Commentary

Plymouth Streetscapes

by

I attended a meeting last Tuesday night at The Rees where there was discussion of possible renovations to the downtown streetscape. They were mainly looking at the area from the railroad viaduct on the south end to Jefferson Street on the north end. Updating the streetscape is one of the initiatives of City of Plymouth‘s new Mayor, Robert Listenberger. Several concepts were presented and there was time for public input on those concepts. There was also the opportunity to put forth other ideas. There was a fairly diverse crowd of around 50 people there for the presentation.

The last streetscape was created around 40 years ago. Many aspects of downtown Plymouth have changed since then, not least of which include the turnover in businesses and the shift towards making the downtown more of an entertainment district. This began with the Wild Rose Moon and has continued with River Park Square, The Rees and the new Yellow River Brewery planned just south of The Rees. A fairly recent State Law allows for the creation of districts like this which would make it easier to have street festivals. The main change here would be the ability to have “open container” alcohol use throughout the district. Right now, alcohol served outside of licensed venues can only be done in “beer gardens”, which usually amount to snow fence pens containing those who choose to imbibe.

As always the parking issue was front and center. Very few people there would say there was too much parking downtown, and most were very concerned about reducing the number of street spaces. Some were concerned that new development downtown was being encouraged without adding parking. The counterpoint to that are two traffic studies that have been completed, one by Andrews University and one by MACOG. MACOG’s is the most recent, which showed a surplus of 500+ spaces. Shopkeepers were mainly concerned about the number of street parking spaces directly adjacent to their business.

Several interesting concept drawings were presented showing various traffic calming measures for Michigan Street. There were also opportunities to provide additional green space along the sidewalks, outdoor dining for restaurant patrons and overall improved traffic controls. There was a lot of initial skepticism, but some minds were won over with the possibilities that could be unlocked.

There was also a concept changing the first block of Garro Street west of Michigan Street to an intermittent street festival site. This section is currently used this way, but with saw horse barricades. The revised concept would enhance this, with decorative pavement patterns and decorative removable bollards. The Garro Street enhancement received nearly 100% positive feedback.

A major stumbling block remains, with this area of Michigan Street existing as an extension of S.R. 17, thus the R.O.W. belongs to the State of Indiana. Any negotiation would require accommodations between INDOT and Plymouth. This would include any changes to curbs, sidewalks, speed limits and traffic control measures such as stop lights. That brought up a side conversation of relocating S.R. 17. The consensus was that it made the most sense to relocate it to Pine Road, but I had to bring up the Culver’s Sycamore Road initiative. (Previously mentioned in a post here.)

The conversation was similar to what has been discussed in Culver (Previously mentioned in a post here.) with some of the same conflicting arguments. Culver’s Town Council somewhat surprised the downtown merchants with the street improvements. They won a grant for the work that they really didn’t expect to get. They didn’t do their standard education ahead of the project, leading some to feel left out of the loop. In this case, Plymouth seems to be taking the correct tact, by gathering input before the project proceeds too far into planning.

I think the goals are laudable and I hope Mayor Listenberger is successful with the revitalization changes he would like to make. He is approaching it as a businessman, which gives him more empathy in why the change will be hard, but ultimately will be a change for the better. I look forward to more discussion on how this can be moved forward.

MC Squared

by

When the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF) built their new facility, it was to house MCCF, Marshall County United Way (MCUW) and Growing Kids Learning Center. The building would belong to MCCF. MCCF would continue to operate with joint staff shared with MCUW. Growing Kids would be a rent paying tenant. When it came time to name the building, I lobbied hard for some iteration of MC2. I thought it was a no brainer, since it fit with the joint philosophy of MCCF and MCUW, that the two groups together were more than the sum of their parts, i.e. MCCF x MCUW not MCCF + MCUW. Oh, well… This was one of those cases where what seemed obvious to me wasn’t palatable to others. The building is now known as the Marshall County Philanthropy Center. I’m sorry, but 7 years later, who knows that or refers to that!? We could have had something much more catchy! Ha!

