The future of a proposed parking garage in Broad Ripple is in jeopardy after a city zoning board on Tuesday denied a key
variance developers sought to build the project.
Members of the board voted 5-0 to reject the variance that would have allowed Keystone Group to build the garage and retail
development below the city’s recommended flood plain.
Though disappointed with the decision, Keystone President and CEO Ersal Ozdemir said the project could move forward without
the variance.
“We’re going to assess our options and determine what our next step is,” he said.
A decision on the variance had been long awaited both by supporters and opponents of the project. Zoning board members had
delayed a decision twice after Keystone requested more time to propose changes to
the project.
Keystone had argued a levee system along White River would provide enough protection from floods, even though the parking
garage would be built on property that lies four feet below the flood plain.
But the staff of the city’s Department of Metropolitan Development recommended that the parking garage proposal be
reworked in order to raise the first floor above the flood plain.
Keystone countered with a proposal to raise the elevation of the garage to two feet below the flood plain, which would meet
federal guidelines but not city requirements.
Zoning board members shot down that proposal on Tuesday, even though Keystone pledged further commitments to ensure the project
is protected by floods.
One of those involved raising the elevation to meet city requirements if federal regulators didn’t certify the levee’s
construction before a certain time.
But opponents of the project wondered why Keystone needed to be prodded to take the integral step.
“If they can do it later, they can do it now,” said City-County Councilor Zach Adamson, who opposed the project.
Raising the elevation of the project would require it to be built on a steeper slope, destroying the pedestrian-friendliness
of the garage and causing a loss of parking spaces, Ozdemir argued.
The $15 million, 350-space parking garage at 6280 N. College Ave. would be partially financed with $6.3 million from parking
meter revenue, which would normally flow into city coffers.
“Since city funds are being used in this project, the city should take the lead and make sure its ordinances are being
followed,” said neighborhood activist Pat Andrews.
- Home
- NEWS
- REGIONAL
- THIS WEEK'S PAPER
- BLOGS
- Multimedia
- OPINION
- A&E
- LISTS
- PEOPLE
- EVENTS
- Classifieds
- Subscribe
IBJNews
Zoning board rejects Broad Ripple parking garage proposal
Scott Olson
May 1, 2012
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
 Follow IBJ's Tweets on these topics: |
||
| @IBJNews | @Propertylines | @IBJTheScore |
| @IBJArts | @IBJHealthcare | @IBJDining |
| @IBJLists | @IBJSmallbiz | |
-
Saw the Indy Men's Chorus "Music of Gilbert & Sullivan" at the Indiana Historical Society on Sunday evening.
-
Temporary workers are not "tools" they are people and companies that keep large amounts of temp staff are cheating.
-
I miss having them around. I hope one of their stores is in the general Meridian/86th Street area. I will make good use of it.
-
The Fringe! Plus, the simple fact that there are so many local faves in such close proximity to each other.
-
I remenber, watching the toll road, being built, through South Bend, when I was 10 years old. I believe, back then that it was estimated, that the toll road, would be paid for in 20 years and then it would be free. I am now 71, what happened? Since the power is in the people, by that, I mean that, we the people are in total control of everything. I, suggest that no one ever use the toll road again, let it go broke. We the people can control the price of everything, from groceries to gas, if we would just do it. If we don't pay the asking price, the sellers will lower the price and if we wait awhile, they will lower the price to what we accept as reasonable. I would like to know why a highway like interstate 94, is so well maintained, a much better highway, than the toll road, but has no tolls. I would also like to know why, a sitting governor, with a term limit, maximum of eight years, can lease, public property, for 75 years. Even though I have transponders in both of my trucks and will not be affected by the increase, I have been and will contine to avoid using the toll road. I make many trips from northern Indiana to Chicago, every year, and I prefer the better highway, I94!
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
IBJ Conversations
21 Comments
Add Comment
Also, if in fact you are a businessman, you are a terrible one. Smart business people do not disparage their client base since they realize their clients pay for the food on their table. You cater to your clients and you respect them--that is Business 101. If you are irritated by the residents of Broad Ripple, then perhaps you should follow your own advice and move to the suburbs in search of customers with lower standards.
Also, you have completely misrepresented the position of the majority of the people opposed to this garage project. ONCE AGAIN, (I add emphasis so you might actually pay attention this time), the vast majority of the residents of Broad Ripple want a new parking garage. They just do not want one that is (1) built on a site that is too small and oddly shaped for the scope of the project, (2) poorly sited for providing the best pedestrian access for visitors to Broad Ripple, (3) paid for largely with public funds, unless the the city is going to retain a right of ownership or at least profit-sharing interest (neither of which is allowed in the current city contract with the developer, nor (4) a garage that is out-of-compliance with federal and city flood control regulations for a project built in a federally designated flood-plain. Your opinion of the flooding issue in Broad Ripple is irrelevant. Under the law, the area is a designated flood plain, and that is the final word on the issue.
