Tag:Community
Solar Subdivisions
So this is an idea that came to me last week while sharing a couple beers with a friend associated with the solar industry. I’ll throw it out here and see if it has any legs. With the ridiculously large buffers being requested around the perimeter of solar farms and our dearth of available housing (1,300 units needed right now per the Housing Matters study done by United Way of Marshall County and backed up by the Regional Housing Study being done by MACOG), it would seem like a great idea to subdivide the proposed buffer and building housing around the perimeter of these solar farms. This would change the solar companies lease model, but with the solar companies’ help, this gives the farmers another source of income from the sale or rental of these perimeter properties.
As discussed here before, it seems the main complaint about solar is visual, i.e. the neighbors don’t like looking at them. This would solve this problem as anyone moving into these houses would automatically know what to expect. Many on the “green” side will want to live there seeing it as part of a sustainable future. I can already see the future subdivision names… Green Acres… Solar Farms… Sunshine Place…
Marshall County’s Zoning Ordinance’s A-3, Agricultural Residential District calls for a minimum lot size of 1 acre, which is 43,560 sf. I would like to think this could be negotiated down some, but to some extent these lots need to be larger to accommodate wells and septic fields. (County side sewer could allow some reductions.) Differing buffer setbacks have been requested, ranging from reasonable to absurd, but a mid range 500′ setback, that gives a lot approximately 90′. There could still be a buffer planting on the rear property line of these lots to appease the extreme solar haters, but there won’t be much to see.
This solution provides better use of land. The buffer areas aren’t large enough for much true farming and if they are planted with buffer trees, then they aren’t great for farming anyway. Electricity from the solar field could supplement the housing as a sales incentive, creating solar converts as they go.
Like solar itself, this wouldn’t be the answer in every case. But it might serve double duty in some cases and help find compromise.
Hello Darkness
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m so thrilled with the time change and darkness at 5:00. Ha! I saw a meme that inspired this post title that was a play on the Simon & Garfunkel song, “Sound of Silence”. (Though I do kind of like this cover by Disturbed.) The meme went “Hello Darkness my old friend. Soon you’ll start at 5:00 again…” If you read what I post here, you know I’m against the time changes whichever the direction, and I would be fine with it dark at 5:00, if it just gradually happened naturally as it should. Whichever time we’re on, here in northern Indiana, I would be going to work in the dark and returning home in the dark anyway.
But one of the things this has brought to light (pun intended) is Culver’s welcome signs have gone “Dark Skies” on us. The lights on the limestone Culver Sign (above) at the east intersection of 10 & 17 are out. The internal light in the relatively new electronic sign at the end of school street (left) has been turned off. And in a “Made You Look” moment, I checked, so you didn’t have to, and the welcome signs at the west end of Jefferson Street and Mill Street were never lit.
I made an enquiry about the two signs that had lights and was told no one else had notice (or said anything) about the limestone sign lights. The light in the top of the electronic sign was turned off because the neighbor complained. Keeping with the song theme, apparently, “She was Blinded by the Light” per Bruce Springsteen. (Though again, I am partial to this cover that was done by Manfred Mann’s Earth Band.)
I’ve discussed the electronic messaging sign here often, and I wondered about the neighbor when it was installed. It doesn’t surprise me that it’s obtrusive. I think the flashing, changing message (often with a white background) is probably actually more of a problem. That could be solved only using messages with a colored background. Most of those are the affirmations, so that should be easy to change. For the upper sign, most of these lights would have the option for dimmers, but if that’s not possible, a screen could be added to the interior of the sign on the east side to reduce the light. There are various screens that reduce opacity that would do the trick.
Not much to say about the limestone sign. I assume it needs new bulbs, but we installed those fixtures decades ago and it would probably make more sense to replace the fixtures with new LEDs that use less energy. If I get a vote, something could be done in a soft off-white light that brings out the stone and not a harsh white. As far as the west entrance signs go, it would be relatively inexpensive to install a solar (Oh my goodness! I said that word!) sign lights that would mount to it and light up the faces like the one here for $15.95 (right). Pretty inexpensive even if it has to be replaced often.
Culver doesn’t have much of a highway presence, so all of these signs are important. I doubt they’re going to inspire anyone to make a sudden turn into town. They would help with someone trying to find us though. They also might inspire a stop at a later time, if someone was just passing by. They are already here, we should make the most of them. Light ’em up!
