Commentary

Culver Zoning Revisions II

by

I wrote about the current round of revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance here. They were discussed and tweaked at the September meeting of the Plan Commission. A public hearing was held at the October Plan Commission meeting and a vote to send them on to the Town Council for approval was passed. As always, before I gently criticize, I want to start by giving kudos to people that volunteer for posts such as the Plan Commission. I appreciate them stepping up to work that is generally thankless. I always want to give them consideration and I will defend them on this, even when I don’t agree with them.

As a person that tends to attend meetings and pay attention to what’s going on, I don’t have a lot of patience for those that complain about things happening without their knowledge, when it has been advertised and presented in public meetings. Culver is above average in asking for input in most cases. In this case I may fault them for some large changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were probably not adequately advertised. As stated in the meeting notice to the right, a public hearing was properly advertised for “…amending the Culver Zoning Ordinance to correct clerical errors and make revisions.” I don’t fault them for thinking that what they added/changed were minor improvements, but not everyone will see them that way. That agenda item sounds pretty innocuous and for the most part it is, but there are a few things included that may end up causing some controversy:

  1. The first, which I mentioned in a previous post, is the change in accessory structure height for the S-1 District. This was a specific request from the farm community that has been carried forward. It allowed a 50′ accessory structure height without need for a variance. This was to accommodate grain legs on silos. Since that time, Culver created a specific AG district, but there is still some farmland within the S-1 district. Interestingly, the AG district only has a 35′ height allowed, but I’m pretty sure both should be at 50′ per previous conversations. This is a minor issue for these districts and are an easy accommodation to the farm community. Since a future goal in the Comp Plan is to expand our extraterritorial boundary, it just makes sense to play nice with that community. Slipping in a change is not playing nice. The Town Manager has been having meetings with the farm community, so a heads up on this would have been good.
  2. Another that may cause a stir with the extraterritorial land owners is eliminating the average setback requirement on lake frontage. This sentence being eliminated is, “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.” Admittedly, this has been a controversial requirement and has spawned many BZA hearings, but it has been in place for decades. Many houses have been forced back from the lake because of this rule. House shapes have been changed to meet this rule. Where variances were requested, neighbors howled and called foul!!! I would be extremely upset if I had been forced to follow this rule sometime recently only to find out that it had been eliminated on a whim…
  3. Under the Development Standards and under Definitions, a new “Institutional” category was created and defined. This has been discussed for years and under the previous building commissioner, there was a subcommittee of the Plan Commission formed to work on this. At that time, the thought was that it affected both the private school and the public schools so representatives of both were included in the discussions. The new definition excludes the public schools, stating it is “Specifically for Culver Educational Foundation…” I don’t know if the public schools were consulted before being excluded, but it would seem they should be part of this.
  4. Under Intent, the language that set a minimum front yard setback of 10′ has been removed in favor of allowing the Building Commissioner to determine an “average” and allow that as the setback. This seems loosely defined and a potential issue. I understand the intent, which mostly refers to the average setback on a block and realistically one side of the block. But lawyers will be lawyers, i.e. block, neighborhood or zoning district? Both sides of the street? What if there’s an alley breaking up the block? Average implies the mathematical definition, but the intent is when 4 of 5 houses are 5′ off the sidewalk, the 6th one can be 5′ off the sidewalk too, but that’s not the “average” if one of the original five is setback 25’…
  5. Under definitions: Nuisance Building – Includes structures with appearances that detract from the neighborhood (such as properties that are not properly maintained, abandoned, structures covered with graffiti, or vacant buildings), as well as properties that present safety issues (such as fire-damaged buildings or structures that remain partially built or partially demolished). Nuisance Real Property – IC 32-30-6-6 While it references Indiana Code, this definition goes farther than the code definition. While I don’t particularly have a problem with the definition, I have to question why it is being added and how it is intended to be used. My concern is that it portends an expansion of the duties of the Unsafe Building Committee, which already often ventures into aesthetics verses safety. First off, the area of aesthetics slippery slope, extremely subjective, and being fair with them is tough. Second, for some reason, this seems to be an area where Culver is all stick and no carrot… It would seem to be more productive to help find tenants for vacant commercial buildings and with our shortage of houses, help find new residents for vacant homes.

