IBJNews

City not impressed with fixes proposed by Di Rimini developer

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

What makes a developer think he can win approval for one design and construct an entirely different building? How did no one at the city notice until the structure was almost complete? What happens now? Those are the big questions surrounding the Di Rimini apartment project at the southeast corner of Capitol Avenue and St. Clair Street.

As reported in last week’s IBJ, the city’s Department of Code Enforcement issued a stop-work order in September for the project at 733 N. Capitol Ave., and Senior City Planner Jeff York gave developer Di Rimini LLC a list of 35 points where the project built differs from the one approved.

Developer Jeff Sparks met with city planners Oct. 1 to offer proposed fixes, but York said the developer’s offer was not adequate.
 

OTB real estate The Di Rimini project at 733 N. Capitol Ave. differs from the approved plan. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“The plans we received from Mr. Sparks were less than what we were expecting,” York said. “We are continuing discussions internally to figure out next steps.”

If the developer can’t come to terms with city planners, the current approval could be voided and ultimately the fate of the project could wind up in court.

The fact the project is almost complete could play in the developer’s favor. So why didn’t the city notice sooner? Because “the property owner is ultimately responsible for performing the work they say they will,” said Kate Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Department of Code Enforcement.

In this case, the developer secured permits for a project that matched the approved plans but went ahead and built something else, Johnson said. The department doesn’t inspect properties for plan compliance unless they receive a complaint.

“The fault is the developer’s,” York added. “We don’t have the staff to double-check to see if every project is built as approved.”

ADVERTISEMENT

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