Comprehensive Plan

Stellar Site Visit 2017

by
State Stellar Evaluation Team with the Culver sign

Yesterday was the Stellar Site Visit in Culver. Despite some stress, it went well. Everyone hit their marks, attendance from State representatives was good and distractions were limited to one plan blowing off an easel and one sea-plane doing touch-and-go’s on the Lake. Now it’s down to waiting to see what happens. For anyone interested, below is the outline of my presentation at Sand Hill Farm. (It’s an outline, so it’s not word for word) Top representatives from Culver’s three largest employers stood with me. Karen Shuman – Superintendent of Culver Community Schools, Josh Pretzer – Dean of Faculty at Culver Academies and Brian Meek – Plant Manager at Elkay Industries. They all spoke eloquently about the need for entry-level housing in Culver. One thing that seems to come up over and over is the lack of available full time rentals. Sand Hill Farm will address this as it will be all 12 month rentals. Also addressed was the declining numbers for school faculty and plant employees who live in Culver. Hopefully Sand Hill Farm will be an opportunity for people to live and work in Culver… and become part of the community…

I’ve also included some pictures from yesterday’s event. Thanks to all of those that contributed. It was great getting to know everyone better and help work towards the common cause. Now it’s down to waiting for the results. We should know in the next few week.  Cross your fingers for Culver. #CulverisStellar!

+++++++++++++++++++

TM Jonathan’s introductory pitch at the Beach Lodge

Stellar Presentation – Sand Hill Farm

I’m standing here with Culver’s three largest employers, Brian Meek from Elkay, Karen Shuman from Culver Community Schools and Josh Pretzer from Culver Academies. Culver Academies is also the largest employer in our County.

  1. A Little History about the site
    1. Tourism Rep Becca making her presentation

      The property was previously owned by a great aunt & uncle. I purchased it from their estate in 2005. I lived just to the east and used to play on the property as a kid. We used to refer to it as going to play at the “Sand Hill”. Thus the name I’ve placed on the property.

    2. The Sand Hill used to extend to the west past the current location of State Road 17, but was mined for fill during the relocation of State Road 17.
  2. Affordable/Entry Level Housing
    1. MACOG’s James Turnwald speaking about the Jefferson St Corridor

      The need for affordable housing has been recognized for the past decade. Culver has become a community of “second homes”. Many of these have become retirement homes for their owners.

    2. The need for affordable housing was prominent in our Comprehensive Plan which was completed in 2014, but prior to that, it showed up in various town surveys, and was discussed each election season by candidates for Town Council.
    3. In the Spring of 2014 Elkay applied for a $4.5 million tax abatement. At the meeting when it passed, the Town Council asked if there was anything else they could do to assist them. Elkay asked for help with the housing issue as it was affecting their hiring. This was the catalyst to actually start a Task Force to address this. Discussions began with the two schools, Elkay, MCEDC and representatives from the various Town commissions and boards to put together an Entry Level Housing Task Force.
      1. In November of 2014, I partnered with the Town to represent the Town of Culver at the Affordable Housing Conference in Chicago. That was almost too much information. I was attending the 4oo level class when I needed Affordable Housing 101, but I did make some good contacts and brought back information that was useful.
      2. In 2015, the Task Force began meeting in earnest, examining 6 sites throughout the town, sending RFP’s to developers and generally getting a handle on what our resources were and what was needed.
      3. This site, Sand Hill Farm, was selected as the best option for available infrastructure, expandability and a landowner that believed in the cause. (Me)
      4. Most of 2015 was spent in this assessment. It was determined that we wanted a mix of housing types to expand our appeal and expand our accessibility to various targets in our market.
      5. While we had made progress, we were left at an impasse. In 2015 MCEDC arranged a meeting with the OCRA director to discuss options and it was there that we were directed to consider a Stellar Community application.
  3. 2016 Stellar
    1. Park Supe Anna presenting the Beach Lodge Renovations

      When Stellar was discussed in 2016, Housing was the prominent goal on our agenda. Housing is the truly transformative need to address. It will help our employers, put children back in the school and provide the critical mass to make most of the rest of the projects flourish. The more we talked, everything came back to housing. Hopefully that was reflected in our application.

