2014 Zoning and Variance Decisions

If you could afford to file a rezoning petition for your property this year, you stood an 89% chance of having it approved.  If you could afford to file a variance petition this year, you stood an 86% chance of it being approved.


REZONING PETITIONS

Of all 100 zoning petitions decided in 2014, 89 were approved, 2 denied, and 9 withdrawn (89% approved, 2% denied, and 9% withdrawn).

Most rezoning petitions are assigned to the Hearing Examiner, with some going to the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission for their first hearing.  A small number are sent directly to the Metropolitan Development Commission by the HE for their initial hearing.  Any side of a contested petition can appeal the HE's or IHPC's decision to the MDC.

The HE made 77 decisions on zoning petitions in 2014 - 68 approved, 2 denied, and 7 withdrawn - otherwise 88% approved, 3% denied, and 9% withdrawn.

The IHPC cast decisions on 11 zoning petitions in 2014 - all were approved.

The MDC held initial hearings on 7 petitions and accepted the withdrawal of 1 petition prior to hearing.  All 7 were approved.

The HE's decision was appealed to the MDC 6 times.  One was withdrawn prior to the MDC hearing it (the HE had recommended denial).  Of three petitions which the HE had recommended denial, 2 were overturned by the MDC and 1 approved.  Of two petitions which the HE had recommended approval, 1 was approved and 1 denied by the MDC.

Overall, the MDC heard testimony on 12 petitions, approving 10 (83%) and denying 2 (17%).


VARIANCE PETITIONS

Of all 323 variance petitions decided in 2014, 287 were approved, 23 denied, and 23 withdrawn (86% approved, 7 % denied, and 7% withdrawn).   Looking at only those 123 petitions not on the expedited docket, 100 were approved and 23 denied - (81% approved and 19% denied).

Most variance petitions are assigned to the Boards of Zoning Appeals, of which there are three.  If a variance request is packaged with a rezoning or other type of petition that normally would be heard by the HE/MDC, then it is assigned to the HE and not the BZA.

BZA I had 111 petitions on its dockets in 2014.  71 were on the expedited portion of the docket, meaning Staff and any neighbors or neighborhood organizations recommended approval of the petition.  These are perfunctorily approved by the Board.  Additionally, 7 were withdrawn.  Of the 43 petitions for which BZA I took testimony, 29 were approved and 14 denied - otherwise 67% approved and 33% denied.

BZA II had 70 petitions on its dockets in 2014; 43 expedited, 7 withdrawn, and 20 for which testimony was taken.  Of the latter, 15 were approved and 5 denied - or 75% approved and 25% denied.

BZA III had 100 petitions on its dockets in 2014; 73 expedited, 5 withdrawn, and 22 heard.  Of those heard, 19 were approved and 3 denied - or 86% approved and 14% denied.

The HE got 34 variances; 30 approved, 1 denied, and 3 withdrawn.

The MDC got 11 variances (7 initial hearings, 3 appealed HE decisions, and 1 withdrawn).  All 7 for initial hearing were approved by the MDC.  Two of the appeals were approved and 1 denied.


This is actually better than I expected, having expected the mid-90% approval rate.  Still and all, the variances are supposed to be granted because of a hardship on the ground that sets that parcel apart from every other identically zoned parcel in Marion County.  It is hard to believe that such a standard was actually met for the number of approvals granted.

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.

Riveting Reading - Advance Indiana Reports From Plowman Trial

If there is a prize for excellence in reporting on blogs, I want to nominate Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana for his riveting reportage on the Lincoln Plowman trial.

At this point, Welsh has a report for each of the two first days.  Day 1 ("Prosecutors Say Plowman Claimed He Controlled All Zoning Boards In Marion County")   Day 2 ("Plowman Trial Evidence Shows the Sleazy Side of Indianapolis Zoning")

I highly recommend you read them in their entirety.

As everyone knows, former City-County Councillor Lincoln Plowman is on trial for accepting money in return for helping land proper zoning for a strip club.  An undercover FBI agent was posing as the guy who wanted to open up the club.

The case is opening up a view from the inside of the Boards of Zoning Appeals and the Metropolitan Development Commission that I have never seen in the 15 or more years I have worked for my neighborhood group in zoning and variance matters.  It is the seedy side long suspected, though.