There were only a few people at the hearing in on Tuesday. For those of us that did attend, they didn’t have copies of the proposed changes for us to review. They also voted to waive reading them aloud at the meeting. When the notice leads by saying, “…correct clerical errors…” it’s not too surprising that there was no one there to listen, even if it had been read aloud. I had already commented on 1 & 2 at the September meeting and they said there was no agenda on 4. In the spirit of Culver seeking input, it would seem that some notice should have been given to the Township Trustees, the school superintendents, the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council and the Lake Maxinkuckee Association. That would have allowed information to be circulated to those affected. My sense is that may well have increased the attendance and audience participation!

The list of changes is 9 pages long… The five I listed above are the ones that jumped out at me as potentially controversial or difficult to administer, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t affected by more of them and might have comments on them. Because this is a change to an ordinance, the Plan Commission is only sending on a recommendation to the Town Council. The council then adopts, rejects or sends the changes back to the Plan Commission. I believe that requires another public hearing, so there’s still time. We’ll see how it goes.

Finally, I want to reiterate my commendations to Mr. Gorski for tackling this. My commentary here is in no way meant to diminish the work he put in. Sometimes you can’t know or glean the history and the historical reasons may or may not be pertinent, but should be explored never the less. He is on his way out, leaving the Building Commissioner position after three years. I want to wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Disannexation

by

A new word! This isn’t one I was familiar with, though the meaning of “disannexation” is pretty self-evident. Here’s an excerpt definition from Justia:

The property in question is part of the 70+ acres owned by Culver Investment Corp which was annexed as part of a mixed use PUD project at the northwest side of Culver. (Outlined in cyan and yellow on the GIS map to the right.) The project proposal included a large residential subdivision for most of the property and a gas station/convenience store on the NE corner of the intersection of SR 10 & SR 17. A preliminary PUD plan was presented and the developer entered into a development agreement with the town, which included the annexation. Since that time, the town has rezoned the property back to S-1, Suburban Residential, The developer has sold the north two parcels which are on the north side of SR 10 to two different purchasers and the remaining property has been on the market for some time.

It will be interesting how the Culver Town Council handles this. Disannexation seem counter to the reasons it was annexed in the first place and counter to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes developed uses for this property as part of Culver and expansion of the extraterritorial boundary based on this annexation.

The suggested disannexation is roughly the middle third of the overall property, parcel 502117203032000022 on the adjacent map, that was in the original annexation. If this goes through, this effectively creates a non-contiguous annexed area north of State Road 10. There are a few exceptions to the contiguous rule during annexation, but the exceptions generally apply to industrial parks and municipal properties. A brief search online didn’t turn up any consideration for creating orphan annexed property no longer contiguous to the town limits.

Disannexation Plat

I wrote about this a while back in a post here: Municipal Services As stated in an update at the bottom of that post, the town believes Culver Investment Corp is still responsible for extending services. I am not an attorney, but I do continue to have questions about that. Allowing this disannexation before having a resolution of the utilities issue would further complicate this in my mind. I would assume the new property owners have an expectation of utilities from the town. The town’s remedy for supplying these utilities would be the Culver Investment Corp Development Agreement. Messy at best…

I know it might be expedient to allow this disannexation and to pursue disannexation of the properties across SR 10, but my opinion is that would be a mistake. Culver should control these areas and particularly the intersection there. Culver is in somewhat of a growth phase, so giving up property control seems counterproductive to that. I hope the Council looks at the Comp Plan and the work that went into it before making a rash decision here. Time will tell…

Post Frame Housing

by
Traditional Pole Barn with vertical steel siding and steel roofing. Image from CMT Components

A few years back, there was an effort to ban post frame (also known as timber frame) housing in Plymouth. A similar ban has been floated a few times in Culver and resurfaced at the August Plan Commission meeting. In both cases, the rational has been that the style doesn’t fit the community. As near as I can discern, (and I could be missing something) it doesn’t have much to do with the post frame construction, but more about the look of vertical metal siding, since these homes can be indiscernible from homes built using standard framing.

