Broad Ripple Parking Garage - $8 Million 'Value'

Cory Schouten's, IBJ reporter, latest revelations about the Broad Ripple parking garage and its new flood proofing scheme, got me looking over the permits that have been requested.  From the City's online permits feature, it appears that the flood proofing plans have been approved (FLD11-00216), the improvement location permit has been issued (ILP12-00845), and the structural permit(STR12-02419) awaits approval and issuance. (for those who know how to navigate this feature of the city's website - click here and input either the address 6280 N. College or search for the individual permits by the numbers I listed above)
What caught my eye was the "estimated value" line in the Application Information section of the structural permit.  This information would be supplied by the applicant, not the City.

$8 million dollars is the estimated value of this parking garage.  Not the oft repeated $15 million number.  And, this $8 million dollars would include the new flood proofing designs that were so onerous that the developer said it would kill the project.

The City taxpayers, through the up-front proceeds from the sale of the parking meter assets, is paying for this garage to the tune of $6.34 million.  We were told there would be 350 parking spaces and no more than 20% of the building devoted to retail and other uses.  The permit weighs in with 349 parking spaces, but the full first floor being retail (or 33% of the building) devoted to non-parking functions).  You will recall that the supposed need was for the parking spaces, not more retail.  Schouten reports that 100 of the spaces are actually required for all that retail, netting the taxpayers 249 spaces.

What to make of the $8 million "estimated value"?  Three possibilities leap to mind.  First - the taxpayers of Indy are paying $6.34 million, or the very hungry lion's share of the price for this garage/retail building.  Even if the per square foot construction costs of retail were equal to that of parking spaces (which I trust is no where near true), the cost of the parking spaces would be $5.33 million.  So, we have paid too much for what we are getting.  We have been led to believe that the costs were closer to $15 million by our City leaders, so our contribution would part of $10 million in costs for the two floors of parking.

Could the developer be so bad with money that he would spend $15 million and only create $8 million in value?  Possibly.

The last thought is that this $8 million value just might be what gets into the database for assessed values for property tax purposes.

I don't know what the costs truly are.  I have outstanding open records requests for just that information from the City.  But, the Ballard administration's self-proclaimed transparency is still not evident in its divulgence of public documents through City Legal.

Until further information is provided by the City, we are left with at least three possibilities - the taxpayers are paying more than their share of the building - the developer is very bad with money - or the true value of the new garage is deliberately being low balled.

Broad Ripple Parking Garage Denied Variance From Flood Control Ordinance Requirements

On Tuesday the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied the request of the developer of the Broad Ripple parking garage to obtain a variance from the flood control ordinance.  As if to emphasize the wisdom of that decision, the skies opened up and the streets of Broad Ripple flooded about an hour after the vote was taken. Many thanks to Board members, Joanna Taft, Darrell Morton,  Marilyn Halbrook, Mary Clark, and Melissa Coxey for their votes.

This was one of the most unusual variances that I have ever been involved with; not due to the actual variance petition, but some of the unusual goings-on around it.

For those who were not following it, a few entities banded together more than a year ago now, to submit a proposal for a 350 car garage with retail on the first floor.  The winning bidders, the Keystone Group, created an LLC for this specific project and called it 6280 LLC, after the address of the parcel, 6280 N. College.  The City is kicking in $6.34 million from the sale of the parking meters.  I, among others, have tried to get the entire agreement from the City, but no one that I know of has yet been successful.  The total, unverified by public documents, cost of the garage is said to be $12 - $15 million -- depending upon the source of the number.

Last fall the developer filed a number of variances to allow the building to hang over the sidewalks, etc., because the lot had always been too small for the project.  Among that bevy of variance requests was a request for relief from the flood control ordinance.  That particular request, however, was withdrawn with the statement that they would flood proof the building.

For whatever reason, they refiled that request in February, asking that they be allowed to build 4 feet below the required flood protection elevation and to also be allowed not to flood proof the building - which is the allowed alternative if you don't want to elevate a new building that lies within the 100 year flood plain.  According to the City's floodplain management webpages, 18% of Indianapolis is in flood prone areas.  Information we got from the Department of Code Enforcement, was that over 28,000 parcels are eligible for flood insurance.

The problem with granting variances from the flood control ordinance is that the City risks higher premiums from the National Flood Insurance Program, or to be tossed from that program entirely -- leaving property owners who depend upon flood insurance not so high and not so dry.