Plowman instructs the FBI agent on what is called 'board shopping'.  Variance petitions are assigned randomly to one of the three Boards of Zoning Appeals - specifically to derail board shopping.  But, you never know why a transfer to another Board is really being requested.  Here's this part of Welsh's report [note that references to "Cam" are to Cameron Clarke, who used to be a local zoning attorney, and who was recommended to the FBI agent by Plowman as a good choice for hire in the strip club matter]:

The agent worries that he's going to be spending a lot of money and wants some assurance the zoning matter will be taken care of. "Well, all the Zoning Boards are changing at the first of the year," Plowman said. "But you're going to know somebody?", the agent asked. "Oh yeah," Plowman reassured him. Plowman then said he would focus on just one of the three zoning boards and will "make sure that Cam gets it on that Board." Here's how Plowman explained it would work:

You know, for example, if--uh, there's three zoning boards. Say our friends are on board two--and, and , and your case gets assigned to board one, we need to clue Cam--now, first of all, even though we may have friends on board, zone board two, doesn't mean it'll be a sure thing. But, better. So, if he gets assigned to board one, he'll just say, you, I'm unable to make that day on board one, is there, can we go to board two?

Plowman explains to him that there are five members who sit on each board and three votes will be needed for a favorable zoning decision. "If I've got a couple of my buddies up there, or even if I don't, you know, a month, or a month or two before the--we know we're going to--you know, we'll know, there's going to be a timeline," Plowman explained. "So, a month or two before we go, I'll take one, I'll take them out to dinner, one at a time." The agent wonders if a dinner is going to do the trick. Plowman says it will help to have people testify in favor of the zoning request as well. The agent asks if Plowman's friend Jason Gaines will be able to help out. Plowman explained that Jason, who was sitting on the MDC, would likely be leaving the board at the end of the year because of how much time it consumed, even though "he likes the limelight" of serving on the MDC. The MDC would only hear the case if a re-zoning was required as opposed to a variance, in which case one of the zoning boards would hear the case Plowman explained.

Public trust is a fragile thing.  Public trust in zoning and variance matters is going to take a hit with the revelations coming out of the Plowman trial.

The Right Of Public Comment Debated At City-County Council

On Monday night the content of Proposal 210 was not the issue.  The issue was how the Councillors in charge chose to shut down public comment on it.  And this time, Democrats spoke up plainly and in numbers to challenge the ban.

Paul Ogden blogged about this episode of the Council meeting over at Ogden On Politics (see "Republican Councilors Vote to Oppose Public Comment and Open Government") yesterday.

The focal point of this whole thing was the appointment of one Richard Kraft to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  At the committee meeting, Chairwoman Janice McHenry, announced that there would be no public comment taken.  Furthermore, she cited the fact that Council rules leave the decision on whether there will or will not be any public testimony up to the discretion of the Chair (see "Public Input Sacrificed For The Convenience Of Elected Officials").  To make matters just a little bit worse, the public was also barred from obtaining a copy of Mr. Kraft's bio before the meeting started.

When Prop 210 was brought forth for full Council consideration Monday night,  Councillor Angela Mansfield moved that the Council send it back to committee for the purpose of having public comment.  Councillor McHenry reiterated that it was up to the Chair and that they did not have to take public comment.  Councillor Vernon Brown stated that taking public comment was in the interest of open and transparent government.  Mansfield's motion went to a vote and failed by a vote of 12 in support and 16 against sending Prop 210 back to committee.

Those voting yea were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver and Sanders.

Those voting nay were Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and lone Democrat Minton-McNeill.

The discussion continued to revolve around the issue of allowing public comment in committee meetings.  Councillor Brian Mahern asked if they could take public comment right there and then and Council President Ryan Vaughn noted that it had not been posted for public comment therefore they could not.

Various Republican Councillors cast aspersions on the potential public commenters and said it made it difficult to find people who would want to serve.  Various Democratic Councillors noted that the Chair should be able to control the meeting if inappropriate comments were being made, but that the public just might have something important to add to the decision making process.  I think Councillor Monroe Gray had the most succinct take on it when he said "How do you know what someone is going to say, if you don't let them speak?"

