Pulaski County Public Library Open House
When the Pulaski County Public Library were planning a renovation project, they asked that we consult with them on the design. We worked with the Library Director, MacKenzie Ledley, her staff and KRM Architects as they worked to improve the facilities. When it came time to bid the project, we were forced to decline; partly due to other commitments and partly due to a perceived connection that might have precluded other bidders. The library board chose to extend our consulting services to include input on the bidding and then through the construction process. We were happy to do this. Sometimes owners need another set of eyes and someone that can interpret construction terms, best practices, etc.
The project was bid in 2019 and started late that year, so much of the construction occurred during the worst of Covid. This helped the general contractor, Michiana Contracting, on one hand, by freeing up more of the building for work (since the library was closed), but also added the complications everyone experienced with labor issues, material shortages and Covid restrictions. We felt like our input was valuable in navigating some of these issues. The note below provides some validation to that. It’s always nice when our efforts are appreciated. Thanks MacKenzie!
One of the areas that the library is most proud of is the new Local History Room. Library patrons, the Galbreath family, contributed to this room and helped design it to include elements of their family home. The room is dedicated to Delores “Dee” Galbreath, an avid library patron. Much of the woodwork bears that details from her home including matching the stain used there. The ceiling has a map of the world which also harks back to the one in her home and there is a Galbreath “G” above the fireplace, matching that used throughout the family home.
Come out and see the completed project at the Open House on August 25th, 2022. It’s been a while coming, but we think you’ll be impress by this facility.
READI Applications
Last Summer the South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership (SBERP), of which Marshall County is a part, announced their intention to go after READI grant dollars in much the same way they did with the Regional Cities Initiative a few years ago. Culver Sand Hill Farm was asked to participate as the developer for a project in Plymouth. Easterday Construction Co., Inc. would serve as General Contractor. This project was a small (13 unit) townhouse project on Water Street in Plymouth.
The READI program is being administered through the Indiana Economic Development Corporation and is modeled after the successful Regional Cities Initiative. The funding is designed to leverage State funds in order to bring in private funding on projects the region’s municipalities want to see move forward. It offers up to 20% READI dollars as a match against a minimum participation of 20% municipal participation and 60% private investment. This makes it difficult for larger public projects like parks, trails and social programs to move forward, where there would be no return on the private investment, but provides a great opportunity to meet other goals.
We were pleased that the City of Plymouth wanted to work with us on this and were happy to help, as it fit with Culver Sand Hill Farm’s continued housing efforts. While not a LIHTC project, such as The Paddocks and Riverside Commons, it was an effort to bring additional workforce housing to downtown Plymouth. This adds to Plymouth’s downtown revitalization and it would be within a block of River Park Square, the newly renovated Rees Theater, Wild Rose Moon and adjacent to downtown businesses. Thank you to Mayor Mark Senter and City Attorney, Sean Surrisi, for their vision and help moving this forward! I approached the Town of Culver to see if they wanted to do something similar. I was told that a straw pole of council members indicated there was interest and they would support our application. This came “last minute” and we spent most of a weekend putting an application together, so that Culver could benefit as well.
South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership was successful in their bid, securing $50 Million dollars for the Region. That was great news. There’s been some confusion about how this would proceed, but both projects were included in the application, so were thought to be secure. There was back and forth at SBERP on whether other projects not in the original application could be considered. In the end, it was decided they would be considered, so that opened other opportunities. It’s still unclear whether projects in the initial application will be given more weight in considerations.
In Plymouth, Culver Sand Hill Farm has worked with the city to put together another application for an E-Hub. This is envisioned to be an entrepreneur incubator with spaces available to encourage new business starts. This project has been on Plymouth’s radar for years and this appeared to be a perfect opportunity to move it forward. This is an exciting opportunity for the city and should be a benefit to Marshall County as a whole.
In Culver, there has been a lot of false starts and back & forth on READI. Culver Sand Hill Farm continued to support the idea presented in the original application, while making some changes to make it better. As Culver’s partner in the Stellar applications, we were ready to step up and help again. We were the only ones from Culver to attend the mandatory information meeting in Argos and were encouraged by SBERP representatives to proceed.
Culver Crossroads created a READI subcommittee, only to disband it when Culver decided not to participate in READI. (We also discussed the possibility of an E-Hub project with Culver, but the committee had different goals in mind and we couldn’t arrive at a viable project.) In the last few weeks, Culver reversed course and decided to submit a housing project application with another, out-of-town, developer rather than proceed with us. Things happen. While disappointing, pushing it without support would be foolish.
Another partner in all these applications has been Brent Martin of SRKM Architecture. He provided the graphics included here and have helped advocate for these projects. Brent has been helpful in articulating a vision for the sites we’re considering.
We’re looking forward to helping Plymouth in their efforts. We should find out if our applications were successful sometime this Fall, making these 2023-2024 projects. Wish us and the City of Plymouth luck!
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…
Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 2
This is a continuation of my previous post regarding Culver’s July Plan Commission Meeting, regarding proposed changed to the Culver Zoning Ordinance.
