Tips
Senior Expo ’23
Julie Heise is our all-around go-to person here at Easterday Construction Co., Inc. She kindly consented to being lent to Berger Audiology to help woman their booth at the Marshall County Council on Aging Senior Expo. She helped set up, tear down and handed out candy and golf balls throughout the event. She even helped wrangle an interview for Dr. Becky on Max 98. Thanks Julie!
Make sure and check out Dr. Berger for your hearing aid and Audiology needs. She’s the only full time Audiologist in Marshall County. She’s not just a hearing aid dispenser, she’s an Audiologist. There’s a difference!
Guest Posts
It’s interesting having a blog and the interactions it generates. I am contacted often about people wanting to do guest posts. Most I ignore out of hand, since the email solicitation is full of spelling and grammar errors. A few I have responded to that looked decent and I’ve spent as much time editing and cleaning them up as if I would have if I’d written them myself. Then there is the occasional one that is a bit amusing like this:
Message: Hey,
I was researching about adult toys this afternoon and stumbled upon your blog – a great collection of high-quality articles.
I am reaching out to you because I’d love to contribute a guest post to your blog.
I promise to fill the piece with solid points and actionable tips. I contribute regularly to blogs .
Here are some topics:
[Why do people like to use sex toys?]
[How do I introduce my wife to sex toys?]
[Sex Bloggers name their favorite Sex Toys]
Let me know and I’ll be sending you the draft as soon as possible.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Adutoys Team
Hmmmm… what did they read in my “great collection of high-quality articles” made them think this was my audience? Or do they know something I don’t? Ha!
I found it amusing and thought it was worth sharing. No links here though… I’ll let you search for Adutoys on your own if you’re so inclined. Solid Points and Actionable Tips are yours for the asking…
<Image from: https://www.memesmonkey.com/>
Crosswalks
At the Culver Town Council meeting this Tuesday, Don Fox made a presentation on Make My Move. It’s an interesting pilot program to encourage full-time remote workers to relocate to Indiana. Culver is a participant in the pilot program and already has someone interested.
Later, under public input, Don again spoke. He first commended the Council for their wisdom for installing the crosswalk markers in the middle of Lake Shore Drive at the Beach Lodge, Osborn’s Mini Mart and The Lakehouse Grille. He then requested they consider adding these at State Street, Washington Street and Madison Street.
It was quickly pointed out that the crossing at State Street was included in the original sign placement, but it quickly became apparent that it interfered with the ingress/egress of fire trucks at the fire station. Someone in the audience extrapolated this to be a problem if a sign was installed at the Madison Street crossing due to the narrowing of the street in this area created with the landscape/traffic islands. This also devolved into a conversation about whether this would require a sign ordinance reference or if it was exempt since it was State Law. At that point it was tabled until the next meeting.
Culver’s traffic is not unique, but it is often comprised of a mix of locals that know the area and visitors, both motorists and pedestrians, that are not as familiar with the area. One suggestion I would put forward in lieu of the center-of-the-road signs is to use Shark Teeth as an added reminder. (See left) They serve two purposes: 1) Providing a visual cue that there is a crosswalk and 2) Providing a visual cue for where to stop when there is a pedestrian in the intersection.
Nothing is free, so even though it’s just paint, there would be some cost for installation and maintenance. These will not work for snow covered roads, but at that point, you can’t see the crosswalk either! Also, the Town only has the the yellow center-of-the-road signs up Spring through Fall, since they would be destroyed by snow plows in the winter. To the best of my knowledge, Shark Teeth have not been used within the Town of Culver, but they were installed by INDOT on S.R. 10 at the crossings to the Academies sports fields. Unfortunately those are currently an example of what they look like when they aren’t maintained…
The ones in the picture above are from Plymouth, IN and I believe they are on one of their Safe Routes to School. I will say that when I first ran across them, I slowed to try and figure out what they were, but had to look it up later to actually know. I’ve also been behind people in Culver that have seen the little yield sign on the center-of-the-road signs and stopped… even though there were no pedestrians anywhere near the crosswalk… Education is an important component of any plan. But just some slowing and extra attention is the point, isn’t it?
