Politics
Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 3
This is a continuation of my thoughts on the 7/19/22 Plan Commission Meeting. You can find the previous posts here and here. This one is more of a whiny rant, so if you’re not up to hearing me complain, it would be best to skip this post!
I own the property at 412 Lake Shore Drive. It is a postage stamp size parcel with a 100 year old kit home on it. The lot would be unbuildable by current standards. According to the Accessor, the lot is 38′ x 120′. There is an alley down one side which makes it a corner lot. 38′ minus 10′ Side Yard Setback, minus 25′ ROW Setback leaves 3′ buildable without some extreme variances. The home also sits well into the 25′ front setback.
Do you know how our lives are divided into pre-pandemic and post-pandemic now? Sometime pre-pandemic (2020), the adjacent property owner at 404 Lake Shore Drive built a fence on the property line. Before I even noticed it, then Plan Commission member, Marty Oosterbaan, pointed out that it was not built per standards. Chapter 6, Section 070, B.1. – Within the limits of a required front yard setback area, no fence shall exceed 5 feet in height and shall have a minimum of 50% of its surface open to permit visibility. The fence as constructed extends into the front yard setback area, thus in that area it is too high and does not provide 50% visibility. The Plan Commission directed Chuck DeWitt, then Building Inspector, to pursue a remedy.
Multiple things happened: 1) Covid and the associated lack of public meetings for the Plan Commission; 2) Mr. DeWitt left his position as Marshall County Building Inspector and took a job as Building Commissioner for Culver; 3) The property changed ownership; 4) Ginny Munroe replaced Jonathan Leist at Culver Town Manager; 5) Marty Oosterbaan stepped down from the Plan Commission (and there were other member changes as well.) Throughout this, I continued to bring this up to the Plan Commission every month or so. At one point, I even drafted a letter for their use citing the violations. When the property was on the market, the Plan Commission directed Mr. DeWitt to let the realtor know about the violation in hopes that it would get corrected as part of a sale. While there was an open building permit on the property, the Plan Commission requested that the Marshall County Building Department not provide a Certificate of Occupancy until the violation was corrected.
At the meeting on the 19th, a status report on this issue was requested by the Plan Commission President. Mr. DeWitt reported that he had inquired about this with the Town’s Attorney handling Plan Commission matters and was told there was no grounds for enforcing this issue. This was a shock to me as well as some of the commissioners!
And here’s the Rant… I’m not the guy that comes in and raises a stink at meetings. I have a lot of respect for volunteers and what they do for the community. I don’t call them out or try and embarrass them in public meetings. But this is part of a string of promises from the Town, that I have waited patiently on, that have not borne results. This happened with Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and most recently the READI Grant applications. I have trusted in the process and been disappointed again and again. While I don’t volunteer with the expectation of returns, it’s frustrating to lose property value and business opportunities to others who have contributed little or nothing to the community. I’ve always been optimistic, but pragmatic. My optimism is waning lately… and my pragmatism is transitioning to cynicism…
A Good summary on Green
Often I cruise YouTube when I’m eating lunch at my desk. The other day I found an interesting video from Belinda Carr titled The Hypocrisy of Being GREEN.
As I’ve discussed here before, I strive to sell Green that Saves Green, i.e. I’ll sell you a green option if it saves you money, not just greenwashing. I could very much identify with her comments towards the end about things that are added to projects to get green points on a score sheet that are actually wasteful and don’t advance any value to the building. If you’ve got 10 minutes to take a look, I think it’s worth listening to her explanations. She has some good points.
Happy Constitution Day!
Happy Constitution Day! Congress created Constitution Day in 2004 and chose September 17 as the day to celebrate it based on that being the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Check out this link for an article in the Imprimis titled “Reviving a Constitutional Congress” with Christopher Demuth, Sr.‘s take on where our nation has gotten off track with concern to the Constitution and what steps can be taking to put us back on the right path.