The L-1 zoning district considers the lake side of property the front yard. There is a front yard minimum setback of 25′, but there is an additional clause that only applies in this district: Where property immediately adjacent on either side of the lot is already developed with principal structures, the required setback shall be determined by a line drawn between the farthest extension of the adjacent structures, including any decks or raised patios. In no case shall the setback be less than 25 feet from the normal high water mark. (Culver Zoning Ordinance, pg 24)
This is part of the 2017 ordinance (current) and goes back through several earlier versions of the ordinance. Discussion was initiated last year to consider eliminating this restriction and going to just the 25′ minimum setback like any other district. What’s interesting about this is, that while restrictive, this isn’t an issue that comes before the BZA often. In general, if the property owner is not already familiar with the restriction from the ordinance, the Building Commissioner explains it and it is just a given. In most cases, the property owners see how this would benefit them, if there is future development on neighboring lots.
I know this can be restrictive at times. As pointed out in the meetings, there are some lots that are larger and because they were originally developed with large front yards, they become a controlling factor on their neighbors. There is also the issue of how this affects lot development based on the curvature of the lake. I don’t know of any cases where a lot has been rendered unbuildable by this restriction and I can’t imagine the BZA not granting a variance where the enforcement of this restriction was an issue.
Some of the discussion was regarding the restriction of “views”. There is no doubt that this was set up to preserve views, but some of the current thinking is that a property owner’s view is only guaranteed directly in front of the property. This is true, since there is no restriction on landscaping in the front yard, so trees and other herbaceous obstructions are allowed. I don’t know of any cases where neighbors have pursued this spitefully though, since in reality, it would obstruct their views as well.
I have several thoughts regarding this change:
This restriction is no different than the height restrictions or any other restrictions put on lots that are meant to control growth and maintain orderly development. These are all arbitrary values that have been determined and codified with the best intentions for all. These vary from community to community based on each communities values.
Removing this restriction at this time is extremely unfair to those that have been subjected to this restriction in the past. When all are subject to it, then it’s fair. If a home constructed last year was designed to meet this requirement, set windows to take advantage of it, etc., they should have some sense of comfort that their neighbor’s future development will follow the same rules. Many lake residences are $1MM+ and their design decisions are affected by these rules. Consistency in the rules is important.
This change should not be considered in a vacuum. This has been discussed over the last year amongst the Plan Commission members. Only one of those members is a lake resident. Realizing that there will be an advertised Public Hearing before this can be passed, it would still make sense to get input from the residents affected as the change is crafted. My thought is that it should have been out for discussion in the community over this summer, while more lake residents are here. This will be a hot issue! Why not preempt some of that by getting input from those affected?
In the end, I think the Plan Commission is setting themselves up for some unnecessary heartburn on this issue. I may be wrong and as always, I cut them a lot of slack as volunteers. I just see this as a bees nest that they don’t need to kick…
One more post regarding this meeting is coming. This one definitely falls into the category of a rant! Ha!
Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 1
The Culver Plan Commission is looking into some changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of this is prompted by what is coming before the BZA for Variances and some of it is based on recommendations from the Building Commissioner and various commission members.
The first issue under discussion is rear yard setbacks in the R-1 district. The two things being discussed regarding this are:
- Single Family Rear Yard Setback: 25′ (page 26)
- Accessory Structure Setback: no less than 10′ from the rear lot line (page 82)
Regarding #1, some of the members on the Plan Commission also serve on the BZA. They referenced this as one of the issues that comes up constantly. This is particularly an issue in the areas of town where the Lot of Record is non-conforming by size, i.e. too small. The discussion initially centered around reducing the R-1 Rear Setback requirement from 25′ to 10′, which is apparently a commonly granted variance request. There was pushback on this from some members that felt that this needed BZA review and shouldn’t be the default.
I made the suggestion that the ordinance be modified to allow the 25′ setback to remain in place for conforming lots and allow the reduction for the smaller non-conforming lots. This seemed palatable to the majority of the members, but it was tabled for further thought and discussion at the next meeting. One additional thought I had is how this change would affect the R-1 impervious surface limitations in the ordinance. (Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage: 50%) Many of the lots requesting setback variance may still be coming to the BZA due to this limitation. This becomes a trickier issue as it not only affects the adjacent neighbors, but the entire storm water system and Lake Maxinkuckee. This should be considered as well.
On a side note, I was pleased to hear one of the members bring up the affordable housing issue and how zoning restrictions often stymie creative solutions. I hope he carries this forward into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan meetings. Some allowances for creativity and New Urbanism would put Culver ahead of most of our neighboring communities and the County.
Regarding #2, some members thought there was a discrepancy, since accessory structures were allowed within 10′ of the rear property line. I would argue that there is a big difference between the an accessory structure and a main structure within 10′ of the rear property line. An accessory structure, such as a garage, gazebo or yard barn, which is limited to a height of 16′ and generally will have a smaller footprint. The main structure is allowed to be 35′ in height and often has a footprint that fills the lot from side setback to side setback. This could be quite imposing for the neighboring property, particularly in cases where there isn’t an alley or other additional open space. Personally, I think this should stand as is, though I might suggest tweaking it to address garages that access rear yard alleys. When they are constructed 10′ off the alley, general access can create issues and often trespass on the neighbors.
The other issue that was discussed was the line of site setback requirement for L-1 properties, but I’ll address that in a separate post.