  4. After 2016 Stellar
    1. We were disappointed that we didn’t achieve Stellar status, but we recognized that it didn’t change the housing issues that had been building for years. We continued to move forward. To this end:
      1. The property has been subdivided and annexed.
      2. A Special Use Variance was obtained through the BZA to allow multifamily apartments on the property.
      3. The Zoning Ordinance section on Planned Unit Developments was updated in anticipation of this project’s next step. The Planned Unit Development plans are underway.
      4. An allocation of $270,000 was committed through Regional Cities towards housing on this site. Our SIP (Strategic Investment Plan) from Stellar 2016 was instrumental in selling the need. It also sparked conversations throughout the County and two other communities were awarded Regional Cities money for housing projects.
      5. Park Supe Anna presenting the Damore Amphitheater Project

        A partnership was formed with Elkay Cabinets. They will be providing cabinets, sinks and faucets at a reduced cost.

      6. $400k in infrastructure money has been committed by the Redevelopment Commission which has been matched with $400k in other town funds through their streets, water and sewer funds.
      7. An Economic Development Commission has been created and the site has been designated as an Economic Development Target Area which clears the way for a Tax Abatement. A Tax Abatement hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday.
      8. The Right of Way has been dedicated to the Town and as you can see, clearing is underway.
      9. A development agreement has been executed between the Town and Sand Hill Farm
      10. Plans are also nearly complete on a 24 unit apartment building. There is a set at the Beach Lodge if anyone wants to look at them at the end of the tour.
      11. Plans are nearly complete on the road and infrastructure construction which the town will be handling.
    2. Stellar 2017
      1. Mike Reese from Troyer Group and Dana Neer & Don Fox from Culver Academies presenting the Trail project

        In our current application we’ve worked to more clearly tie the housing project to the rest of the projects. While that was the case last year we’ve strengthened those connections.

        1. The bike & walking trail will have a stop here and the open space provided will tie into that trail.
        2. The Jefferson Street Corridor improvement will enhance the connection to the Town. We want these residents to be part of the community. We are targeting Elkay employees with this development and we want them to make the after hours connection as well as the work connection.
        3. Long range, this the extended section of property to the north backs up to the Little League diamonds which are included on the Cavelier Park project.
        4. While the other projects don’t touch this one directly, they all enhance Culver’s livability and frankly, EVERYTHING in Culver is within walking distance.
      2. Karen Shuman from Culver Community Schools discussing the connections and benefits of Cavalier Park

        We’ve talked to Elkay, the schools and some local residents about education programs that can be offered to residents here. Things like opportunities to learn about finances, nutrition and continuing education for advancement.

      3. We feel the PUD with the mixed use will provide the best opportunity to integrate the new residents into the community and provide some New Urbanism opportunities. There will be a mix of apartments and single family residences through duplexes and townhouses on the site.
      4. The development agreement includes a site for a Habitat for Humanity home, again enhancing that town connection.
      5. We’ve had several meetings with IHCDA representatives over the past two years. (Name Carmen, Samantha and Dani if they’re here.) We’ve explored several of their programs with them, but the only one that seems to apply at our scale is the Tax Credit Housing program. Unfortunately, we don’t have an infill site, a brownfield site or a dilapidated building to renovate, so we’re unlikely to score well for in the general competition for those funds. Stellar is our “in” to qualify. If we don’t make Stellar this year, as with last year, that just means we have to change our target and work the housing differently… as we did this past year.

Culver Beach Lodge

by

There has been a lot of talk about what can or could be done to the Culver Beach Lodge to make it more usable. Some renovations are currently underway. I understand that this discussion started as part of the Park’s long range plan a few years ago and really began in earnest last year with the Stellar Communities competition. I’ve been very involved with Culver Stellar and while I haven’t been directly involved with the Beach Lodge planning, I’ve listened and contributed to some of the conversation.

It has been discussed that the function of the building for the Town and the Park is more important than the historic significance of the building. It has also been discussed that there is no defined use for the top floor yet. It has been discussed that there is a continuing need for meeting space and rental space. All this discussion got me thinking a little outside the box on how a renovation could be accomplished to meet these goals. Eliminating the interest in getting a Historic Renovation Grant and consequently worrying about preserving the facade and roof opens up new possibilities. Last Friday evening I spent a little time sketching out a possible idea.