From the article’s first paragraph, “Our Constitution is often treated as a reliquary, worthy of reverence but no longer of much practical use. Yet the Constitution reflects, in many deep and subtle ways, the character of the people who established it and have lived and prospered under it for centuries. This is particularly true of its structural features of federalism and separated powers, which vindicate Americans’ democratic nature, our distrust of power, and our taste for open competition.”
Please take a moment today to remember the 39 brave men who signed that document in 1787. Their courage and commitment should be celebrated.
Interesting Take at the Plan Commission
I attended the Culver Plan Commission with a client Tuesday night. I was a little surprised to be called out in front of my client regarding another project, but so these things go.
Some Background: Last month I appeared for the Secondary Plan Review for the PUD (Planned Unit Development) needed for construction of The Paddocks. The project is one of the signature pieces in Culver’s Stellar Strategic Investment Plan and had been before the Plan Commission multiple times. It passed with one dissenting vote. I wondered about that vote, but never questioned it. It was their right to vote against the project. If they had expressed their objections before the vote, I could have provided a rebuttal to their objections, but after the vote it was a moot point.
Tuesday, that commissioner chose to elaborate on their no vote. To paraphrase, their objection was that all ordinances should be treated equal and since the Town had adopted a Complete Streets ordinance, and The Paddocks had agreed to provide a trail connection through The Paddocks property, the developer should have been required to exhaust all options to continue the trail through the adjacent property. The Developer should also be held to a higher standard due to the Tax Abatement awarded to The Paddocks.
A few things bothered me about that, but again, it was water under the bridge so I did not attempt to address it at that meeting. This is my venue to vent though, so here are my thoughts:
- I was disappointed that this was brought up after the fact when I was there with a client for another project. I thought that was inappropriate as it put me in an undeserved negative light when the project I was there for had nothing to do with The Paddocks.
- Complete Streets aside, this has not been a standard applied in the past. The last PUD developer was asked to provide trail access and as with The Paddocks, they provided access up to their property line. The adjacent property owner was not amenable to a trail through their property, so that was left to be addressed in the future… similar to what was done with The Paddocks. In that case, that development was not even required to provide the future Right-of-Way that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan because adjacent property owners were not supportive. The Paddocks PUD was required to dedicate additional Right-of-Way that wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the current project. The Town will be setting a high bar to hurdle if they choose to start requiring developers to purchase or negotiate rights to additional property outside the initial development.
- The Paddocks PUD did receive some matching funds and a tax abatement from the Town, but this was done because incentives were required to get the housing that the Town had made a goal. This also allowed the Town to receive matching funds from the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) and qualify for the IHCDA LIHTC program. These were very public negotiations. Making one sided changes to those agreements will make developers leery of working with the Town. On a side note, to my knowledge, this is the only RCI funded project where that funding is given to the Town through the Developer. In the awards of which I have knowledge, the RCI funding went to the Developer.
- Originally, and in all the Stellar discussion, this property was to connect to the Town via the revitalization of the Jefferson Street corridor. That was to be the “Complete Streets” connection. It was not until later that a request came for a connection to Cass Street. The Paddocks did agree to provide a trail connection to Cass Street, but was required to do so now despite some objections, one of which was the lack of a connection through adjacent properties. The preference would have been to provide the connection at a later date when it would have connected to Academy Road. Connecting to Cass Street was also an option, but it would have made more sense to wait until the Town had worked out a route with adjacent property owners.
As I have said many times in the past, I respect the volunteers that serve on public boards and commissions. They take more slings and arrows than ever gets balanced out with accolades. That doesn’t alleviate their responsibility to know all the facts. In this case, some of the commentary was counter to things previously negotiated with the Town Council and the Plan Commission’s own Technical Review Committee. Speaking from the table at the front of the room gives their voice additional weight. That needs to be used judiciously.
Obviously this commissioner’s take differs from mine. Fortunately for me, the project and the Town, his position wasn’t shared by the other commissioners.