Post frame construction is most often associated with the “Shade & Shelter” functionality of Pole Buildings. Where post frame barns are designed to protect farm equipment, post frame homes are generally better insulated, stronger structurally, sealed tightly and have a different aesthetic. It’s just a different framing technique that has recently had a resurgence in popularity.

Post Frame Construction showing below grade piers, posts, girts & purlins Image from Roper Buildings

The main difference in this style of construction is the use of posts (poles) to provide the frost protection and uplift protection in lieu of the footings and frost walls used in standard construction. They are nearly always slab-on-grade (SOG) for the first floor. (Many standard construction homes are SOG as well, but standard homes could also have crawl spaces or basements.) Standard construction will use 2×4 or 2×6 studs at 16″ or 24″ on center to form the shell. Post frame buildings have posts spaces as much as 8′ on center with horizontal 2x4s girts to support the siding. Standard construction will have trusses or rafters at 24″ on center, where post frame buildings space out the trusses to bear on the posts and then use 2×4 purlins to support the roofing materials.

For a pole building, the big advantages are the ease and speed of construction. The construction is very forgiving. It is generally a big box to provide the most cubic feet of storage with the minimum of effort. They tend to leak and creak over time, but provide the basic shelter function needed. For a post frame home, there are a lot of enhancements:

  1. In standard home construction, the frost wall is insulated, in our area, down to 3′ below grade. In post frame home construction, insulation is added under the slab extending 3′ – 6′ from the perimeter to provide a similar thermal break.
  2. In standard home construction, there is continuous sheathing, generally OSB or plywood spanning the studs and providing the exterior diaphragm framing stiffness. In post frame home construction, this is provided by the wall girts which also support the vertical metal siding. Sheathing would still need to be added if a horizontal finish such as traditional siding or a brick veneer is used.
  3. In standard home construction, interior wall finishes such as drywall or wood paneling can be applied directly to the studs. In post frame home construction, it will be necessary to add interior girts to provide support for the interior finishes.
  4. In standard home construction, the wall depth is based on the stud depth, so in general there is a cavity of 5-1/2″, if 2×6 framing is used. Each stud is a thermal transfer point as there is no insulation between the interior and exterior at stud locations. In post frame home construction, the exterior wall thickness is determined by the post thickness (6″ or 8″) plus the 2×4 girt thickness on the interior and exterior, giving a wall cavity of 8-1/2″ or 10-1/2″. Unlike studs that create a thermal transfer from top to bottom, post frame construction reduces the transfer points to just the locations where the girts bypass the posts. This allows for super insulation, more than doubling standard exterior wall R values.
  5. In standard home construction, the roof framing is generally webbed trusses with OSB or plywood decking to tie things together and provide a substrate for shingles. In post frame home construction, either the trusses need to be moved closer together (generally requiring a collar beam) to allow sheathing on the trusses or the sheathing is installed over the purlins.
  6. In standard home construction, interior walls are often load-bearing. In post frame home construction, interior walls are non-bearing, allowing doors without headers, allowing standard slab thicknesses and often, greater stud spacing.

While some of these homes embrace the barndominium style, such as the one to the right that even includes a simulation of a silo, they often are hard to distinguish from their neighbors. It’s not the framing that determines the exterior aesthetic, and in many cases you wouldn’t know the framing style if you didn’t see it under construction. Three of the apartment buildings at The Paddocks have a definite barn aesthetic, yet they were stick-built.