But, the 6280, LLC, folks were selling the idea that the incomplete floodwall being built nearby, would protect their property and so it was okay.  They claimed that if they were required to follow the City's ordinance, then the building would have to have a smaller footprint and they could not put in as much retail - making it impossible to cover costs.  Also, the cost of building up or floodproofing was not contained in the final agreement with the City, and this additional cost would kill the project.

Long story short - by the end of the hearing they said they could afford to floodproof if the City got in trouble with the National Flood Insurance Program/ FEMA for granting the variance.  So the idea that they could not afford to abide by the ordinance was proven false by their own statements.

I handled the remonstrance on behalf of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations and Clarke Kahlo for the Merdian Kessler Neighbors Helping Neighbors.  We got able and stalwart support from Councillor Zach Adamson, who is proving to be one of those great Councillors who truly care about what is right for Indianapolis and its residents.  He took time from his schedule each of the three times that the petition was scheduled to be heard to come and testify.  Also showing up to one of the scheduled hearing dates, but unable to make it on Tuesday, was Councillor Pam Hickman, who sent a letter in to the Board that was helpful.  Many thanks to Adamson and Hickman.

Now, on to the odd part of this variance - again not the petition itself but the odd stuff around it.

Thankfully, the team who oversees the floodplain management, spearheaded by Donna Price at DCE, and the current planning staff, led by Larry Calloway for this petition, came out in opposition to the variance, primarily because it could put Indy's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program in jeopardy of higher premiums or being kicked out of the program entirely.

Just about an hour before the first scheduled time for hearing this petition, we got word that the petitioners would be asking for a one week continuance and transfer to Board 3.  It seems they hadn't noticed Staff was recommending denial until the Thursday before the Easter weekend and wanted to do some wagon circling. We did challenge that request saying that some might mistake the request for board shopping (trying to get on the docket of a particular BZA board that could be construed as 'friendly').   The continuance and transfer were granted by a vote of 3 - 2.  Subsequently, two of the Board 2 members felt the need to recuse themselves from hearing the petition.

Less than two hours before the 2nd scheduled hearing, we got word that the petitioners were amending their petition from 4 feet below what is required by the City's ordinance to 2 feet below.  They were stating that this met FEMA's standards.  We could not verify their claims with the information we had at hand and so we asked for a continuance so we could have time to look into this new claim.  Our request was granted and the petition was continued for two weeks and transferred to Board 1.

During that time we tried to arrange meetings with Donna Price and Larry Calloway.  Our requests were pushed aside by their respective bosses with excuses of 'it would take too much time' and 'we are not available', respectively.  In all the years I've been doing this, I have never been told that I could not meet with staff of DCE or DMD.  Finally, we got special dispensation to meet half an hour prior to the 3rd scheduled hearing.

Frankly, if the motivation for blocking us from our requested meetings was to keep our presentation to the Board as uninformed as possible, it failed miserably.  Because we could not get up to speed by consulting with the City's in-house experts, we resorted to plowing head first into FEMA's website.  This website has a ton of information.  Not only that, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to express floodplain issues in common English without a bunch of unintelligible jargon.  So, we got better prepared, I do believe, by being forced to learn this stuff from the Internet.

Nonetheless, all of this was odd and unusual - and I hope not to see such maneuverings again.

Ultimately, the Board voted 5 - 0 to deny the variance request.  The flooding in Broad Ripple that very afternoon will hopefully reinforce the thought among BZA members that the flood plain ordinance serves a larger purpose than smply making building in a floodplain more difficult.  And to add more to the string of serendipity and coincidence, Tuesday was also the two year anniversary of the Meridian Kessler Neighbors Helping Neighbors organization - this successful remonstrance is one of their bigger achievements and a very nice anniversary gift, indeed.

I suspect that the parking garage will be built; that the developer just hoped to get out of the cost to comply with the flood control ordinance.  And for myself, the 5 - 0 vote renews my faith that the system is capable of considering the point of view of the public and making decisions that are in the best interest of the community as a whole.

Developer of Broad Ripple Parking Garage Wants Variance From Flood Ordinance

The Broad Ripple parking garage has been covered extensively on this blog, and others (see "Speaking of Boondoggles - The BR Garage is Back for Another Variance" for the last update here -- "Ballard Administration Pulls Bait and Switch On Broad Ripple Garage" by Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana -- and "Broad Ripple Deserves Better Representation Than The Broad Ripple Village Association" by Paul Ogden at Ogden on Politics).