I am glad that this dialog took place in the Council chambers.  It is high time that Councillors put their heads together to find a new public process that protects the feelings of appointees, but weighs more heavily the public's right to make their opinions known.  The BZAs and the MDC make extremely impactful decisions nearly every time they meet.  Those of us who represent the interests of our neighborhoods have been reluctant to speak publicly about the reappointment of members of these bodies whose decisions or interactions with remonstrators are poor, for fear of recrimination when we appear before those individuals again.  But, that self-imposed reluctance is falling by the wayside.

For myself, I hit a wall a couple of years ago and figured that certain members of the BZA could not possibly do any more harm to my area than they were already doing.  These members actually ended up in the majority that granted a variance to a homeowner in an area with more than 5 houses per acre, allowing them to park a semi at their house.  In the course of the hearing, one of these board members actually said to me, "if we make a decision today, will you stop coming down here?".  This particular person had snotty comments to make to remonstrators all the time.  I contacted the appointing bodies of these three individuals and noted that I would appear publicly and speak against their reappointment, should that ever happen.  Since none of these three people were reappointed, I did not appear.  But, I was fed up and certainly would have.

Sticking simply to the process - there must be a way to craft an open public process that meets multiple objectives.  But, until such a process is crafted, one would hope that all of the Councillors would put far more weight on the integrity of open government, validated by open public hearings on all matters that come before the Council, including appointments to Boards and Commissions.

After much discussion on everything but Mr. Kraft, Prop 210 went to a vote.  It passed by a vote of 17 to 11.

Those voting yea was Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and Democrats B. Mahern and D. Mahern.

Those voting nay were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, Mansfield, Minton-McNeill, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders.

[edited to note that Councillor Christine Scales was not present Monday night]

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.

Public Input Sacrificed For Convenience Of Elected Officials

Last night, the Elected Councillors serving on the Metropolitan Development committee of the City-County Council, in effect, told the public that their opinions on who the Council appoints to important boards and commissions, is none of the public's business.  The particular focal point of the public gag order was the committee's discussion of the appointment of one Richard Kraft to a vacancy on the Board of Zoning Appeals 3.  The particular fall guy for the gag order was one Clarke Kahlo, who seeks to improve our community, in part, by improving the decisions of boards like the BZA.

Fellow bloggers Gary Welsh (Advance Indiana - "GOP Council Committee Refuses To Hear Public Comment") and Paul Ogden (Ogden On Politics - "Republican Councillors Refuse To Allow Public Testimony On Controversial Appointment To Zoning Board") covered this earlier.

I think Gary and Paul did a great job.  I would just have to say, that Democrat Councillors were present in the room and did not protest the gag ruling.

I know nothing of Mr. Kraft, and this blog entry is solely about public policy.

The Councillors knew two years ago, that the appointment hearings of some individuals could embarrass the appointee and those Councillors who picked them.  Democrat and Republican alike had two years to find a way for public input into these important matters.  At best they fumbled the ball that only they get to carry.  At worst they put on their best Boss Hog attitudes and told the public to take a hike, that the public's opinion meant nothing to them.

The work of the BZAs and the Metropolitan Development Commission causes good and evil to fall upon our community.  These very important panels are commonly populated by political-party-approved folks, and do not fairly represent the broad community.  At every turn the Councillors complain about how hard it is to get folks to serve.  Yet, every year the Council fails to even experiment with having just one of the three BZAs work evening hours.  This would immediately provide a whole host of individuals who would be willing to serve, but could not contemplate getting one afternoon a month off from work.  An additional bonus falling out of an evening BZA meeting is that more neighbors could come and speak their mind about petitions that will affect them.  But, working stiffs who have no flexibility cannot be a Board member under current conditions, nor are they able to often speak at hearings on zoning and variance matters that affect their quality of life and property values.  And, make no mistake, that's exactly the way some people in high places want it.

It is paramount that the Council find a way to let the public speak on the wisdom or insanity of the Council's picks to all of the boards and commissions.  You simply cannot pretend to value public input, then tell members of the public to shut up, move along, their opinions do not matter.  That applies to the Republicans who hold the majority on the Committee and the Council, and it applies to the Democrats who hold their tongues.