Stating that the style doesn’t fit the community seems a particularly curious thing to say about a home in Culver. Culver has a myriad of building styles ranging from traditional to bungalows to A-frames to geodesic domes. Culver has exterior finishes ranging from siding to painted concrete block to limestone to fieldstone. The siding breaks down to various styles including vertical, horizontal and diagonal. We have buildings with vinyl, steel, aluminum and wood siding. Culver is allowing new construction to expand in size to the point that they encourage replatting/combining of small lots to accommodate the larger construction.

Some communities establish aesthetic requirements. Culver doesn’t have these. As it stands, they’re zoning decisions are based mostly on safety. Post frame verses traditional framing is more of an issue for building codes and as of this time it is allowed. Many would object to the use of vibrant colored residential standing seam roofs as not fitting the traditional aesthetic, but nothing has been said about banning those. Personally, I’m fine with the diversity. Culver shouldn’t stoop to the level of a group of Karens. A flock of Karens is known as an HOA. Culver shouldn’t go there. (Neither should Plymouth…)

Culver Zoning Revisions

by

Steve Gorski, Culver Building Commissioner, has stepped up to the task of updating the Culver Zoning Ordinance. Having served on multiple committees to do this, I know this can be a mind-numbing and somewhat thankless task. This was one of the goals of the 2024 Comp Plan and Mr. Gorski has tackled it. At the last meeting, he presented a lot of the changes and corrections he is proposing. It wasn’t really open to the public for discussion, but was handled as a line-by-line presentation to the commissioners.

For 100% of what he presented, I appreciated what he was trying to do and the clean-up it represented. I think there was 10% that could have been improved by some additional input. My concern with the current approach being taken is two-fold:

  1. Mr. Gorski is the Building Commissioner, so naturally he tends to look at things from the administration and enforcement side of things. While those are relevant and extremely important, it doesn’t always pick up the implementation side that is important to the citizens when they try to comply with the ordinance.
  2. In the past, this has been done by a subcommittee, involving Plan Commission members and members of the public. While Mr. Gorski has a good working relationship with the Plan Commission, it’s harder for the Commissioners to question his suggestions since they are more personal than if they were created by a subcommittee. It’s impossible for one person to do this without it being affected by their personal experience. That is tempered by a committee. (Though this can easily double the time it takes to do this work.)

There is also the factor that Mr. Gorski has only held the position for a couple of years. I’ve written about “Institutional Memory” here before. This applied to more than a few items that he suggested changing. A couple examples just in the category of height restrictions:

  1. In the existing ordinance, there is a restriction that accessory structures in the residential districts have a height limit of 16′. This was added to the ordinance because multiple permits were issued for garages that later had a second floor area remodeled into a second residence, which was not permitted. Mr. Gorski has been questioned multiple times about this and would like it remove it.
  2. In the existing ordinance, the S-1 district allowed accessory structures to have a height of 50′, above the regular height restriction of 35′ in other districts (except A1 – Agriculture). The 50′ limit is there to accommodate grain elevator legs from before there was a separate A1 district. It was left in the ordinance during the last revision so existing farmers in the S-1 weren’t forced to rezone to comply if they added an elevator to their silos.

The ordinance is meant to be somewhat of a living document, so I am by no means saying that these things are written in stone. But the institutional memory of why they are there, could temper the decision to change them.

A couple larger items I struggled with on the changes were:

Image borrowed from the Strong Towns link (Hierarchical Zoning) to the left.
  1. Many of the tweaks, were to address current recurring problems, such a setbacks on small lots. I whole-heartedly agree with the thought process that the ordinance should be changed to reflect the reality of variance being given. Where I struggle with this is in the tweaks being made to setbacks in the R-1 district (as an example) to eliminate current setback issues on existing small lots, without considering how this would affect new lots with the larger lot sizes recommended by the ordinance. If the smaller existing lots are acceptable in R-1, then change the ordinance so new developments mimic the existing. Else, leave them intact as aspirational to what is desired in new construction. Or create new districts and district overlays to accommodate the current needs.
  2. The Comp Plan suggested some major changes in how zoning is handled. In some ways, it suggests moving away from Euclidean Zoning to more Hierarchical Zoning. This wouldn’t have to be done all at once, but could be done in steps or waves. Much of what is currently being fixed reinforces the current Euclidean Zoning. I did bring this up in the public comment section of the agenda and those that seemed to agree with me felt that fixing what we have is a good first step towards this. I hope that’s true since I know sometimes things get busy and major change is hard.