As noted in February, the Developer is back with a request for a Variance from the Flood Control Ordinance.  The hearing is now scheduled for tomorrow before the Board of Zoning Appeals II.  Since December, I have received more information from many sources that fill in a lot of blanks.

The short version is that the Developer, an offshoot of the Keystone Group, wants to save a few bucks by building 2 feet below the base flood elevation and 4 feet below the elevation required by the Ordinance - saying that someday the floodwall in this area will be completed and at THAT time, they will be one foot above the flood elevation.  They, of course, would still be 1 foot below the building elevation required at THAT time as well.  Keystone goes so far as to claim that if it does not get this Variance, that it will not be economically feasible to build the garage.

“The redevelopment could not occur without relief from the requirement that the base floor elevation be at least two (2) feet above the base flood elevation due to excessive costs in meeting such requirement.”

Sounds like somebody, including the City, did not do it's due diligence when scouting for and accepting this as the best location for additional parking in Broad Ripple.

There are a few problems with allowing this variance.

The Flood Control Ordinance was put in place to keep Indy in the FEMA Flood Insurance Program in the first place.  The Feds are the only ones who back flood insurance.  And they ask, reasonably so, that any new building in flood prone areas, be built a safe distance above the 'base flood elevation', which is determined from the 100 year flood elevation data.  This protects the building and protects the integrity of the insurance program that covers so many existing buildings.  It is reasonable to have these protections in place.

So what if the Broad Ripple parking garage floods?  Well, the City's $6.34 million 'investment' in the building gets flushed down the toilet.  The IMPD substation could have damage to its equipment. The retail portion of the ground floor would be the developer's problem.

More importantly, though, the very existence of the Variance can push FEMA to once again slap Indianapolis with higher flood insurance premiums, or worse, exclude us entirely from the program.  This falls on the shoulders of homeowners and other building owners throughout the County that rely on flood insurance to protect their investment.

The single focus that has been evident on building a garage at this location should not be extended to the point where other people within our City could suffer financial costs and losses.  That is exactly what granting this Variance would do.

Happily, the City Staff is recommending denial of this Variance and the City's Department of Code Enforcement has sent a letter also requesting denial of the Variance as it could put our participation in the FEMA Flood Insurance Program in real danger.

Hopefully, the BZA will deny this request tomorrow.

Speaking of Boondoggles - The BR Garage Is Back For Another Variance

After saying they would floodproof the proposed Broad Ripple Parking Garage and withdrawing that variance request last year, the Keystone Group via its 6280 LLC, is reactivating the request.  (see  "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Somebody Forgot To Which End of the Horse You Attach the Cart", and "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Farce Extraordinaire" for all the gory details)

If you thought a parking garage on this site was illconcieved before, you are going to love this variance request.

The flood control ordinance requires buildings be elevated above the 100 year flood level.  Seems responsible.  In addition, by having these requirements, the federal government will not blacklist Indianapolis residents when it comes time to pay off on flood insurance.

The ordinance would have the proposed Broad Ripple parking garage built at 723 feet altitude, 2 feet above the base flood elevation of 721 feet.  The variance asks that they be able to build the garage at 719.2 feet.  Their rational is that the long debated and disputed levee along Central Canal will someday lower the base flood elevation to 718.  They postulate that if they build the garage at 719 feet, it would be above the future flood elevation, not by 2 feet mind you, but above some future mark.

Nonetheless, they are woefully below not only the building elevation currently required, but below the current flood elevation.  Below is a topographical map of the parcel that I got from the City's website (I created the parcel outline and enhanced the topo contours elevation notations).

As you can see, the entire site is below the flood level.  The high point of 720 feet elevation, still one foot below the flood elevation, is about the center of the property.  The petitioners claim that they will have exit holes for the garage portion of the building.  But, most of the first floor is not parking, it is retail, a police substation, and space for a drive through bank.  The petitioner has not addressed these uses and how avoiding floodproofing them will be beneficial.

