I shared some of my rants regarding the changes to the zoning boundary with Jeff Kenney of the Culver Citizen and he suggested that I send him a letter to the editor on the subject. I am a little freer with my writing here in the blog since I know my audience is different, so I wrote a separate Letter to the Editor and cleaned up my prose a bit. Hopefully it will encourage people to get involved and do some of the research themselves. My earlier piece included all of the links and drawings, so I’ve made it easy for anyone to follow my research. What do you think?
PS – If anyone can tell me why I lose my paragraph breaks on text I cut & paste into a post, let me know! Drives me nuts! It looks right in the editor and then loses the spaces between paragraphs when it posts… I guess I’ll go old-school and add indents…
Jeld-Wen has a line of doors with integral pet panels, but recently I ran across their option for a pet panel integral to a sliding glass door which I found intriguing. In general I encourage the use of French doors in lieu of sliding glass doors in our area. The seals are much better, security is better and the mechanisms hold up better over time. That’s not to say that sliding doors don’t have their place. I have two at my house opening up to our deck. They are hard to beat when you want maximum glass and have limited floor space which makes a swinging door an issue.
One of the major down sides of our sliding doors is that we use them to let our dog Theo out. We lose AC in the summer and heat in the winter every time we open that door for him. A couple of weeks ago when we had all the wind, it didn’t take much time with the door open to kick the thermostat on again. This system has a passage flap that is held closed via magnets and a second locking window similar to a single hung window that provides a secure and weathertight seal the rest of the time. I don’t think I will be changing out our existing doors for Theo, but this would be something I would consider when the existing doors fail. It is definitely something I’ll point out to pet owners when we talk about remodeling projects!
On Wednesday, Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC) held a meeting at Swan Lake Resort with some of the leaders from each of our communities. This was presented as a follow-up to the successful Econ 101 seminar MCEDC held last fall. Approximately 30 individuals representing the County Commissioners, Town and City Councils, Redevelopment Commissions and area businesses held a frank discussion on what needs to be done to move their various communities forward.
Shawn Peterson from the Corporate Partnership for Economic Growth (CPEG) did an excellent job of facilitating the conversation. His former position with the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) allowed him to share insight into the interactions the state and LEDO‘s have with site selectors. “Generally requests come in with a requirement for a 48 hour turn-around. If the information is not readily available, a community will not make the cut.”
While the root causes varied, there was a consensus that we need to streamline our processes and work towards having properties and buildings ready for immediate sale in order to attract new business to our communities. It was gratifying to hear some community representatives share what was working for them. It was also good to hear their willingness to expose their problems and share in discussions on what can be done that will benefit all of Marshall County. I think many there were relieved to hear that the problems were common and not just something they were dealing with alone.
A Comprehensive Plan should pull the puzzle pieces together
MCEDC is looked to by our communities to market them and bring in new business. While we’re eager to help, the individual communities need to do the ground work and provide MCEDC something to sell. One of the key discussion points was Comprehensive Plans. Currently three local communities, Culver, LaPaz and Plymouth are in various stages of new or updated Comprehensive Plans. We discussed at length how those plans should include long range plans for growth and preserve land for future industrial growth. The communities not currently involved in new Comprehensive Plans should dust theirs off and see what their plans say in this regard. It may well be time for them to address these issues as well.
The conversation was well received and seemed to have generated some excitement. Hopefully the attendees take that enthusiasm back to their communities and it spreads. We have a lot to offer and I sincerely hope we can work together to showcase the possibilities.
I went home pretty frustrated last night. I had shared my previous post on the Two Mile Zoning Boundary with the Town Council and Plan Commission last week. I am also on the Steering Committee for the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review and attended that meeting Monday evening. (6:00 until 9:45! Sheesh!) The topic of the Two Mile Zoning Boundary came up and there was a lively discussion. Yesterday I sent the following email to the Town Council and Plan Commission ahead of the Plan Commission meeting last night:
All,
I attended last night’s Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review on behalf of MCEDC. One of the items that Jackie Turner with Ratio Architects had in the draft plan was ceding some extra territorial control back to the County. I questioned why this would ever be considered as the extended territorial control was there to allow the municipality to control its destiny. She replied that if Plymouth was looking at the plan as a 10 year document, then they might want to divest themselves of the burden of supervising areas that weren’t planned for annexation in the next 10 years. I asked why a municipality would EVER want to cede control to the county and shouldn’t our vision be for 50 years, not just 10? I then asked about problems with residential development surrounding industrial areas making expansion difficult, the problem with subdivisions just outside the territorial boundary which used services, but did not pay for them (fire, police, parks, etc.) and and the difficulties of leapfrogging areas that had been developed that resisted annexation to serve new development or other older developments that needed services. This started a rather spirited response from Plymouth departmental staff naming specific instances where this is already a problem.
Ms. Turner agreed with my points for the most part, saying she was just giving that as an option to be considered as part of the comprehensive planning process. She said there still may be areas of no growth where Plymouth might want to consider this, but all the points I made need to be considered before making that decision.
I’m paraphrasing the discussion above, but I double checked it with Brent Martin who was also in attendance. Ralph Booker was there also. One of the big points I think Culver should take from this is that determining the extended territorial boundary is a discussion that should be had as part of the Comprehensive Planning process. There is no reason that we can’t put this off until our planning process is complete.
Kevin
After sending that out yesterday, I had a meeting with the representatives from Houseal Lavigne Associates who were here doing interviews to start our Comprehensive Plan project. I was there representing MCEDC. As part of our discussion, I laid out the scenario of the property swaps to Devin Lavigne and he agreed with me that it probably was not appropriate to give up any control since it was so hard fought to obtain. He also agreed that this should be part of the comprehensive planning process we were just beginning.
At the Plan Commission last night Ralph Booker, Marshall County Plan Director, presented the maps including a calculation of the acreage of the land that was swapped. Ralph Winters, Plan Commission Chairman, called for a vote without audience input and it was passed without discussion. My arguments were not mentioned. Our new planners, sitting in the audience, were not consulted. Opportunity missed. Do you like the Face Palm GIF? That was me last night!
Passing this last night puts it in front of the Town Council for approval. I’m not sure when that will happen or whether the Town Council will buck the Plan Commission on this again.
The Kohler Moxie Showerhead communicates with your Bluetooth device from up to 32 feet away.
Last year I told you about an iPod Docking Station from Amerec (You can read that post here.) that allows you to take your iPod into the shower with you. Now Kohler has a new option that lets you leave your Bluetooth enabled device, i.e. phone, MP3 player, etc. outside the shower, while your tunes are transmitted to a speaker in your showerhead. The Moxie showerhead is silcone coated showerhead with 60 spray nozzles around a Bluetooth speaker that mounts in the center of the showerhead via two magnets – one in the showerhead and one in the speaker. Currently the Moxie is available in white or chrome finish. (The Kohler site does not mention if additional finishes are forthcoming.)
The speaker has a rechargeable lithium battery and comes with a USB recharging cord. With the battery release, it should be easy to remove and the Kohler site touts the ability to take the waterproof speaker with you to the beach, kitchen or any other wet location where you want to listen to your tunes. It promises less than 1% distortion.
The Kohler Moxie Showerhead is $149.25 at Amazon.com Changing a showerhead is an easy installation, but if you need help, give us a call. We’ll have you singing in the shower in no time at all!
The speaker has a rechargeable lithium battery and comes with a USB recharging cord. With the battery release, it should be easy to remove and the Kohler site touts the ability to take the waterproof speaker with you to the beach, kitchen or any other wet location where you want to listen to your tunes. It promises less than 1% distortion.