MCCF ’24 – End of Year Donations
Easterday Construction has always supported Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF). This year there’s a way to increase the impact of your donation either through existing funds or starting one of your own. Consider MCCF in your end of year charitable giving.
Accessory Dwelling Units
At the September meeting of the Culver Plan Commission there was a rezoning request for the parcel at 451 North State Street. The request was for a rezoning from R-1 to R-2. The property was originally two lots. Due to one of the Culver Zoning Ordinance restrictions (a lot must have a primary structure before an accessory structure can be built) the lots were combined so that the house on the north lot could have a garage on the south lot. The current owner wanted to add an apartment over the garage for when they had family there. The comments from the board, as well as comments from the neighbors, indicated the use desired wasn’t the problem, but the spot zoning to R-2 and the implications of what could be allowed in the future was at issue. R-2 would allow much denser development including many forms of multi-family residential. Unfortunately for the owner, this was the recommendation from the Building Commissioner and they weren’t given much encouragement to seek a variance as there wasn’t a hardship. Subdividing back to the original two lots would be an option, but there was a concern about the two existing buildings meeting setback requirements. The spot zoning was less of an issue since the Plan Commission spot zoned three different homes that contained 2-3 units to R-2 so they met zoning requirements earlier this year. (See previous post here.)
There was considerable discussion about the issue and it was noted that the current Comprehensive Plan added language that Accessory Dwelling Units should be considered. A work session of the Plan Commission was scheduled and held October 8th to address this issue.
At the work session, the Building Commissioner put forth a proposal to create a new zoning district, R-1.5, to add areas that could have have accessory dwelling units. The counter proposal was, that these should be allowed throughout R-1. What follows are some of the discussion points and my thoughts on them:
- Addressing the Comprehensive Plan directive – The Comp Plan makes recommendations from the consensus of public meetings. It is passed by the Plan Commission and the Town Council. In this case, the latest Comp Plan passed both groups unanimously, so the question is more about how to address the issue rather than whether to address the issue. The Comp Plan isn’t binding, but it does give direction. This is just one of many suggestions in the latest plan that contemplates the Plan Commission reexamining the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Comp Plan recommendations.
- New District vs Subdistrict vs allowable with restrictions – Both the New District and Subdistrict options suggest that the Plan Commission would have to go through some kind of rezoning process to either recategorize an area of R-1 District to the new standards or effectively spot zone each request as it came up. This would be burdensome for the Plan Commission and property owners and create a spot zoning situation every time it came up. The allowable restrictions should be definable and something the Building Commissioner could handle.
- Need for separate water and sewer – This was suggested by the Street Superintendent in case of future lot subdivision. This really should be a moot point though, since this is an accessory use, not a new primary use and most of the lots these would go on would be too small to subdivide. The Comp Plan contemplated this as a way to achieve additional workforce housing on existing infrastructure. This would go against that purpose. (Though I could see requiring a covenant against future subdivision of the lot if an accessory dwelling structure is allowed.)
- Garage Renovations – There was quite a bit of discussion regarding renovating a garage to be an Accessory Dwelling Unit. There were concerns about garages that were too close to property lines and whether a second floor for a dwelling unit would increase non-conformity. While some garages could be renovated this way, the building code overrides zoning, so many older garages would not meet those requirements and those too close to a property line could not be converted and meet the building code setbacks which override zoning setbacks for some conditions. Aside from those building code violations, most of the other concerns could be address through the allowable restrictions. There is also a separate garage height restriction that would have to be addressed.
- Some R-1 Lots are too small – There were concerns about shoe-horning these in on smaller lots. This could easily be handled with a lot size restriction and actually makes the case for making them allowable throughout R-1, but with restrictions. Lots like 451 North State Street would meet the size requirements, but the adjacent lot to the south wouldn’t. Also, this would not eliminate the impervious surface requirements. The need for off-street parking would have to be discussed too.
There were a myriad of other things that were not discussed or were just briefly touched on. Most of these could be handled with a matrix or a Chinese Menu approach. Square Footage of the building could have a minimum and then an increase based on lot size, but still controlled by the base impervious surface requirements. Additional parking requirements could be determined by the number of bedrooms, but still controlled by impervious surface requirements. There could be a requirement that it be smaller than the primary structure. There could be a lesser height allowable than the 35 foot currently allowed in R-1 or even required to be a certain percentage shorter than the primary structure. All of these and others could be check-off items determined by the Building Commissioner rather than having each one appear before the Plan Commission.