Again with this project, anyone seeking common sense will be disappointed.  The garage should never have been approved for this location.  The building will not even fit on the lot, and will actually extend into the public right of way.  Now, despite their earlier assurances, the petitioner is trying to avoid floodproofing the building and avoid complying with a very sound ordinance meant to protect taxpayers from having to pay off on avoidable flood damage.  They stand logic on its head by saying that SOMEDAY a levee will lower the flood level, and THEN their garage will only be one foot below the required elevation.

This project is the very definition of insanity.

[edited to add: this petition is being fast tracked.  Petition 2012-DV2-006 is slated to be heared by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 13.  If it does move forward that day, there will have to be a waiver of the 23 day notification requirement by the BZA, as well.]

Support Evaporating For Broad Ripple Parking Garage Variances

Last evening the Land Use Committee of the Broad Ripple Village Association voted unanimously to 'not support' the variance requests for the proposed Broad Ripple parking garage.  As you know, the garage is proposed for the corner of North College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard; the development of which is to get $6.35 million from the City as part of its acquisition, demolition, and construction costs (see "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Farce Extraordinaire" and "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Somebody Forgot To Which End of the Horse You Attach the Cart" on this blog and Ogden On Politics' "The Tale of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage: Taxpayers Pay to Build the Facility While the Developer Gets 100% of the Ownership and Revenue" for the highlights and more links).

The requested variances, if granted, would allow the building to avoid the setbacks required by City Ordinance and reach up to the City's right of way (which would basically be the sidewalk), allow smaller than required parking spaces, and allow a bank drive through without required maneuvering space.  The developer has also requested a vacation of the City's air rights and subterranean rights above and below the sidewalk so that the building facade can extend beyond the owner's parcel.

Particular sticking points for the BRVA group are the setback variance request for Westfield Boulevard and the proposed drive through for the bank tenant of the garage, among other disappointments that members of the committee have had with the overall project.

The BRVA Land Use Committee joins remonstrance by the Meridian Kessler Neighbors Helping Neighbors, and neighboring veterinarian, Dr. Brunner, of the Broad Ripple Animal Clinic that abuts the garage property.  The Board of Zoning Appeals will consider the variance petition this Tuesday, December 13.  The Plat Committee of the Metropolitan Development Commission will consider the vacation request at its January 11 meeting, the original hearing being continued by the Meridian Kessler group.

Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Farce Extraordinaire

Its like we all went through the Looking Glass with Alice the day the City opted for the Keystone Group's proposal to build a garage on the corner of N. College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard in Broad Ripple.

I reported previously (see "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Somebody Forgot To Which End of the Horse You Attach the Cart") about the fact that after the deal was inked down, Keystone Group, now going by 6280, LLC, for this project, filed for a number of variances.  Turns out the project as proposed and as accepted by the City, will not fit on the property without A) a variance for zero foot setback from the right of way (35 foot setback on College and 40 foot setback on Westfield required) and B) a variance to shrink the size of each parking space.  At what point does the Ballard administration admit that this project is too large for this site?

Well, as absurd as things were up to the point of filing for the variances, an alert reader gave us a heads up that things were actually even more absurd than we thought.  The folks at 6280, LLC, have also filed to extend into the City's right of way - meaning, they cannot fit in the space they actually own and must spill over and under the sidewalk.  The technical request is to 'vacate' the right of way from 17 feet up in the air to 62 feet up in the air on the three sides of the building, and to 'vacate' the right of way from 1 foot below ground to 8 feet below ground all the way around the building.

The 'ribbon of light' facade, it turns out, can't fit on the building if the entire building is actually required to fit on the lot.  Rather, the property is so inappropriate for the project, that the ribbon must be allowed to hang over the sidewalk and the alley if it is to be a part of the plan at all.  The developer says that the underground vacation is required for structural support, but that makes no sense.

How much more information does the Administration require as proof that this project is not on the right site?  The garage costs twice as much as comparable projects (even those cited by the developer in their own proposal), it is proposed for a location rejected in a 2007 study of Broad Ripple's parking needs, the building can't fit on the property without being granted a variance, and even then, the building is too small to fit 350 regulation size parking spaces in it without further variance, AND EVEN THEN the facade will not fit on the building without hanging over the sidewalk.

When does it become apparent that the project does not fit on the property?  It is all too absurd, even for government work.

I fully expect another round of variance requests should the pending matters be granted.  The 'ribbon of light' is proposed to serve as an advertising beacon.  That, of course, is not allowed by our ordinances. 

The Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled to consider the filed variance requests on December 13 and the Plat Committee of the Metropolitan Development Commission is scheduled to consider the vacation of air and subterranean rights of way on December 14.  Maybe these bodies will bring sensible resolution to this farce by denying the petitions presented to them.

Latest Tid-Bits About Broad Ripple Parking Garage

There are a few tid-bits that have accumulated recently, regarding the proposed Broad Ripple parking garage.  The simplest thing is to list them in one blog entry just to expedite getting the information out.

1) Old Marathon Gas Station site sold -  A sales disclosure form is available on the State's DLGF website that shows the Marathon Gas Station site at 6280 N. College Avenue was sold to 6280, LLC, on August 29, 2011, for $1.8 million.  Compare this price to the assessed value of $999,800.  Marathon made out great in this deal.  It always helps to have the government tossing money into a project like this.  Free money leads to price inflation.

I could find no sales disclosure form for the old Marcos Pizza parcel at 6286 N. College.  It appears to remain owned by 6286, LLC.  Who is behind that LLC is a mystery, except that the bills are sent c/o Todd Morris.  Morris is listed as the Parking Manager for Newport Parking - one of the players in Keystone Group, LLC, who submitted the winning proposal for the garage.

2) Significant site plan changes have been made - When the developer and City officials met with the Broad Ripple Village Association months ago, they pitched the garage using a specific site plan.  They promised at the time, to return for approval of any significant changes to that site plan.  Well, a new site plan was submitted as part of the new Variance request.  This new plan is significantly different, yet no imput on the changes has been sought from the BRVA or other neighborhood groups representing residents in the area.

Here is the first site plan floated to the BRVA:



Here is the current site plan:

You can see that, among configuration changes to the retail space and it's access, the retail parking spaces have been eliminated as designated spaces.  There are 10 new spaces in the southwest corner that appear to be outside of the garage itself.  The 18 spaces shown to the south are actually associated with the Broad Ripple Animal Clinic, and not with the garage itself.

The owner and Veterinarian Dr. David Brunner has been critical of the garage in public meetings.  He cited a study by his attorney, Steve Mears, which concludes that parking garages on non-rectangular lots have a typical price of $15,000 per space.  This garage weighs in at a hefty $27,000 per space.  Hmmm... 

3) Traffic Impact Study under way - The City is undertaking a traffic impact study for the Westfield / College intersection, with a particular interest in alternative configurations that might optimize pedestrian safety.  One possibility thrown out there is that the City is contemplating increasing the width of the sidewalk on the east side of the proposed garage, and a concomitant decrease in lane width of the vehicle lanes on College Avenue.  More on this particular point once I get a copy of a vacation petition that an alert reader of this blog mentioned in the comments section of my last entry.

The City has already stated that it will cover all expenses related to street improvements around the garage site.  It now sounds like significant changes to the streetscape are being envisioned.  To what cost, we do not know.  That puts into further doubt the statement that this garage proposal was the best submitted.  The need to at least consider revamping the streetscape just adds to the fact that the garage as proposed does not legally fit on the lot, cannot accommodate any more than 305 spaces, and cannot adequately accommodate a bank drive-through teller lane without variances.  (see my last blog entry "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Someone Forgot To Which End Of The Horse The Cart Is Attached")

That's it for today.  Expect more to come on this 'not-ready-for-prime-time' garage (with apologies to Saturday Night Live).



Broad Ripple Parking Garage - Someone Forgot To Which End Of The Horse You Attach The Cart

The saga of the Broad Ripple Garage continues, and does so in unerringly the wrong order.

For background you can read my earlier posts on the garage (see "Tidbits on the Broad Ripple Parking Garage", "Are Taxpayer Dollars Being Flagrantly Misused?", "BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation", "Broad Ripple Parking Garage - More BZA Decisions Noted - Running Total 320", "More News About Broad Ripple Parking Garage Deal - Sheesh!", and "BZA Decisions Impact Our Community In Tangible Ways - Parking In Broad Ripple".

For the latest news, that the agreement between the City and the Keystone Group has been inked down and contains some aspects that run counter to comments by both Council President Ryan Vaughn and Mayor Greg Ballard, see Paul Ogden's "The Tale of the Broad Ripple Parking Garage: Taxpayers to Pay to Build the Facility While Developer Gets 100% of the Ownership and Revenue".

