Residents and developers press Muncie Redevelopment Commission on McKinley parcel transfers and design standards

Public commenters and local developers pressed the Muncie Redevelopment Commission on March 19 for clarity about recent property transfers in the McKinley neighborhood, asking whether the city and commission would enforce design standards, whether site plans would be required, and how the developer was selected.

Jonathan Chambliss, co-owner of Crew Construction, said he and other local developers had been required to provide design and implementation plans before purchasing parcels in prior projects and asked why the lots reported in news accounts appeared to be transferring without the same requirements. "When we approached the MRC... the townhomes on McKinley ... we had to provide some type of design... before the parcels that we bought were even sold to us," Chambliss said, and he asked how the recent transfers were being handled and what purchase agreements were in place.

Bill Lett, with Elm Street Brewing, urged the city to plan Columbus Street lots so houses face Columbus to match the large road investment, saying the three lots on Columbus "should be thought through a little bit better" because the orientation of homes matters for the investment in the road.

Phil Tevis said the community needs clarity on whether the transfers are complete and whether a recently discussed city ordinance that reduces lot lines to 25 feet will apply to the new parcels; he asked whether developers will have to submit a site plan that shows structure orientation.

Staff and commissioners responded that the properties had been deeded to East Central Indiana (ECI), the holding company. Jeff Howe said agreements include design standards as part of the arrangement and that milestones and timelines exist to ensure progress: "those things have been discussed from the very beginning... there are milestones that have to be hit, timelines that have to be hit, so they get done," Howe said. He also stated New Eckert approached the mayor months earlier and "was the only one that offered to build something and build something now." Commissioners asked whether properties were publicly listed or whether an RFP/RFQ was issued; staff said no RFP/RFQ was issued and that the properties had been for sale for years.

The exchange left community members seeking documentary clarification from the mayor's office and from staff about the transfer status, the developer agreement terms and whether site plans and the new lot-line ordinance will govern the upcoming development. No formal action or vote on the transfers or on a change to review process was recorded at the meeting.