The residents of Broad Ripple enjoy having a vibrant neighborhood, and they welcome and whole-heartedly support appropriate new development. They just do not support a corporate welfare scheme masquerading as a public works project. The current garage proposal amounts to the city footing the bill to pay for parking for a developer's new retail project, and the net benefit to the general public is not very substantial. There are plenty of developers who want to build in Broad Ripple without public subsidies, and you admitted that much in your own comments.
Finally, you are correct that there are a few spoiled brats in Broad Ripple, and you are one of them.
Oh, and using yesterdays flood as a argument is ridiculous since the cause was someone forgetting to open the flood gates.
You might also want to attend some neighborhood meetings or just get out of your house once in awhile. Your stupid comment about "70's hippies" seems to indicate you know very little about the people in the neighborhood or what motivates them.
Not to mention, your remark makes you come across as some sort of dinosaur. We are glad you can remember the early 1970's, but that was 40 years ago. The rest of us are living in 2012.
If you have something substantive to contribute to the debate, then by all means add your comment. However, if you can only think to dodge the issues by making silly insults against the people who live in the neighborhood, then you should find more constructive things to do with your time.
The city is not "financing" the garage. Financing means to loan money and get it paid back with interest. The city is giving the developer the over $6 million up-front, and per the contract city funds must be used before the developer chips in anything. Allegedly the $6 plus million is "prepaid rent" for 10-years for the small police substation that will be in the garage. Of course, the city has offered no evidence it could not rent the same amount of space in the general area for less, and certainly without prepaying 10 YEARS of rent.
So, yes, the city is paying a substantial portion of the garage's cost. Also, as already noted, several of the spaces in the garage will be used by the commercial tenants and their patrons, which reduces the net increase in parking spaces for Broad Ripple in general.
Anyway why are people so against a parking garage here? If BR wants to be taken seriously as a culture center competing with cities in the midwest is has to GROW. I find myself not going to several places because there is nowhere to park!
Remember the same 70's hippies that are opposing this, were all over Kilroys's in broad ripple's patio because it took away 'parking spaces.' Kilroys literally had to cut in half it's outside patio to make 3 more parking spaces. But we don't need the 350 space parking garage because somebody's Suburban might get some water up to it's bumper on the ground floor... sometime in next 100 years.
Logic is missing in this. Too many self serving altruists running around being 'community activists'
And that option would be to make a just slightly less obscene amount of money on this crooked deal. Just because they advertise it as a $15 million garage, doesn't make it so. It just makes the $6.3 million subsidy look less obscene, if they can get people to believe the $15 million figure.
Let me correct the misleading impression of this comment, which I otherwise agree with. There is absolutely nothing to indicate Keystone is paying for half of this project. The $15 million figure for the garage was made up out of thin air, undoubtedly to make it appear Keystone was putting money into it. Garages this size generally cost $6 to $7 million which matches the City's contribution. If the garage costs what it should (in the $6 to $7 million range), then Keystone may not be requiured to contribute anything to the project under the contract. That is why Keystone is fighting the additional expense relating to the flood issue. The company may have to actually contribute money to the garage's construction.
I would also point out that under the contract, which I have read twice, Keystone will have 100% ownership of the building and get 100% of the parking revenue and 100% of the revenue from commercial rents on the building. (The amount of the garage devoted to commercial was increased after it was introduced to the public.) It appears the parking is pretty much only going to be used by the commercial tenants and patrons of the garage. Given its location in Broad Ripple, very few people will park in the garage if not doing business in one of the businesses located in the new Keystone building.
Poetic Justice they killed Ballard's grafting. BR is flooding, perhaps the city should have contributed the $6 million to the Army Corp of Engineers and forced the levee issue along to benefit all the citizens in that area not just lining the pocket of a Ballard Crony.
Also, since when has a 350-car parking garage with drive-through retail that has been granted every variance in the book as far as been absolved of meeting encroachment, setback, and sidewalk width requirements, etc., ever been considered pedestrian-friendly?
The only legitimate issue is that elevating the structure will make the garage cost more money to build. However, the developer already has a sweetheart deal for the city to pick up half the cost of the project, so the only real impact is that it will somewhat lessen the fat profit margin of the developer. Too bad for them, they are still going to make a lot of money off this deal.
The smart move would be for the city to pick a more affordable (and appropriate) construction site in Broad Ripple (and the city financed parking study noted various alternatives) and then use the tax money that would have been funneled to the developer to instead build a city-owned garage. The city could still contract out the operation of the garage, if it made economic sense. Instead, the city is financing a massively over-priced project crammed onto an inappropriately sized and shaped lot, mostly for the benefit of a politically-connected private developer.
"Keystone countered with a proposal to raise the elevation of the garage to two feet below the flood plain, which would meet federal guidelines but not city requirements."
This makes the most sense to me. It would keep the first floor retail at a more pedestrian-friendly level while seemingly not impacting the federal flood insurance premiums paid by nearby homes and businesses. I understand wanting to meet city regulations, but how awkward is this design going to be if the first floor sits 4 feet above the street?