This blog entry is about the fact that the developer has filed a variance asking for a few things that might make you wonder why these things are coming up AFTER the proposal was submitted and accepted and even AFTER the deal was inked down.

The hearing date is now set for 1 pm, November 15, in the public assembly room of the City-County Building.
Yes, petition 2011-DV2-021 asks for a few variances.
1) they want permission to build retail space and parking space at or below flood level without the required structural flood proofing for the building
2) they want permission to build the building 40 feet closer to Westfield Blvd and 35 feet closer to College Ave than allowed by ordinance
3) they want permission to reduce the size of the parking spaces themselves from 10 by 18 feet down to 8.75 by 18 feet (meaning they can only legally fit 305 spaces and not the promised 350 spaces if the variance is denied)
4) they want permission to locate a drive-through lane for a bank that will block parking spaces set aside for the bank, with that lane too short by about 6 car lengths as well.

So, you say the ground floor risks getting flooded?  And you say you can't fit the required building size on the lot legally?  And you are telling us that you really could only fit 305 spaces in the building you proposed in the winning proposal - not the promised 350?

And yet the City of Indianapolis said you had the best, most responsive proposal?  And furthermore, even after knowing you would need all of these variances just to squeeze, tuck, and constrict the spaces onto a lot obviously inadequate for the purpose, the City of Indianapolis still went through with the deal and signed the contract?

Wow !  Keystone Group (now going by 6280, LLC, for this project)  must have some fan-tas-tic salesmanship talents !

Here's the problem with granting these variances.  There will be tight turns in the basically triangular building that inebriated patrons of nearby bars will be trying to navigate after their night on the town.  If anyone could use a full size parking space to get in and out of, it surely are these patrons.  Then, because the lot is really a baaad choice, customers of the garage will be coming and going across congested streets to get in and out of the garage in their cars, and then crossing busy congested streets to get to and from the bars.  That sounds like a recipe for problems.

If rational thought is to prevail, the requested variances must be denied.  That will send the deal back to ground zero where it belongs and where some sanity can be regained by the City to kill this deal off.

BZA Decisions Impact Our Community In Tangible Ways - Parking In Broad Ripple

You know, we have zoning development standards for a reason - to make our City a well functioning, attractive, and structurally safe place to live and work.  Unfortunately for our City, the Boards of Zoning Appeals give out variances at head spinning percentages.  A study of variance petitions passing through the BZAs during 2009 demonstrated that of 245 variance petitions filed, 223 were approved - for a numbing 91% approval rate.  If you have the money for the filing fee, you are pretty much assured of getting your variance.

But, the community loses in this race to the bottom.  If a law needs to be changed, then change it so that everyone is abiding by the same laws. This onslaught of poor decisions on variances year after year causes an erosion in our zoning laws, creates havoc in enforcing them, and throws out all efforts a reasoned planning for a great City.

As regular readers of my blog know, I have been looking into just how many required parking spaces have been waived by the decisions of the Boards of Zoning Appeals (see "BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation", and, "Broad Ripple Parking - More BZA Decisions Noted - Running Total 320")  Today I will report the latest tally of parking space variances granted for Broad Ripple going back to 1979.

Before I wade into the methods and results, I want to specifically thank Heather Stephan of Current Planning, who pulled several dozen documents for me in record time.  I also need to acknowledge that the entire linkage between BZA decisions and any perception of parking insufficiency in Broad Ripple came from BR resident and community activist, Clarke Kahlo.

I searched the City's Accela website for variances filed for any property within the area bounded by 62nd to the south, 64th to the north, N. College to the west, and N. Winthrop to the east.  As I noted in a previous blog, I could turn up no results of any kind for Broad Ripple Ave, likely due to its two-word name.  As luck would have it, there is a current variance being requested at 829 Broad Ripple.  Melanie Mullens, Senior Planner for Current Planning, had gathered a list of previous variances filed in the area, as part of her usual due diligence.  I obtained further variances from her list.

Using this master list, I requested a copy of the letter of 'Grant of Variance' for all those I had indication were actually approved.  From this letter I hoped to gather the number of parking spaces approved and the number required by ordinance.  The number waived would be determined by simply subtracting the number approved by the variance from the number required under the ordinance.

I found 41 variances filed asking for a waiver of the required number of parking places since 1979.  One was withdrawn, two were dismissed (which usually happens due to prolonged lack of interest of the petitioner), and 38 were approved.  None were denied.