Overall, I commend Mr. Gorski for taking the bull by the horns and moving something forward. I hope the Plan Commission continues to work on this and takes the next steps recommended by the Comp Plan.

Water Street Townhomes – Firemen, EMS & Fire Sprinklers

by
Plymouth Fire & EMS at Water Street Townhomes for a framing tour

Last Month, Chief Holm, allowed us to host the Plymouth Fire Department for a tour of Water Street Townhomes in Plymouth. This was done over three days to cover all three fire department shifts.

We have done this in the past at Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks in Culver. We also did this at LaPaz Commons in LaPaz. We generally try and do this at least once during the framing stage so the fire fighters get the opportunity to observe how the framing goes together in case the worst happens and they are fighting a fire in the building or rescuing someone. We generally try and invite EMS as well since it’s a good opportunity to see how to access the building.

In the case of Water Street Townhomes, we showed them where the electric service entrances are with the associate disconnects, where the electrical panels are, where the Knox Box will be and other pertinent information. For emergency access we showed why entrance from the rear might be a better choice due to tight access with a 90 degree turn at the front door.

The buildings are wood framed using modern framing techniques such as engineered wood products. They react differently in a fire than dimensional lumber. We also have 2-hour rated, double 2 x 4 stud, insulated fire walls between the units. These walls have minimal penetrations and have two layers of Type X, fire rated drywall on each side.

In the commercial space on the end, we were required to install sprinklers on the second-floor apartments because those units were over commercial space. While showing this to the firemen, one of the firemen asked why the entire building wasn’t sprinkled? Ah! A teaching moment!

As discussed in this post last week, municipalities charge a fee for buildings to have a sprinkler system. This is a somewhat random fee, for no actual service. Plymouth Water Department Utility Superintendent, Donnie Davidson, said this when asked what the fee covers: “What service is provided is providing water and pressure to the system, the city does nothing else. Everything from the property line is private.”

I took the opportunity to suggest the fireman advocate for the removal of this fee. Municipalities should be doing things to encourage fire sprinkler systems, not discourage them. In the case of Water Street Townhomes, the cost to sprinkle the two 1-bedroom units is $15,800. This is just the installation fee, then there is the $1,500 tap fee and the $537 annual inspection fee. Now on top of all of that, Plymouth charges $54 in its annual Fire Sprinkler Fee. The fee goes up by line size, so this is low as a 1-1/2″ line. Culver would charge their current flat fee of $1,200 + tax (or the new proposed fee of $2,199 + tax) for these two apartments, just as they would for 8, 24, 100 units, etc.)

There is a cost to install the fire walls between the units too, but it is a one-time cost which is less than the cost of installing a fire sprinkler system. (It also does double-duty by providing sound dampening between units.) I won’t leak or require maintenance or inspections. It is one and done. Is the protection as good as what you get with a fire sprinkler system? Probably yes as far as unit to unit spread, but probably not for saving the unit that catches fire. Plus, much more water is used in fighting a fire from the exterior of a building than that used to when a fire sprinkler system douses the fire at the source when it first starts. But as demonstrated with the two flats at Water Street Townhomes, this is only a solution when there is a horizontal division of units, not a vertical division.

I hope the fire fighters I spoke to speak up to City officials and suggest that this fee be removed. The huge and unjustified increase being contemplated in Culver is why these types of fees are scary to developers and building owners. The fact that they are a regressive fee on renters and discourage additional protection for fire-fighters just adds to the negatives.