Tag:Culver
Complete Streets
H.B. 1182, legislation defining Complete Streets for Indiana streets and highways, passed the Indiana House but didn’t make it through the Senate earlier this year. This Bill followed a national trend to look at streets in a more holistic fashion, taking into account pedestrians, bicycles and public transportation, rather than just the minimalist approach of expediting the transit of cars from point A to point B. The Complete Streets ideal also looks at issues concerning stormwater control and optimizaton of pavement.
Culver recently received a grant for renovations to Main Street as it runs through the downtown business district. My understanding is that plans are underway to facilitate these improvements. I spoke to Town Manager, Michael Doss, and he did not believe that the Complete Streets standards would apply. (That was shortly after the grant was obtained and now his remarks appear sage-like as the legislation failed to move forward.) Some of the proposed standards may be of value though and hopefully will be considered by the designer. Improvements that make the downtown business district more pedestrian and cyclist friendly should be helpful. We also have a continuing stormwater issue in Culver that could be improved by changes to impervious surfaces in the downtown. Corrections to the existing stormwater system as well as other infrastructure should be considered as part of this project. It would be prudent to make sure that we’re not tearing up the new street in a couple of years to correct underlying problems.
Culver does not have a lot of new road construction planned, so opportunities to employ this type of design is limited. Now that the review of the the Culver Zoning Ordinance is coming to a close, it might be time to revisit the Subdivision Ordinance. That document has not been updated in decades. The Culver Comprehensive Plan is also past due for a review. Some of the new research and trends should be considered for implementation in our planning documents. Even without updates to these planning documents, there is the potential for doing this type of design through PUD’s under the current ordinance – something I would hope to accomplish with Sand Hill Farm.
Culver Zoning Ordinance – Zoning Lots
The Plan Commission set up a subcommittee in early 2008 that included the Building Commissioner, a representative from the Plan Commission, a representative from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), a representative from the Town Council, a local contractor, a local realtor and a citizen/taxpayer. This subcommittee was tasked with reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and recommending changes to clean up past mistakes and to address changing issues. (Previously discussed here.) I was asked to serve on this subcommittee as a contractor, though like all the members, I also fell into the category of being a taxpayer in the district. The subcommittee spent nearly two years reviewing the existing ordinance. We literally read each line out loud, discussed it, discussed scenarios that had come before the Plan Commission or BZA regarding each section and then made a determination if changes were warranted. In some cases we even used word searches with the electronic copy to see where a reference might appear in other parts of the document. We actually eliminated quite a few definitions this way for words or phrases that never appeared in any of the rest of the document!Zoning Lot – A tract or parcel of land designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under single ownership or control. A zoning lot may or may not coincide with a lot of record.
In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot which has been recorded in the Marshall County Recorder’s Office prior to April 12 1983; provided, such lot is in separate ownership; and provided, such lot is not less than 5,000 square feet in area and 50 feet in width at the established building location and is served by both municipal sewer and water; and further provided, there is compliance with all other regulations contained in this ordinance and any other applicable ordinances, regulations, and/or codes of the Town of Culver. This section shall apply only to single-family dwellings. [Emphasis Added]
Illustration 1 – Adjacent Lots
Illustration 2 – Zoning Lot
The property lines and setbacks highlighted in green become the governing requirements. The lot line and setbacks between the adjacent lots are no longer considered. This benefits the property owner allowing the entire property to be considered one lot without replatting or variances. The property owner may build across the intermediate setback lines and property lines. (Illustrations 3 & 4) They may have an accessory building (or a garage, a pool, a driveway, a parking area, etc.) on the adjacent lot. (Illustration 5) They also may consider the two lots as one for the purposes of calculating impervious surface. This provision in the ordinance has been used to the advantage of property owners for at least the past 27 years. Arguable, that does not make it right, but removing the provision will affect a large number of existing properties.
I am looking at the following issues:
- The existing language allows a property owner who has two or more contiguous parcels to call them one zoning lot and thereby void the interior lot lines and interior setbacks and build across them. (If they have two lots, they can build in the center of the two combined lots on top of the lot line.) If we take the language out, they will be required to replat those lots in order to eliminate the interior lines before they can build. This will require a survey, a new subdivision document and a hearing with the Plan Commission. All of which take time and money. Just the surveyor costs on a simple minor subdivision will run in the $1,000 range. (I checked with a local surveyor.)
- Removing this language makes every house in Culver that has already taken advantage of this language and violated those lot lines and setbacks to become a “non-conforming structure”. To make changes to a non-conforming structure requires a variance. This requires a trip to the BZA with all that entails. Again, this takes time and money. Their other option is to replat as described above, but that would generally be even more expensive and time consuming. (Currently because of the necessity to advertise these items twice in the Culver Citizen, if you need to appear before the Plan Commission or BZA you need to have all your documentation to the Town Hall just under a month in advance. If you miss that deadline, you are put off until the next month’s meeting.) A case such as this would have to prove a “hardship” to obtain a variance and that is always a coin toss with how the BZA feel about that and is subject to your neighbor’s input at those meetings.