I’m sure there will be other ideas, but this seems to be an economical and efficient solution.
Connections to Culver
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.
Culver Redevelopment Commission & The Dunes
October 18, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Tips
Commentary, Community, Culver, Culver Redevelopment Commission, government, The Dunes, TIF, Tips, Trends
The October 16th meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission had a pretty full house and the majority of the meeting was taken up with a Public Meeting (not Public Hearing) on The Dunes. I was pretty proud of Culver as the majority of the questions were well thought out and asked respectfully. There were only a few questions I thought were irrational and even those were asked succinctly and calmly. I was also pleased to see that all of the Town Council members and a few of the candidates for Town Council were in attendance to listen.
Burke Richeson spoke for the Developer and did a nice job. Only getting a little vex’d when another attorney representing opposition spoke. Kevin Danti, Culver Town Manager, did a good job of keeping things moving and controlling the conversation. (I was going to link to Kevin’s page on the town’s website, but it hasn’t been updated.)
There were questions about environmental concerns, but these seemed to center on the effect on Lake Maxinkuckee. It was stated by Karen Shuman, who is on the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council (LMEC), that LMEC had determined that the property is not within the Lake Maxinkuckee Watershed. I’m not sure that’s 100% correct, but it is at least mostly correct. Lake Maxinkuckee’s watershed is not large, but since the lake is mostly sustained by springs, the quality and quantity of ground water is important. That said, besides the lake, there are other environmental concerns, one the bigger ones being the surface runoff flow to the wetlands at the north side of the property and the town well fields just north of the property. Protection of those are critical.
Most of the conversation was well presented and questions were mostly answered with the exception of questions regarding the bond structure. Those got rather deep and ended with an offer from the town to provide a visual chart and breakdown to make the flow of funds more understandable. At this time, an agreement between the Town and Developer has not been reached, so the final numbers remain in flux. Progress is being documented on the Town’s Website in a link to Dunes. They stated a plan to document the questions heard at this meeting as well as others under a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.
Aside from the bonding, which was confusing to all involved, I was a little confused about the Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF) discussion. This was presented by Marty Oosterbaan, Commission Chairman, and I think most people in attendance didn’t know the right questions to ask. A couple of the things that left me puzzled were: 1) was the new land area for The Dunes being taken into the existing downtown TIF as discussed or would it stand alone; 2) was there one new TIF area or two? There was discussion of a 20yr TIF (residential) and a 25yr TIF (commercial) to cover the areas with rental apartments. How do these fit? There was also a discussion about how this would affect local residents and again, the discussion of taxes were muddy. It was stated that there would be no effect for the life of the TIF, but I don’t believe that to be correct, since there will be a reassessment and taxes levied on the new development which could affect neighboring property.
Another positive I heard last night was the future involvement of Michiana Area Council of Governments (MACOG). Culver is already working with them on the new Comprehensive Plan and have engaged them for help on The Dunes as well. They will be conducting traffic studies, apparently including boat traffic studies. Hopefully they will also step in to fill the Urban Planner role I suggested here before. It would be interesting to see if they address the issue of suburban sprawl and disconnection of subdivisions in Culver I discussed in this post. Would this development be more acceptable if it followed the streets and alleys development grid found on the east side of South Main Street rather than as a controlled access, separate neighborhood? An interesting question…
Though there weren’t pitchforks and torches at this meeting, the tenor of the conversation made it clear that the community is not embracing this project yet. There were comments about screening it so it’s not seen and changing the entrance to face S.R. 17 in lieu of South Main Street, as discussed here before. These ideas treat it as if they expect an eyesore or having nothing to contribute to Culver. While there may be reasonable concerns, the Town government seems to be on a path to address them the best they can. There is good reason to be cautious, but there should also be efforts to take advantage of the positives that could come from this.
3 comments