Let me further preface this by saying I was not involved in any of the preliminary discussions with Steve Park, the Architect with whom the Town has contracted, and he may have a dozen reasons why this won’t work. I’m not a structural engineer or architect, but look at the attached sketches and descriptions. Maybe this is an idea that should be explored.


Plan View

  1. Gut everything but the two storage areas on the north side of the top floor. The storage rooms on the north wall could be removed as well. If the storage units are removed, the usable space on the top floor would actually be larger than the main floor meeting room.
  2. Reframe the stairs to a standard pitch with a landing and 90 degree turn into the space.
  3. Move the restroom to the area above the kitchen. Plumbing access could be obtained through the existing kitchen when it is remodeled. There would be room for a small mechanical closet there for HVAC.
  4. A kitchenette could be installed anywhere along the north wall if deemed needed, but I wonder if built-in cabinets and counters for catering might be more valuable. This would also provide headroom protection along the clipped ceiling.
  5. Remove the south side roof and extend the south wall up to 8’ height.
  6. Reframe the roof with two vaulted ceiling dormers facing the lake. The dashed lines show the new roof ridges and valleys. (Dormer valleys would direct water away from the decks. Dormers could extend out over the deck to provide coverage and extended use.)
  7. Provide French doors with sidelights out to a deck over the main floor deck. Drainage would be necessary since this creates an enclosed space, but scuppers or piped drainage could accommodate this. (Deck size might be limited by load capacity. You also might have to step up onto it to get the structure in place, but this could still be very cool.)
  8. Provide railing to match main floor railing around deck as needed.

Note: If we do not reframe the entire roof, we might need interior support for the ceiling and remaining trusses on the north side. I do not know how this was framed… If it was framed using rafters in lieu of trusses, we could potentially vault the north side as well using existing structure. The dormer valley rafters should provide support the ridge beam.


East/West Elevations

  1. Install siding from the main floor ceiling level up to the roof lines. This would cover the brick and cover the change in pitch on the south roof without having to match the brick. It would fit in with the stucco on the lower level walls. Stucco panels could be used in lieu of siding.
  2. Brick fireplaces would continue through for continuity.


South Elevation

  1. As a gathering space, the new layout would provide more open floor space and an enhanced view of the lake, both lower and larger from what’s there now, via the expanse of glass doors and sidelights.
  2. The decks would provide outdoor access and views of the park in either direction as well as the lake.
  3. I didn’t try and sketch it in, but I assume this face would be white siding above the second floor as well.


Building Section

  1. The clipped ceiling would remain on the north side of the room, but the south side would be full height at the minimum and more where vaulted.

Totally outside the box… Unworkable if the Town wants to go for a historic renovation grant… Totally blowing the budget… But this would make a fabulous meeting/party space.

With only one stair, there would be a capacity limit. This could be improved by sprinkling the space or adding a fire escape. I think a fire escape could be added unobtrusively on the east elevation, particularly if we used one of the counter balance styles. (I suggested this for Lucrezia’s second floor too.)

Now’s the time for brain storming on this, so if you have different or better ideas, throw them out there now. If you have ideas to improve what I’ve shown here (it’s rough!), let me know in the comments and if I like them and have time, I’ll update these drawings.

Go Stellar!

Counter Balance Stair picture borrowed from www.fireengineering.com

Parking Lots & the Environment

by

I’ve written about the new parking lot slated for downtown Culver here and here, I had a somewhat heated exchange the other day regarding the parking lot and whether it was an issue that affected Lake Maxinkuckee.  So here is my mini rant list on why this is an environmental issue:

