Buffalo Wild Wings has responded to the city's beef with its Washington Street façade
by submitting a new plan showing the exact design it already constructed. The city asked the developers of the restaurant
at Washington and Meridian streets for a redesign after they failed to submit plans as required by city code. BW3 franchise
owner Pete Watson met with city planning officials in early August to discuss the restaurant’s unapproved facade and promised
to have his architect submit proposed changes, even as workers continued with the installation of signs and awnings. The work
has not stopped, and apparently BW3 has no plans to cooperate with the city. "I specifically asked them not to (submit the
same plan) very early on and have already called them asking them to try again," Senior Planner Jeff York said in an e-mail.
He called the submission, which still includes restrooms against the front facade and a yellow exterior, "completely unacceptable."
(Photo/Circle and Squares)
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
Welcome to Property Lines, Indy's source for neighborhood real estate news. Your host is Scott Olson, IBJ's real estate beat
reporter. Edited by Cory Schouten.
Buffalo Wild Wings has responded to the city's beef with its Washington Street façade
by submitting a new plan showing the exact design it already constructed. The city asked the developers of the restaurant
at Washington and Meridian streets for a redesign after they failed to submit plans as required by city code. BW3 franchise
owner Pete Watson met with city planning officials in early August to discuss the restaurant’s unapproved facade and promised
to have his architect submit proposed changes, even as workers continued with the installation of signs and awnings. The work
has not stopped, and apparently BW3 has no plans to cooperate with the city. "I specifically asked them not to (submit the
same plan) very early on and have already called them asking them to try again," Senior Planner Jeff York said in an e-mail.
He called the submission, which still includes restrooms against the front facade and a yellow exterior, "completely unacceptable."
(Photo/Circle and Squares)
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
-
So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.
-
Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?
-
So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.
-
Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.
-
RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
122 Comments
Add Comment
This would reflect poorly on the permit-holder's character and could be used against him in a future hearing by a remonstrator in a liquor permit approval.
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is never a good idea.
features dull architecture. At least the yellow isn't dull. If you had a business
wouldn't you want it to stand out from everything else. Not getting the
proper permits is another matter.
Blahblah,
That kind of attitude of something is better than nothing is what creates tragic eyesores. Not all of the buildings on the northside are abandoned or eyesores. DD and the Brazilian Restaurant are exceptions. The rest are waiting for development. And with a building like BW3 across the street, they may be waiting a while.
Sorry, using the 1.5 blocks from the jail thing does not work. Mortons Steakhouse and Fogo de Chao are high end restaurants that are closer and still do well. Tell Watson, unless you are him, that they need to admit they screwed up and submit good plans.
FYI, the City is in the middle of a $2 billion+ redo of the sewers as approved by the EPA. Although maybe they should withold the BW3 sewer permit until they are done with the sewers in 10 years. I would hate for a new restaurant to overload the sewers.
I will try to check my attitude. I thought I had expressed an opinion. I don't think the site is an eye sore. I agree someone screwed up with the planners, but I doubt it was Watson (especially since he has an architect) and other businesses to run.
If the City is hoping for an expensive A+ facade, I doubt that's realistic with a wings and beer joint. Morton's by the way is nothing more than a door to a basement, propped up by the Simons. Foga is lucky to be located in the Broadbent Companies' flagship and was lured here by George Broadbent. Totally different circumstances than a small business owner taking a risk on a blighted street that has been waiting for development for more than 30 years.
I don't think anyone is asking for a A+ design, I think most would have been happy with something more in keeping with the building. Go back to the storefront facade that was historically there. Much cheaper, much nicer and it does not look like a yellow Friday's on crack.
And yes I am a man and yes I have lived in Indy all my life.
If you go to a restaruant and see the outside does not look appealing, would you go in and eat or question it?
Judge Schmales
I've noticed you respond almost immediately after every negative comment. Do you spend your entire day tirelessly monitoring this site in defense of BW3? Or is it your job? If the latter is true I suggest you change your name to BW3 spokesperson.
Thanks for the name change suggestion though.
I pointed out that not all the buildings on the northside are abandoned and that development is coming back through there. I pointed out that bad development is worse than no development. I pointed out that there are many restaurants opening and thriving as close if not closer than your restaurant. I pointed out that Watson or his proxies really screwed the pooch in not only failing to obtain the permits, but continued to work after they had been told to stop. I pointed out that Watson still turned in the exact same plans even after the City told him not to. I pointed out that it does not take A+ design, just good design.
How is that? Simple answer to all of this is Watson tried to sneak a bad design that the company uses in the burbs. He got caught. Instead of admitting he screwed up, he continued to work. When pushed to submit new plans he submitted the same ones. Now he is hoping the city does not have the cajones to force him to redo it. Here is hoping that they do make him rip it out and redo it. This sets a bad precedent.
Blah should be quiet. He seems to take this too seriously and takes some comments out of context like the reference to trash (it is clear the intended meaning was the restuarant is trash. However it is telling of Blah's allegiances that he takes the trash comment personally).
Maybe you missed the earlier story while you were flying around.
Turns out the developers won approval for a sign package with awnings but didn’t submit any facade changes, as required by city code.
Looks like more than awnings and signs have been changed on this building. If Watson has CA's for the facade change, then we have a story. I am sure if he has those approvals he would submit copies to Cory to defend himself.
I disagree that the development is bad so I didn't dodge that one.
I agreed that someone screwed up with the planners. I disagree with your conclusion that Watson did it intentionally. I disagree with your speculation about Watson's hopes. Apparently you can read his mind. I agree that he is responsible for whatever mistakes his architect made. I doubt an architect would plow forward intentionally in this Big Small Town knowing that he'll have to work with planners for the rest of his career.
I disagree that friggin BW3s is a precedent setter.
That might explain alot of what is going on here.
:)
Let's pretend for a second that the city did approve a plan that they didn't mean to... why would the owner re-submit plans? By submitting plans, he's already indicating that his first set didn't cover everything.
Forget whether you like the design or not. Forget the properties across the street. Neither contribute to this one fact: the owner screwed up. Even if it was his architect that screwed up, that's no excuse for the owner to not get approval. It's his hired gun; it's his problem.
They didn't get approval. Period.
We should continue to band together to drive out any businessman that tries to improve this city.
Hopefully, we can keep our historic and abandoned downtown facade, so that we can reduce the chance of our having to mingle with the peasants posing as consumers.
I am guessing that this owner is actually one of those sneaky businessmen that has invested a bunch of money into a previously vacant location, just to spite downtown in hopes that they will shut him down, just so he can delay having to add to the city's tax revenue. What a brilliant plan.
As I said, we the elite, need to continue banding together, so we might one day walk arm in arm, sipping our wine in our own little abandoned city.
If calling me a BW3 spokesperson gets me some free beer and wings - count me in....
:)
“Turns out the developers won approval for a sign package with awnings but didn’t submit any facade changes, as required by city code.â€
Why was the package approved when facade changes were required for approval? The application monitor should have pointed it out then and there, if indeed facade changes are required. It should have been called out as an incomplete application prior to approval. Why was it approved without that? At bexst, there is egg on the face of the City for not pointing this out at this time instead of waiting for the applicant to put time, money and labor into building something against code. The applicant here is an applicant, and if told by those enforcing codes that work proposed meets code, an applicant proceeds to begin the proposed work. I am convinced, the more I study this (which has been too long, anyway), that the City let this happen and the City let it progress this far.
:)
If this is in a historic district, then full development and all elements thereof are approved in one petition and the instrument of that approval is called a Certificate of Apprpriateness. The permits that come as a result are approved based on that certificate rather than local zoning ordinance(s) or local building code(s) that will apply to any other sites not in a historic district.
I refuse to believe that Watson did or is responsible for anything malicious or is even doing any type of nose-thumbing here. He received his approval and began work. If I were judge and jury of building code court, my decision would rest IN watson's favor.
And I will frequent the B-Dubs (yes, I spelled it this way) downtown, once it opens, as much as possible to contribute to its business... and so that it will stay open and continue to make people like Indyman and others on this blog upset. Get over it people... there are bigger issues in this city, than worrying what the color of a chain restaurant is or where it's bathroom is located in the place.
Can we please get some more urban, edgy, whatever and stop fighting to be so boring!!!?
Is there someone else we should be addressing communication to, someone who needs convincing of what a slap in the face this project is? Who ultimately will decide whether this facade gets to stay or not?
Because I don't want to clog up Jeff's inbox with a bunch of crap, any more than he wants to face a bunch of angry emails when he's trying to deal with this particularly crappy proposal.
You refuse to believe that Watson would.... I would hope you are right, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I have to say it does not look good for him. Again, if he has approvals, send them to IBJ to post in his defense. He is taking a beating for someone who claims to have followed the rules.
Ivo, you're right; sometimes these rules defeat themselves by favoring blight over than an improvement that may miss the rulebook by a hair.
Get off your high stuck up horses and let the city and a local businessman resolve this matter.
My interest in expanding multiple locations with 50+ jobs into downtown will now be reconsidered if I have to deal with this crap. Your arrogant and closed minded interference is costly to our cities redevelopment and economy.
When the Super Bowl comes, maybe the NFL will ask your approval for their logo design, what if it's yellow and encroaches on the architectual purity of the little rock you crawl under called home. Go spark one off on your coffee table architectual magazine.
(from Zoning Code, Sec. 735-600. Establishment of official zoning map; establishment of Regional Center and North Meridian Street Corridor; additional standards and requirements for use and development.)
All uses of land located within the Regional Center and the North Meridian Street Corridor of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, shall be subject to the Metropolitan Development Commission's approval as included within a required site and development plan approved as hereinafter provided…
No new use, building, improvement, or structure shall be established after the effective date of this article until the proposed use, site and development plan have been filed with and approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission….
All new uses and changes to existing uses shall file a request for approval of the proposed changes. Upon the filing of such approval request, the Administrator of the Division of Planning of the Department of Metropolitan Development, on behalf of the Metropolitan Development Commission, shall consider and either approve,
disprove, or approve subject to any conditions, amendments, commitments or covenants by the petitioner, the proposed use, site and development plan.
Code goes on to specify exactly what is required in the plan filing. You can read it yourself at: http://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/85E8B853-4EFC-403A-8602-1020B95EAFAA/0/ch735otherdistricts.pdf
All the BW3 owner has to do is show us all his Regional Center approval, signed by the Administrator (who is Jeff York's boss).
Otherwise, all he has to do is tear it all off and start over from plan submission.
Plenty of other small-business owners have come into downtown and played by the rules. Why should this guy get a pass?
And as someone previously said, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of that garish yellow!
Wait, I have an idea, I'll just say that I hate the color of the building... and throw a big enough fit, so that the city planners will feel inclined to listen to me... and my elitist friends and I can save room for what we hope someday will be a far-too-expensive establishment so that we can get away from the common people in downtown... even though we already live in our over-priced homes in Geist or Zionsville that shield us from the common people.
I just can't have a wings and beer establishment back where I work in downtown... that would just be ludicrous!
The project was submitted for approval, and waiting for approval. It got the approval, with the City asking for no further details about the construction or facade(and the City has plenty of prior knowledge of the BW3 corporate look). Construction was allowed to proceed until near completion before someone from at most two blocks away noticed Wow, that's yellow just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER BW3 IN THE COUNTRY. What a surprise! Call the architect-wannabes out to portray Mr. Watson as a monster and usurper of civil order! Because his architect doesn't understand the city code apparently. Great, remember that the next time you build your shed to close to the property line and your HOA sends you a letter. You are an evil man!
The truth is, though this design is not the best, it is what the PROPERTY OWNER(you know, the guy that holds the RIGHTS to the property) and the LESSEE agreed upon. And the city approved the project to boot. They were already forced to seek APPROVAL to build something in their OWN property. And now they get hounded for over a month by elitists who think that their design criteria is the moral compass that every person in the city should follow? That would seem to imply government control over private property, and there is a name for that - it is socialism. Ownership has no meaning without control, and if you have to ask permission to do something on your own property, you don't own it.
The proper course of action for the deriders of this project is to prove a real, verifiable nuisance caused by this building. I suggest you will find none, as a facade color is not a nuisance, and neither are misplaced bathrooms. And neither is a clash of architectural styles. YOU do not own the building, and neither does the city. The property owner does, and he has done what he has assessed is best for his financial interests, and those interests are more likely in key with reality than political whim.
Think about it.
6. One (1) set of elevations of any proposed structure indicating type of materials and colors; if signs are
proposed, sign elevations and sign location must be provided. Plans must be legible, and drawn to scale.
However, this faces Washington street and so it should match the other storefronts along Washington street.
No Da Hooey, you do not own the city. You do not own downtown. You are not God. Get over yourself and comprehend reality.
No facade changes were submitted, therefore no city approval.
What has happened is clearly illegal.
Anyone who defends it seeks to undermine the authority of our government and erode the (albeit imperfect) system of checks and balances that have been developed to protect the investments each of us make in Indianapolis.
End of story.
god doesn't own Indy, and I am not God so get over it. Residents comprise the city. They elect leaders, they lobby for change, enforcement and the application of law. Their taxes pay for it too.
So yes, I do own the city, as does everyone else here. Without its citizens, the city does not exist.
I agree with Cory - cut the personal attacks people. If you're into that kind of thing I'm sure you can get your fill at the Indy Star. Can't we agree to disagree? Can't we have intelligent discussions without insulting each other? I assume we all must be educated to some degree or have more than a passing interesting in commercial real estate, or we wouldn't be reading this blog.
I would be absolutely against it. Again, it does not fit into the character of the area. If Tiffany's were going to pull out because of it, so be it. There is a mall next door that they could go into just like BW3 can if they do not like the rules set by the City.
If they didn't have the proper approvals to make that change I would absolutely be against it. We are a society of laws and codes that must be followed. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed but until that time it must be followed.
Da Hooey, I lived in Indy once before, but I never felt the entitlement of owning the city. The only sense I had was that I was part of the city. Whatever happened in downtown, I can either appreciate it or ignore it and move on. In your case, you must not have any idea how to appreciate something. I didn't like Black Expo events going on around downtown, but did I go on a rant and rave and cry about it? No, I stayed in and waited til it was over, I knew it was an economical boost for downtown. In BW-3s case, apparently no other restaurant wanted to open up shop in this particular location, but BW-3s did. It looks to me that Watson had a brilliant idea, to open a restaurant there that would lure more foot traffic more east of the Marketplace District. Then in time, if successful, more businesses could see the opportunity of opening up shop in that direction.
No Da Hooey, you do not own the city. When did I say God owned the city? I think you need to think about the things you will say before actually typing them out, because you have put yourself way off base so far.
The project violated city rules. The city has reacted accordingly.
Hot Air:
Dustin - the guy who used to complain about almost everything that was ever offered up for the in IBJ Property Blogs and is now trying to position himself as the advocate of the downtrodden. You win the Mike and Mike JUST SHUT UP award for the day.
Look around downtown, see how useful they have been. Are we actually supposed to believe that Hooters (bright orange), Dunkin' Donuts (a range of pastels), Steak 'n' Shake (dirty white), and John's Liquors (purple) are all part of the plan? Or how about the scantily clad coeds who parade around like strippers in front of Have a Nice Day Cafe and Six each weekend?
There are too many empty, dilapidated retail spaces downtown for us to waste time complaining about BW3. At least they'll bring business. Yellow isn't going to hurt you.
I say we disband the IHPC and whatever other commissions and committees are wasting our tax dollars. Selective enforcement is worse than having no regulations at all. If they had real jobs, they'd all be fired.
Personally do I lilke this design? No. I think it is a bit jarring. But, there are some far more jarring buildings in downtown (on a much larger scale) than this small store front. If this building were right around the corner(the wholesale district) it would fit right in. I mean is it any worse than Have a Nice Day Cafe? No. Addtionally, if that area was created to promote growth downtown, then guess what, it did. It just happen to go
around the corner. I few people seem to be very sincere about their feelings when I pose the question about Tiffany's but, I still stand behind my quess. If this were a business with that type of name it would have been rubber stamped by the city and people would be all starry eyed and few would have anything to say.
But again, I will end with if he broke the law and rules then, yes, he has to do something.
I have seen them butcher too many neighborhoods in the name of growth by allowing fast food chains to land a restaurants right in the middle of it. Then guess what a few years down the road there is a neghborhood with a blighted, abandoned Hardee's siting right in the middle of it.
As for owning the city I am pretty sure that it is not meant literally but more theoretically. The government has power because we the people have collectively and willfully given it that power. Therefore we have some kind of vested stake in it that some chose to call ownership for lack of a better word.
They are letting a company build a 3 story building next to the second tallest building in the city. That's worse than Houston that bascially has no zone rules. Wow! wel like I said there is something to be said for visual interest.
Gary I loved your comment about the three story building next to the second tallest building, you couldn't have said anything better. I just know that the majority of the people in this blog who are shooting us down are going to realize that sooner or later, they have been blowing nothing but farts out of their mouths.
berwickguy, your lovely thoughts will go into my diary tonight. You are such a role model for many, keep up the great work.
I actually don't see that anyone is attacking or putting my opinion down and frankly it wouldn't matter if they did. Opinions are like you know....everyone has one.
IndyIndie,
It is true we haven't seen anything of the McGowan HQ project yet. But, it is not to hard to figure out that a 19,000 sq. building or a 190,000 sq foot building (I think that is what I read) is going to be designed to have anything close to the proper scale it needs to sit next to a building like One America Sqaure. Just my opinion. Sometimes building nothing at all is better than building just anything.
I too applaud the people at McGowan for making a commitment to downtown. I really do hope for the best here.
I had no intention of arguing with you about it. That was not my intent and hope I didn't come across that way.
The point I was trying to make was about how inconsistent some of the decisions coming out of city planning are. At times they make no sense at all. Merrill Tower is a perfect example of that. ( I have no invested interest in that property)
I must admit that I am married to a lawyer that deals in this area all the time and I do have a somewhat jaded view of how some of these decisions are made...that is all I will say on that subject.
I am also a lawyer and know that sometimes we (lawyers generally) can really manipulate outcomes of city (really any governmental level) bodies, officials, etc. Sometimes it probably leads inequitable outcomes. This is really what we get paid to do often (as you probably know).
As for Merrill Tower, can you refresh my memory about what the city did there that you are referring to. I think there were some issues about vacating an alley or something right? On a different note, did that project die b/c of the city or b/c of financing issues?
But, the rationale that it was out of scale made no sense. It was, and should be welcomed, and actually needed to but some kind of scale in place next to the 35 story LOS. It actually would have be a good infill (on the large size) between LOS, Lilly and the now darwfed downtown.
I will look back on the details of this project and get back to you. I need to run for now.
I am having a little trouble finding some of the article about Merrill Tower. I certainly am not going to pay the Star to acces their archive.
Maybe Cory could give us an update.
Like I said before, yes the alley was an issue, but the scale issue the city objected to made no sense at all.
The project is not dead that I am aware of.