. “To require this site to meet the required off-street parking standards would require the demolition of a portion of the building or acquisition of adjacent sites. Finally, it is a common and preferred planning method that little or no off-street parking be added to a reuse of an inner-city site.”

But neighboring property owners complained, and a hearing examiner of the Metropolitan Development Commission last month denied the plans.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • We Should Know
    Many of us live in a building that Riley has developed with a variance to off-street parking. There is a lot on the property, but it is reserved for the rich residents in the building AROUND THE CORNER, even though that property already has a parking garage attached to its own building. The refuse to rent space in either lot to us. It has been a nightmare. We have limited income and only have meters, which has cost us thousands of dollars (no exaggeration). We need our cars for trips to doctors and jobs off the bus routes. Our concerns to Riley have been fruitless. Now they want to do it to others? Pitiful. Thanks to the neighbors at this new property for bringing the concern to the Metropolitan Development Commission and to the Commission for heeding them.
  • We Should Know
    Many of us live in a building that Riley has developed with a variance to off-street parking. There is a lot on the property, but it is reserved for the rich residents in the building AROUND THE CORNER, even though that property already has a parking garage attached to its own building. The refuse to rent space in either lot to us. It has been a nightmare. We have limited income and only have meters, which has cost us thousands of dollars (no exaggeration). Our concerns to Riley have been fruitless. Now they want to do it to others? Pitiful. Thanks to the Metropolitan Development Commission.
  • We Should Know
    Many of us live in a building that Riley has developed with a variance to off-street parking. There is a lot on the property, but it is reserved for the rich residents in the building AROUND THE CORNER, even though that property already has a parking garage attached to its own building. The refuse to rent space in either lot to us. It has been a nightmare. We have limited income and only have meters, which has cost us thousands of dollars (no exaggeration). Our concerns to Riley have been fruitless. Now they want to do it to others? Pitiful. Thanks to the Metropolitan Development Commission.
  • what?
    Is this an urban core or SR37 in Fishers? Who are the "neighbors" this article refers to? This certainly isn't a single family home neighborhood that will suddenly be inundated with cars. 1. The developer is right - the cite's location reduces the need for an expansive surface lot (which would also be an ugly waste of space). 2. Even if needed by these residents, Indianapolis is not dying for want of surface lots. Densification, redeveloping blight on a major arterial, a construction project in lean time: this is the type of project I would think the city would embrace. Instead, the Economic Nondevelopment Commission is flipping the middle finger at good urban planning.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    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
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT