Because I can’t say no, and because I generally believe in giving back to the community, I agreed to be on the Subdivision Ordinance Review Committee for Marshall County. (Currently I’m on the Plymouth Comp Plan Committee, (2x) and the Culver Comp Plan Committee (3x)) Marshall County Plan Director, Ty Adley, wisely recognized that the proposed new sewer districts working their way through the County could result in an increase in requests for new subdivisions. Apparently, for the first time in many years, a subdivision application was made last year, alerting him to issues with the old ordinance.
There’s lots to change and I think we can make major improvements. Apparently there have been some updates, but never a rewrite. There are issues where it ventures into Zoning requirements and thus creates some conflicts.
One of the larger discussions at the last meeting was how to balance fairness and good planning when it came to subdivisions that could reasonable be expected to be gateways into additional property. So in Sketch 1 to the right, there are properties A, B, C & D all under separate ownership. Properties A, B & C are of sufficient size to support 15 lots while parcel D could reasonable support 90 lots. The owner of parcel B comes to the county and proposes a 15 lot subdivision. They would be required to access the highway from one point. They would, at a minimum, be required to stub their road to their property line (2) with parcel D, to allow access to that property. If the county determined that they wanted to limit access points to the highway, they would require road stubs connection parcels A & B as well. (road stubs 1 & 3 on the diagram.) This is good planning. Good planning would also suggest that the road connection to the highway be sized to accommodate the potential growth. This might include Accel/Decel lanes, turn lanes and a traffic blister or island. It might include heavier duty pavement specifications due to the anticipated traffic from trash collection trucks, moving vans and the anticipated traffic from the adjacent developments. While the county doesn’t currently have But there’s the rub…
If the county requires the owner of Parcel B to include all of those things because of the potential development on parcel’s A, C & D there are a few possible results:
We didn’t really settle on any solutions, but I will follow up on this post with some potential ideas as I work through them. I think there’s a way to make at least some of this reasonably fair to the initial developer, though it will be hard to make it totally equitable.
It’s another grumpy Time Change Monday. I guess on the positive side, I beat the DST Heart Attack spike. (24% on the Monday after the Spring time change.) I think I beat the 8% spike in strokes, but since I’m a bit groggy today, I’m not as confident about that one!
My lurkers know that I’ve written (bitched) about DST here before. My stance against it hasn’t changed. Some of my past posts have exonerated Ben Franklin’s culpability in this, Exonerated Cows in this, shown that DST is not universal and celebrated Marco Rubio’s championing of ending this.
I have read that the Sunshine Protection Act passed the Senate unanimously last year and then stalled in the House. I understand it passed the Senate again this year and is now in the House. If Senator Rubio declared his candidacy for President and promised to ditch the DST time change, he’d rocket to the top of the heap in my estimation. I know, as much as I liked Governor Mitch Daniels, I still curse him for his part in pushing DST for Indiana.
Not much to do at this point, but suck it up and muddle on. It will be better in a week or so. Doesn’t mean I have to like it though…
If you want some history on DST, Accuweather has a nice write up here.
I have a good friend who is a Librarian. She shared this with me. I have a sister-in-law that is a Library Director. We have done work many libraries throughout this area where the Librarian or Library Director are friends from our past work together. This is an important issue for Libraries and you should consider contacting your legislator about it.
The flier above gives information for legislators in Pulaski County. Since most of my lurkers are from Marshall County, our State Senators are:
Ryan Mishler if you’re a resident of District 9 in NE Marshall County
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 800-382-9467
or 317-232-9400
Email: Senator.Mishler@iga.in.gov
Mike Bohacek if you’re a resident of District 8 for the remainder of Marshall County
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 800-382-9467
or 317-232-9400
Email: Senator.Bohacek@iga.in.gov
And our State Representatives are:
Jack Jordan if you’re a resident of District 17, which covers the majority of Marshall Count
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9651
Email: H17@iga.in.gov
Jake Teshka if you’re a resident of District 7, which covers a small part of Marshall County west of LaPaz
200 W. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 800-382-9841 or 317-232-9981
Email: H7@iga.in.gov
Connections to Culver
March 29, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Tips
Community, Culver, Development, government, Plan Commission, Planned Unit Development, Trends
It came to my attention the other day that there are people suggesting that The Dunes not have a street connection to the Town and only connect to S.R. 17 to the west. This seems ludicrous to me, from a planning standpoint, an economic development standpoint and a citizen involvement standpoint. Aside from the bad planning involved with this idea, it is probably a logistical moot point. 1) S.R. 17 is a limited access highway and INDOT is rather jealous with their driveway permits and 2) Cabinetworks owns the parcel to the west between The Dunes and S.R. 17 and are unlikely to want to bisect it with a road. *The picture to the right shows the relationship between the property being developed as The Dunes and S.R. 17.)
Interestingly though, this seems to be a recurring “problem” in Culver. This goes back to at least the early mid 2000’s when The Riggings were initially developed on the north side of town with its street, Anchors Way. At the time of the initial development, the town required a connection to State Street, but later the development was allowed to void that connection. Similarly, there were no connections required between The Riggings and the adjacent vacant property to the west.
West of the The Riggings, the Maple Ridge PUD subdivision was built a few years later. It again does not connect back into Culver, but only connects out to S.R. 10. Maple Ridge was not required to provide any connection points to adjacent properties.
This came up again with The Paddocks with a suggestion that it connect with S.R. 17 in lieu of Jefferson Street. (The Paddocks connects to Culver on Jefferson Street and includes long range plans to connect back to Academy Road to the north.) And then again, the Culver Meadows development proposed on the NW corner of town by Culver Investment Corp (CIC) was allowed to proceed through the primary PUD process with no connections back to Culver.
The Culver Meadows project was particularly troubling since it was allowed to ignore the Culver Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the extension of Academy Road to S.R.17. The reasoning given for not making the connection a requirement was that there were property owners between Culver Meadows and Academy Road that were opposed to the connection. But that is short-sighted. The Town of Culver is theoretically here in perpetuity. Those homeowners will change over time. Culver Meadows should have been required to provide their portion of the required Right-of-Way through their property and Culver could have waited for the right time to make the connection using that Right-of-Way. CIC was already planning a connection to S.R. 17, so it was just a matter of making that connection where it could serve both needs.
From the developer’s standpoint, these controlled entrances are the next best thing to creating gated communities, but with the benefit of dedicating the streets for municipal maintenance. Theoretically they are reducing traffic in the development to their residents only. This is part of the mindset where we’re seeing more privacy fences and complaints at Council meetings about street traffic. The last drawing I saw for The Dunes has a single entrance and that didn’t even align with adjacent streets. (That drawing is several months old.) There are reasons why towns are laid out on grids and Cul-de-Sac developments lead to more sprawl. (See previous post here.) Grids don’t always work, but the connections are still important.
Connected streets cut down on traffic bottlenecks. What are the residents of The Dunes going to do when street work is required at the entrance? That’s 200 residences with no redundant connection. There is a reason water lines are looped. The same principle applies to streets.
Connected streets promote walking and biking. They invite current residents into the new neighborhoods and vice versa. This is how connections are made. This is where a new resident might get invited to a local Church or civic club. This is how they hear about town initiatives.
Connected streets promote block parties, garage sales and other community involvement activities. The goal of new development goes beyond the head count and ad valorem increase. Culver should want the new residents to become community members. We don’t need more part-time residents and we don’t want to be a bedroom community.
I talked about changing The Dunes’ connections to the town before. (here) I think that idea should be expanded to include additional connections. Make them part of our community for the future. Maybe this is another case made for an Infrastructure Czar… And as far as a connection to S.R. 17? Let’s suggest connection points to the west and south for future development. It’s just good planning.
0 comments