A few additional things that should be address:
- Can these be three season dwellings that are shut down and winterized at the end of the season or must they be available for year-round occupancy?
- Can a mobile home or a motor home fit the criteria?
- Must it have a kitchen/cooking facilities or just bathroom facilities?
- Must it be detached?
- The discussion centered around detached units, but that wouldn’t address the R-2 spot zoning discussed previously.
- It would also preclude uses like mother-in-law suites which are currently a gray area.
- It would also preclude larger homes subdivided into apartments, i.e. multi-family use of existing single family structures.
- Is an Accessory Dwelling Unit different from other, possibly existing, accessory structures, i.e. if there is a house and a detached garage, does that mean the detached garage has to be eliminated in favor of the Accessory Dwelling Unit? I don’t think that’s in the spirit of the Comp Plan goal, but it should be defined one way or another. It is another item that might be determined by lot size in the matrix.
There was a lot of concern about spot zoning or even using the idea of allowing it within R-1 with restrictions, because of these things happen without neighbor input. This is one of those things where the Plan Commission will have to be open to thinking outside the box a bit. The Comp Plan goal for this was to provide additional workforce housing by making the best use of existing infrastructure. Based on this, they need to work on making this easy and inexpensive rather than hard and costly. Some will no doubt be full blown vacation spaces like contemplated in the State Street rezoning. But others will be studio and one bedroom spaces suitable for wait staff, teachers and other workers just starting out. Those are the ones we need to encourage as those spaces are in demand and those workers are in demand.
I’m glad to see the Plan Commission taking this up. If you want to follow along, the Building Commissioner has committed to posting updates and additional information here. I know this was pushed by a rezoning request, but it is just one of many Comp Plan recommendations they should be considering. As per a previous post, they are way behind where they were after the 2014 Comp Plan was created. Fingers crossed they build momentum from this start.
More thoughts on Culver Lights
December 2, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver
Charrette, Community, Complete Streets, Comprehensive Plan, Culver, government, Trends
This post tangentially, convolutedly, connects to the recent Hello Darkness post on sign lights. At least it connects for me, the way my mind works…
The Culver Charrette that was done in 1998 promoted the idea of continuing themes in Culver. One of them was the use of field stone. The Culver Chamber of Commerce embraced this with the field stone and limestone Welcome to Culver sign at the intersection of 10 & 17 as well as covering the wall at the Lake Shore Drive curve across from The Original Root Beer Stand with field stone. Some development in Culver has embraced this and some hasn’t, but it’s nice when it happens. Sand Hill Farm used this in the entrance sign at Jefferson Street and The Paddocks embraced it as an accent on the townhouses in that project.
Another theme that the Charrette suggested was “Utilize a uniform decorative lighting standard throughout the linkages in Town.” This was done along Lake Shore Drive and Main Street. It was continued part of the way out on Jefferson Street with the trail. It was also recommended as part of the Complete Streets discussion. (I couldn’t find the Complete Streets Ordinance on the Town of Culver website, but Kevin Danti, Town Manager, was kind enough to share a copy with me.)
While the lights were installed to follow the bike and walking trail out Jefferson Street to Sand Hill Blvd, neither the lights or complete streets designs were used in the last street Culver put in, Cavalier Drive. The lights were not used along the trail as it goes south from the downtown area of Main Street out to the Masonic Cemetery. I assume per these standards, Resolution 2018-007, Sec. 3(b), will be applied in The Dunes subdivision, though I am not privy to the negotiations on that project infrastructure. They could well have been waived as they were for Cavalier Drive.
I think the consistent themes suggested by the charrette, add to Culver’s character and contribute to Culver being a memorable destination. The lights are not inexpensive, but their ability to be functional and add charm should not be ignored. As with the lighted signs at the edges of town, it would be good to consider a phased spending plan that adds these fixtures to all the main entrance streets. I would also suggest that they be included along the new trails as they go through town as well, since the trails are part of Culver’s destination marketing. They would make the trails more accessible, safe, and using these lights create a more walkable scale than where there are the taller utility pole mounted fixtures.
The lights contribute to the character of Culver that sets us apart. What we locally take for granted, makes us standout to visitors…
0 comments