Location of Variances found in the Broad Ripple area



The letter of Grant of Variance did not include the number of spaces required for 9 variances granted between 1979 and 1994, but did indicate a waiver of some number was approved.  So, the number of waived parking spaces I could obtain is merely a minimum.

That left 29 variances granted for 22 addresses since 1987.  I assumed that when there were two variances for the same address, the latest one reflected the totals for that address.

The 22 variances granted a waiver of a grand total of (drumroll, please) 646 parking spaces in this area of Broad Ripple.

646

646 parking spaces waived in a couple block area of a busy night spot.  These variances brought the number of parking spaces required by ordinance, which totaled 912 for these addresses, and waived 71% of them.   Instead of 912 spaces, the variances said it was okay to provide only 266.

I can hear them now : "Don't need no stinkin' parking in Broad Ripple !!!  Of course you can have your waiver, good sir !!!"

Clearly, the decisions of the BZAs have led to whatever need there might be for parking in Broad Ripple.  The residents have suffered the consequences every weekend late night for some time.  Now, the taxpayers are suffering the consequences.

Broad Ripple Parking - More BZA Decisions Noted - Running Total 320

I am still compiling the list of Variances granted by the Boards of Zoning Appeals for reduced parking in the Broad Ripple area.  As shown already in my recent blog post "BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation", these grants of Variance account for more than the supposed shortage on Friday and Saturday nights after 11 pm.

Well, you can add another 4 Variances that contributed another 94 spaces to the shortage.  This brings the running total up to 320.  We are getting close to the capacity of the proposed parking garage, for which the taxpayers would contribute $6.35 million.

#	Street	Case #	App'd	Req'd	Diff
831	Broad Ripple	87-CV-5	39	101	62
810-844	Broad Ripple	2003-DV3-018			6
854	Broad Ripple	99-V1-93	0	17	17
830	Broad Ripple	90-V1-43	2	11	9
		TOTAL			94

There are another 23 Variances that mention reduced parking in their summary, but complete information as to how many that amounts to is lacking.  I will be getting more information about these and others.  Stay tuned.

BZA Decisions Contributed Mightily To Broad Ripple Parking Situation

The decisions of the Boards of Zoning Appeals have contributed significantly to any shortage of parking spaces in Broad Ripple.

A cursory look at variances granted by the BZA for Broad Ripple addresses demonstrates at least 226 spaces written off.  A 2007 study concluded that a particular 6 block area of Broad Ripple had a deficit of 132 parking spaces at 11 pm on weekends (adequate at all other times) and projected to have a deficit of 180 parking spaces at 11 pm on weekends in the future.

The idea for linkage between BZA decisions to reduce the required number of parking spaces and any perception of need for Broad Ripple parking spots came from Broad Ripple resident and neighborhood activist, Clarke Kahlo.

My first stop was to the City's GIS mapping function.  Below is a display of variances granted in the Broad Ripple area.  These variances are for any number of requests, not just to reduce the number of required parking spaces.

To begin an examination of the BZA/BR parking correlation, I plugged a set of street addresses into the City's "Citizen's Portal".  I searched for variances for 515-927 Westfield, 700-1000 Broad Ripple, and 6200-6400 for N. College, Guilford, Carrollton, and Winthrop Avenues.  I could get no information about Broad Ripple Avenue variances; the two word name is likely the problem as the City's GIS map shows multiple variances on that street segment.  The reports generated included brief descriptions of the variances requested.  While many of the descriptions included a reference to reduced parking, I report below only those that gave both the number requested/approved and the number required by ordinance.

#	Street	Case #	App'd	Req'd	Diff
811	Westfield	2002-DV1-061	15	61	46
916	Westfield	2002-HOV-008	18	30	12
815	Westfield	2005-DV1-011	17	62	45
823	Westfield	2006-DV1-017	17	32	15
927	Westfield	2010-DV1-040	4	98	94
6332	Guilford	2006-DV1-029	0	12	12
6360	Guilford	2006-DV3-054	5	7	2
		TOTAL	76	302	226

It will take more time to follow up on all of the variances reported for these streets and to get the information for Broad Ripple Avenue.  But, clearly, the data are sufficient to conclude that had the BZA's be more strict and denied variances for parking spaces in this area, there would be no perceived need for a new parking garage and no need for a $6.35 million taxpayer subsidy.