Councillors in attendance at last night's meeting were:
Janice McHenry (Chair), Paul Bateman, Jeff Cardwell, Jenny Cain, Brian Mahern, Dane Mahern, Jack Sandlin, and Angel Rivera.

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.

CIB Looks For Extension of Variance for Parking Lots

The Capital Improvement Board has operated parking lots on the site of the old Market Square Arena ever since that structure was torn down and replaced by the Conseco Fieldhouse a few blocks away. The lots have never been paved, contrary to City Ordinance. The CIB has been operating legally, since it has sought and received a number of consecutive extensions on a variance that allows these two lots to remain unpaved.

Well the variance ran out last Friday. A bit belatedly, the CIB has filed yet again to extend the variance until May 1, 2011. They continue to operate while 'between variances'. Not exactly legal, but code enforcement won't touch them as long as a variance has been applied for.

The petition number is 2010-MO1-002 and it is scheduled to be heard by the BZA on September 7, 2010.

City-County Council to Meet Monday Night

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council will meet this Monday evening.

One proposal up for a vote that is of note is Prop 490, 2009, which appoints Councillor Michael McQuillen to the CIB. That passed out of the Administration and Finance Committee on December 15 with a do pass recommendation - by a vote of 6-1. The public notice for that meeting included a blank in place of the name - and that is how the proposal was offered initially in committee.

Tradition has it that the President of the Council sits on the CIB as the Council's appointee. Ryan Vaughn is due to be elected the new Council President on Monday night. Listening to the Channel 16 archive (click on 'video' next to Dec. 15, 2009) of the meeting did shed light on what was going on. As explained by Councillor Vaughn, the Republican caucus met the night before to determine who they would be supporting for President, etc., of the Council for the coming year. Once that was determined, the incoming leadership put their heads together to decide who would be nominated for the CIB position. Councillor McQuillen's name was offered and it was filled into the blank by an amendment to Prop 490 at the committee meeting. He will be stepping down as Chair of the Municipal Corporations committee of the Council as well as Chair of the Council task force looking into new funding methods to bail out the CIB finances. Councillor Sanders voted 'no' on the Proposal in committee because of the way this was handled. Those voting in favor were Councillors Malone, Vaughn, Day, Pfisterer, Nytes and Lewis.

I must say that it is a positive move not to appoint Councillor Vaughn to the CIB due to his employment at Barnes & Thornburg whose clients include the Simons, who own the Pacers organization, which is in negotiations with the CIB for an additional $15 million a year of taxpayer support.

Of interest to those of us who work with zoning and variance matters is that Prop 476, 2009, reappointing Tim Ping to the MDC, comes to a vote by the full Council Monday night. Being introduced are Props 9 and 11, appointing Roberto A. Ramirez and Tasha M. Phelps, respectively, newly to the MDC. That means the two other Council appointees are not being renewed. I looked for the official list of MDC commissioners and who their appointing body is, and it has been removed from the Mayor's portion of the City's website. I do know that the Council gets 3 appointments, the Mayor 4 and the County Commissioners 2. I'll keep checking for its return and post that information at a later date.

Fortuitously, I had pulled the list of currently seated Board of Zoning Appeals members prior to that list's removal from the Mayor's site. The Council gets 2 appointments to each Board, the Mayor 2, and the MDC gets 1. To be voted on Monday are Props 477, 478, and 479, reappointing Earl Pool and Matthew Symons to BZA I and Mindy Westrick to BZA III. Also up for final vote is Prop 493, newly appointing Richard Redell to BZA II. Being introduced that night are Props 10 and 29, reappointing Alan Retherford to BZA III, and newly appointing Darryl "Troy" Bell supposedly to BZA I. Likely that is a typo since BZA I is full after Monday night's vote on Pool and Symons. I am guessing that BZA II is the intention, since that board would still have an opening. That means that currently seated Brad Klopfenstein and Larry Walker will not be reappointed by the Council to BZA II.

Of particular interest to the gun community is the introduction Monday night of Prop 13 - lucky 13 - approving the Mayor's appointment of Frank G. Straub as Director of Public Safety. This is being assigned to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee which next meets on January 13 - again, lucky 13.

Of particular interest to me is what is NOT on the agenda for Monday night. The introduction of the new fee structure for the Office of Code Enforcement is being postponed yet again.