I wasn’t involved at the start of One Marshall County. I do kind of like that name, but I go back to it also being an organization designed to be more than the sum of its parts. Another missed opportunity to use MC2. If I’d been involved at the beginning of Marshall County Crossroads, I would really have hit this hard for them too!

So I’m throwing this out there. Some Marshall County organization or group of organizations should be the first to pick up MC2 and run with it! If your name works in an “E”, even better since you could really roll with all of Einstein’s equation. What group doesn’t strive to be faster than light? Well, I guess there’s always Heinz Ketsup which bragged on being think in their Anticipation commercial. Oooo! Oooo! Maybe MCEDC! They have all three letters in there!

You may not of heard it here first, but I haven’t heard anyone else in Marshall County using MC2. It’s free advice. Run with it!

Nonconforming

by

While I’m not a fan of conformity in everything, I do tend to be a rule follower. Yes or No rules are fairly easy to follow, but so many rules in the real world don’t easily fall into Black & White, but actually fall into gray areas. Even ones that are clearly yes or no, sometimes cause hardships that need consideration. In the world of Zoning, this is the reason for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). When a building or property doesn’t fit neatly in the box laid out by the Zoning Ordinance, the BZA has the ability to inject some flexibility.

This is a recurring topic with the Culver Plan Commission and it came up again in the January meeting. There is always a laudable effort to reduce the load on the BZA, when the BZA is continually hearing similar requests on which it routinely grants variances. There is a whole chapter in the Culver Zoning Ordinance for this. Chapter 8 is titled, “Nonconforming Structures, Lots and Uses” to try and handle this, but there are times that it is still not enough. The Building Commissioner put forth a proposal that a structure should be allowed to be rebuilt on the same footprint without a variance. Again, this is something that is routinely granted. But I don’t think it is something where a variance should be waived.

As with a lot of our government where there are multiple individuals involved, the BZA is often in the business of finding reasonable compromises. The concept of allowing reconstruction on the same footprint is already a bit cumbersome in practice. Often, the reason for wanting to build back on the original footprint is because that allows continued violations of required setbacks, impervious surface standards or other ordinance rules. Sometimes this is a necessity due to lot sizes, but there can still be issues. Without review, the policy can be abused.

In the past, every nonconforming structure required a BZA review and variance in order to make any changes. The idea was for there to be a review to see if the proposed project could make the structure less nonconforming, if not bring it completely into compliance. This not only gave the BZA the opportunity to review the project, but allowed the neighboring property owners to voice support or concerns regarding the project. The current thinking is that this is unwieldy, but it served a useful purpose.

I have three main concerns with this proposal and the current ordinance:

  1. Chapter 8 is hard to read. It attempts to deal with nonconforming lots, nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. Often two or more of these issues apply at the same time and the overlapping controls become confusing. For example, a structure housing a nonconforming use cannot be expanded, while a nonconforming structure can be expanded if it doesn’t increase the nonconformity, when the structure is nonconforming because it’s on a nonconforming lot. I would suggest that the chapter establish a hierarchy of priorities to help with these decisions. While each case is different, they are not completely unique.
  2. Chapter 8 should require some stringent guidelines regarding documentation. If reconstruction is to be allowed on the same footprint, then that footprint must require specific documentation before foundations are removed. Documentation should include locating existing overhangs and variations in the foundation line. There is also a provision that the height may not be increased, so this becomes another specific documentation requirement. Don’t allow 8′ ceilings to become become 10′ ceilings and low foundation walls don’t become daylighted basements.
  3. Lastly, I think there should be consideration given to destruction by Acts of God versus demolition for modernization. If a project is literally building back on the same foundation because the house was destroyed by fire or tornado, that is different than tearing everything out and rebuilding on the same footprint because the structure is old. If it is a 100% new structure and there is any way of reducing the nonconformity, even just by inches, the potential for becoming more in compliance should be evaluated and considered.

I think the Building Commissioner is right to ask for clarification and if enough detail is put into determining allowable reconstruction, this is a reasonable thing to delegate to his authority. As it’s written, it’s a minefield and I be concerned about uneven application.