  1. Parking Lots and their environmental impacts are addressed repeatedly in the new Culver Comprehensive Plan. Yes, I realize it is a “plan” and plans change…  But, it is only 14 months old!!!  It seems ridiculous that all of the recommendations regarding future land use for that piece of property and how parking lots should be installed and whether we even need another parking lot are outdated at this time!  All of those things were addressed in detail in the Plan.  (It’s interesting… and sad… to note that at the three town meetings I attended where this issue was discussed, the Comprehensive Plan was only brought up one time and that was as part of a protest from an adjacent property owner.  It was never referenced by the Boards and Commissions reviewing the proposal.)
  2. Parking lots are the antithesis of green space within Lake Maxinkuckee’s watershed. This parking lot only works by violating the buffer requirements. The Culver Zoning Ordinance calls for 20′ wide buffer on C-2 parcels that abut residential properties.  The properties on either side of this parking lot are zoned R-1.  Buffers would have been green space. The Town requested variances down to 1′ from the property line on each side and after debate obtained variances for 1′ on one side and 7′ on the other side.
  3. The Culver Zoning Ordinance now includes limitations on impervious surface. This lot was rezoned to C-2 in order to accommodate the parking lot. C-2 zoning districts require a maximum 60% impervious surface coverage. As originally proposed with 1′ setbacks on each side there is no way the impervious surface requirements would not have been violated.  Even with the revised variance which was approved it is questionable whether coverage is not greater than 60%. In any case no calculations were provided to show that this requirement was not violated.

All of this is nothing but a philosophical argument at this point anyway. The die has been cast on this one and my only reason for arguing about it is to point out a missed opportunity.  Still, it is frustrating to see those opportunities slip away…

Comic source:  thedrunkencyclist

Parking Lot Follow-up

by

Just to give a follow up on my post regarding the parking lot on South Main Street.  I attended the BZA meeting last week.  Raubyn Barich, the homeowner to the south, did an excellent job of presenting her case against the proposed use.  She ended up finding a lot of the points I made previously here, plus some others that were quite good.

Despite the Plan Commission’s recommendation that the site plan be changed to angle parking in lieu of 90 degree parking, the Town Council and Redevelopment Commission decided to push for the 90 degree option.  This would have put the parking lot within 12″ of the Barich lot line leaving no room for a landscape buffer.  All they would have received was a 6′ fence on the lot line.  Seeing opposition to this from the BZA, the applicant modified the request to give a 7′ buffer.  Buffering such as shown to the right would have been better, both on the south and east, but that’s not going to happen…  A solid white fence is what planned, which won’t be attractive at all.  At this point that is all about dollars, so suggestions something more attractive with a staggered design or other interest is not being considered.  That’s unfortunate since this has become a municipal project.

Read more

Culver Downtown Parking Lot

by

I’ve been at four meetings where a downtown parking lot has been discussed: two Redevelopment Commission meetings, a Plan Commission Meeting and a Town Council meeting.  At two of these meetings I’ve listened to the adjacent property owner discuss her concerns.  So far her concerns have received little sympathy, though I believe they have some merit.  In my opinion there are two issues here, 1) Rezoning the property from R1 to C2 and the subsequent variance and 2) the parking lot itself.  The rezoning has been completed, so that’s basically a moot point, but just for kicks and giggles, I’m going to discuss both here:

Comp Plan CoverZoning and Variance

Let’s start with the Comprehensive Plan.  The Future Land Use Map shows this block on Main Street as Mixed Use:  “Mixed Use development is characterized as multi-story structures with retail, restaurant and service uses on the ground floor and office or residential uses on the upper floors where appropriate.”  (pg 45)  In the downtown district there are multiple references to the maintaining the “streetwall”, in general would imply a C-1 Zoning District.

The downtown, between Washington Street and Madison Street along Main Street, is zoned C-1.  The block south of Madison Street is zoned C-2 on the east side and R-1 (with the exception of this recent rezoning) on the west side. Where this determination came from is somewhat puzzling since the description of the C-2 District in the Zoning Ordinance starts off:  Comp Plan Downtown Map with legend“The C-2 Commercial District is a general commercial district designed to serve free-standing commercial activities which may be highway oriented or those business establishments which by their nature do not readily adapt to a downtown location.”  This area is obviously compatible with “downtown” since it is downtown and these businesses are in no way “highway oriented”.  They also meet the requirements of maintaining the streetwall, though they do have off-street parking.  So…  this rezoning is a case of spot zoning, i.e. an island of C-2 in between R-1 lots.  It is also contrary to the Comprehensive Plan which shows this area as part of downtown and suggests that it be C-1 to encourage the streetwall.

The adjacent property owner has legitimate complaints.  1) This will not enhance her property and will no doubt be detrimental to it as a residence which she hopes to maintain and 2) by making this a spot zoning and not rezoning the entire block as a commercial district she has not even benefited from the possibility of increasing the value of the property as a potential future commercial development site.