Fat Cow
At the April meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission, an audience member repeatedly referred to the Commission as the Town Council’s “Fat Cow”. I assume this was a bastardization of “Kill the Fatted Calf” from
the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). I found several references here similar to this: The allusion to the New Testament story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) in which the forgiving father ordered his best calf to be killed in order to provide a feast to celebrate the return of his wayward son. Fatted is an archaic form of the verb fat meaning ‘make or become fat’. Nowadays we use the forms fatten or fattened. – Farlex Partner Idioms Dictionary
Due to my Grandpa Murphy and my good friend Bobbie Ruhnow, I’m quite fond of idioms and colloquialisms which I use often… much to the chagrin of some of my nieces and nephews who look at me like I’m crazy. My grandfather often shortened/modified his use of colloquialisms too, so I got the “Fat Cow” reference, though I didn’t agree with the sentiment. The reference was used as a pejorative, implying that the Town Council was unreasonably taking advantage of the funds held by the Redevelopment Commission. I disagree with that assessment for several reasons:
- First and foremost, the Redevelopment Commission members are appointed by the Town Council. The Town Council members are the duly elected representatives of the citizens. They answer to their constituents. As such, the Town Council should be, using another colloquialism, the pointy end of the spear, setting the direction for the Town. The underlying commissions and boards are made up of members appointed to follow the directions given by the Town Council. If the citizens don’t like the direction the Town Council is going, then they can voice that by electing new council members. Commission and board members are appointed because the council members can’t do everything or take the time to go into depth on issues like the commissions and boards can. But in general, they are there to support the Town Council, not defy it. They serve at the pleasure of the Council.
- The money that the Redevelopment Commission has is captured tax dollars from the TIF Districts. The TIF Districts were specifically created for this purpose. A TIF district essentially reallocates funds from property taxes to encourage investment within the district. Any increased tax revenues collected as a result of an increase in property values then go into the TIF fund and can be used by the Town for a wide range of purposes to promote development. These are not new tax funds or separate tax funds from what would have been collected on the affected properties. The funds are being used for the purpose intended.
- The funds collected by Redevelopment Commission from the TIF Districts can be returned or redirected back to the underlying taxing bodies, but this would not change the amounts collected from taxpayers. But why would the Redevelopment Commission not use the tools (dollars) they receive? I would argue that the Redevelopment Commissioners are not doing their job if they cannot properly use these funds to benefit the districts as intended. And going back to #1 above, the Town Council should reevaluate their appointments if the commission members can’t support projects that the Town Council has designated as important to our community when they fit within TIF spending guidelines.
- Our Town Council has done an above average job of soliciting citizen input over the past few years. The projects currently being pursued are ones that have come from community input in our Comprehensive Plan in 2014 and two outreaches used to complete our two Strategic Investment Plans used in our Stellar Community application in 2016 and our successful Stellar Community designation in 2017. These projects came from community input and our Stellar Community designation has allowed these projects to move forward with funds heavily leveraged from State agencies.
Culver’s Town Council has given the Redevelopment Commission much more autonomy than is seen in most communities. They are allowed their own separate agenda and often push back on Council initiatives. Once again though, they serve at the pleasure of the Council, so Culver’s Council has chosen to accept that autonomy, rather than replacing them with more complacent individuals.
Also somewhat unique to Culver is the interaction allowed to the public. Within limits, the public is allowed to comment and question throughout the Town Council meeting rather than just at the designated “Citizen Input” on the agenda. This new tradition has translated down through the boards and commissions. This is not something often seen in other communities and is likely behind the increased public attendance at meetings and public involvement in Town projects. Citizens may not always agree with the Town’s direction nor always able to sway the direction of the Town, but they cannot say they were not heard.
So it’s fine for citizens to voice their displeasure with the direction of the Council or any of the boards or commissions. It’s part of our local government system. Though a better understanding of the process, the chain of command and how we got here on projects would allow them to make better arguments. An educated debate carries more weight than random heckling.
Our Customers Say…
Ronald W Liechty - President, Garden Court, Inc.