Deposit Dilemma

by

One of the issues facing entry level workers is the issue of deposits. There is a deposit required for a rental unit. (In the case of a new home buyer, it’s the down payment.) There is a deposit required to get water turned on. There is a deposit required to get the gas turned on. There is a deposit required to get the electric turned on. For someone just starting out, this can be daunting. When someone moves, theoretically they’ll get their deposits back from the previous rental, but not before they have to put them down for the new place.

These have come about due to landlords, municipalities and utilities getting burned by tenants and homeowners skipping out on bills. For that reason, the justification for deposits is there. But… how often is this an issue in the first month when all the deposits are required? I would venture to say that 9 times out of 10, this is an end of occupancy issue, not a starting problem. Theoretically, the landlord renting to the tenant or the bank making the loan on a new purchase have vetted the tenant’s ability to afford their housing choice at least initially.

Riverside Commons Plymouth

The new housing in Plymouth at Riverside Commons is geared towards lower wage earners. People that are good workers with steady income, but not at a level to afford good housing. These units are 100% electric and on city water and sewer, so there are only three deposits required. Unfortunately, Plymouth’s deposit requirement for water is $150. REMC, which provides the electric, has a deposit of $350, plus a $10 membership fee for the co-op. That’s $500+ in deposits without counting the rental deposit. This does not make it easy for a renter to move from substandard housing to the new units. The Paddocks in Culver runs into similar issues qualifying tenants, though I don’t think the start-up costs for water, sewer and electric are quite as high.

So, here’s what I would like to suggest for municipalities:

  1. Municipalities create an account for delinquent and non-payed utilities. To put a number at it, I would suggest $10,000. In lieu of just being a line item, put this into an interest bearing account, so there is some modest growth. (Placing it with Marshall County Community Foundation would be a way to double down on doing good and possibly earn a bit more.)
  2. Set the deposit rate at a number easily divided by 12. For example $120 in lieu of Plymouth’s $150.
  3. Ask for the full deposit at hook-up as done now, with an option for half down and the remainder paid as a surcharge on the first 6 water bills. A convenience fee of a couple dollars could be added if deemed necessary.
    • The Clerk would be better able to answer this, but I would assume that non-payment rarely happens in the first couple of months, but is more likely at the end of service when the tenant or homeowner has moved. By then, the deposit would have been fulfilled.
  4. Put ALL utility deposits in the above interest bearing account.
    • According to this site, there are 3,868 households in Plymouth. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $580,200 in water & sewer deposits. If you reduced that to $120, as I suggested, then there’d still be $468,160 at any given time. Ignoring the current interest rate hovering around 5% (MCCF should be better), a 1% return would be $4,642 a year. That could cover quite a few no pays.
    • According to this site, there are 592 households in Culver. (I think that’s pretty low and must be only counting fulltime residents.) Culver only has a $75 deposit, which is only about half again the cost of a minimum water/sewer bill. So, theoretically, there is an escrow account managed by the Clerk holding $44,400 in sewer & water deposits. Under the same conservative 1%, the return would be $444 per year. That’s not going to cover as much, but it would still cover some.
    • I don’t know this, but I assume the current practice is to just mingle this money in the General Fund. That means the initial deposit is tracked for repayment, but any return (interest) on the General Fund account just goes back in the General Fund. If tracked separately, then that interest helps defer any non-payment costs. Obviously less effective in lower population municipalities, but still a factor.
    • I also assume there are older accounts that had smaller deposit requirements, where the deposit has never risen. I’m just using round numbers, so the associated Clerks would probably want to set that straight, but I think the concept is reasonable. While I know that the utilities are supposed to be self-sufficient, every residential unit pays taxes to the municipality and over time, there is some reasonable cost of doing business.
  5. Put all late fees in this account as well. This would act as an additional hedge.

The above isn’t a panacea, but it would help low-income workers with a hand up that shouldn’t hurt the municipality much, if any. If the same principles could be applied to private utilities and maybe even rents, then it would be an equitable way of solving the insurance provided by deposits, while reducing the penalty those deposits put on low income individuals and families. This is just the beginning of a thought on a possible solution… But I think it is something worth consideration and refinement.