And to address the variance, the C-2 rezoning created this problem.  C-1 has zero side yard setbacks, so this could have been moot on that basis.

I would argue that if rezoning was to occur here, the entire block should have been rezoned as C-1.

Parking:

There is some question in my mind regarding the need for additional downtown parking.  Again, looking at the Comprehensive Plan I found the following references to parking:

  • Page 27, Business Surveys – “Proximity to home, parking availability, were identified as the greatest advantages for businesses [sic] owners.” Emphasis added.
  • Page 30, Desired Use/Development – “Other points identified developing vacant lots and underutilized parking lots in and around the downtown.”  Emphasis added.
  • Page 45, Future Land Use, Mixed Use (definition) – “Mixed Use buildings should be located at or near the sidewalk with parking in the rear, so as to establish a consistent streetwall and foster a sense of activity.  Emphasis Added.
  • Page 59, Commercial & Employment Areas Framework Plan, Mixed Use – “Parking should have a minimal presence along primary roadways such as Main Street and Lake Shore Drive.”
  • Page 60, Commercial & Employment Areas Framework Plan, Downtown Culver – “Buildings along Main Street should be at or near the sidewalk with parking at the rear.”
  • Page 62, Commercial Area Policies, Maintain the Streetwall in Mixed Use Areas – “The success of Mixed Use areas can be undermined if the streetwall suffers from large gaps between buildings, buildings that are substantially setback from the sidewalk, or parking area adjacent to the sidewalk with no perimeter landscaping, fencing or screening.  In areas where gaps are unavoidable, a combination of landscaping, decorative fencing and masonry/stone walls should be used.:

And there are more references such as the section on creating Parking Policy on page 65 and the discussion of Complete Streets on page 94 continue to talk about avoiding parking lots on Main Street and encouraging on-street parking or parking in the rear.  There are also sections that suggest parking be screen, include planting islands and trees for shade.  None of which have been included in the plan up for consideration.

232 South Main Street from Comp Plan
232 South Main Street from Comp Plan

The parking lot proposal is a collaboration between the Town and the developer of the building at 232 South Main Street.  At the public meetings it is being discussed as a public project and fulfilling a need for downtown parking.  In actuality it seems to be more of a response to the relocation of the Lake Shore Clinic to 232 South Main Street and the perceived increase in parking needs.  This is somewhat frustrating since prior to construction in 2007, the developer was granted a parking variance from ordinance standards.  It would seem that if the building had included the required parking spaces this new lot would not be required.  But doubly so, since as the Comprehensive Plan, just completed last year, discusses parking availability and underutilized parking lots as positives.

I would also question whether the proposed parking lot meets the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements, specifically 1) There shall be onsite stormwater detention (pg 54, Design and Maintenance #7) and 2) There shall be no parking in the front yard (pg 54, Design and Maintenance #11)  While there are drywells called out on the plans, I would rather see an above ground detention structure that can be cleaned and maintained.  Regarding the front yard, I had an interesting discussion with the Building Commissioner.  He does not consider this property as having a front yard since there is not a building on it, but also noted that the setback is considered the front yard when looking at site distance in L-1.  That also then brings up whether the parking lot is considered a structure, which it would be under the definitions on page 14, at which point it might again need a variance for violating the front setback.  And then there is the impervious surface restriction.  I’m not sure how they are going to keep less than 60% impervious surface with a parking lot that is only setback 12″ from the side lot lines.  The Building Commissioners position is that parking lots are not defined in the Zoning Ordinance which means everything is up for interpretation by the Plan Commission.  Fair point, but not particularly helpful heading into a hearing.

A couple of final thoughts I have.  First, I would probably not be in favor of the variance request tonight (though I won’t speak against it).  If the entire block had been rezoned, I would have been more likely to support it, but the spot zoning seems quite odd.  The decision making seems a bit schizophrenic in that we’re shoehorning in a spot zoned commercial use, without making the commitment of expanding the surrounding residential area as commercial use.  Second, I am very disappointed that the Comprehensive Plan was not consulted in this decision.  I did not see it discussed in any of the above meetings and that’s unfortunate when the plan is not much more than a year old.  True it is just a plan and as with all plans, subject to change, but my feeling is that it was ignored, not changed.  Such is life in the big city… or Culver…

++++++++

See an after-meeting follow-up post here.