- The issue with this that I’ve heard is that it is unfair that the lot can be sold and someone else could build on it when the current owner would be barred from building another residence on that lot because of the restriction against two dwellings on the same zoning lot. If second lot is “clean”, then it is extremely easy to work within the ordinance requirements. Here are just a few options:
- Set up an LLC, Trust or other entity to hold the adjacent property. Two Different Owners.
- Deed one lot to wife and one to husband. Two Different Owners.
- Deed one lot to parent and one to child. Two Different Owners.
- Sell second lot to builder or third party for $1 and buy it back for a buck after construction. We’ve been on projects with the Plymouth Schools (Kindt Soccerplex) and the Plymouth Parks Department (Young Amphitheatre) where this has been done. Two Different Owners.
- Sell the lot to a third party for $1 and retain a 99yr lease. Two Different Owners.
A comment was made regarding these options suggesting that they are “cheating” the ordinance. If anything, the “cheat” is the Zoning Lot provision as it now exists. It allows a property owner greater latitude in the use of the property without going through the lengthy and costly requirements of replatting the property as one parcel. But this cheat is a benefit to property owners that I would hate to take away.
With a little internet research I found that similar language appears in other Zoning Ordinances in our area:
Lot – A contiguous area of land separated from other areas of land by separate description for purpose of sale, lease, transfer of ownership or separate use. It may be a single parcel separately described or a combination of such parcels when adjacent to one another and used as one (1) lot.
Parent Tract: A lot of record as recorded (location, size, shape, etc) on the effective date of this Ordinance; or a lot as defined by its last conditional transfer of ownership by recorded contract transacted before the effective date of this Ordinance. Multiple lots that are contiguous and owned by one (1) person, persons in partnership, or a company and/or corporation(s) shall be considered one (1) Parent Tract for the purpose of calculating the amount of exempted splits allowed, yet each lot of record, as recorded by its own separate legal description prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, shall maintain its ability to be sold individually as a lot, but only as it corresponds to the said recorded legal description prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Easements shall not constitute a separation of two (2) or more pieces of land owned by one (1) person, persons in partnership, or a company and/or corporation(s). A lot of record with an existing public road that splits it shall be considered two (2) parent tracts.
Marshall County Zoning Ordinance pg 294 (identical to Plymouth’s):
Lot – A contiguous area of land separated from other areas of land by separate description for purpose of sale, lease, transfer of ownership or separate use. It may be a single parcel separately described or a combination of such parcels when adjacent to one another and used as one (1) lot.
Illustration 3 – Residence over the line
Illustration 4 – Setback Encroachment
Illustration 5 – Accessory Building
Illustration 6 – Selling "clean" lot create a violation on remaining lot
- Removing the provision would increase the workload of the Plan Commission and the BZA handling the non-conforming issues created properties that had taken advantage of the Zoning Lot provision over the past 27+ years.
- Removing the provision would increases costs to property owners for the additional Variances or Replattings that would be required.
- Is there a way to retain the language for existing properties while requiring replatting for new development on undeveloped lots?
- Does the Town Council have actual language they would like to see?
No resolution was obtained and it was determined to continue to wait for the Town Council’s direction. It was further discussed that there are many provisions that have been corrected in the ordinance revision that are going unaddressed while the portion in question is currently in effect under the current ordinance.
Lake Maxinkuckee Film Fest 2010
Thursday morning wasn’t exactly a pretty day for setting up the setting up the film reel for the Lake Maxinkuckee Film Fest. Dave Epley and Will Pearson of Easterday Construction put the display together in the rain in order to make sure it was there in time to be decorated for the start of the festival on Friday evening. Hot Pink for 2010! Unfortunately due to the high winds Friday evening, the Reel spent the Friday night on it’s back. It’s just a little too top heavy for 30mph wind gusts.
Easterday Construction Co., Inc. was named as a Sponsoring Business for the Festival. Becky and I were named to the Actor’s Guild as Patrons. We attended the Gala opening on Friday night and enjoyed good food and company. There were cocktails before the showing of the film “Best Man in Grass Creek” at the Uptown Cinema. Following the movie there was a catered dinner under a tent adjacent to the theater. Richard Ford brought three students from the Jacob School of Music at Indiana University, singers Laura Gibson and Nathan Brown and pianist Ilya Friedberg, to perform.
Good luck to the Festival Committee. Judging from Friday evening it should be a fun event, which benefits a good cause. Easterday Construction Co., Inc. is happy to help with this event.
A Big Week for Culver Garden Court
Real Estate Management Flyer describing Culver Garden Court Amenities
The week of 8/16/10 was a big week for the planned Culver Garden Court project. On Tuesday, August 17th, I presented the Minor Subdivision plan for the Wade & Claudia McGee Subdivision to the Culver Plan Commission for approval. Culver allows Minor Subdivisions of property consisting of three or less parcels to be completed with a single presentation. This presentation went smoothly and was accepted by unanimous vote. All members of the Plan Commission seemed pleased that the project was moving forward.
On Thursday, August 19th, Brent Martin, Project Architect, and I presented the Special Use Permit request to to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA had a full schedule and we were fifth of five on the agenda. Brent had the opportunity, whether he wanted it or not, to observe the Culver BZA in action on several things before we presented.
The Special Use Permit covered several items: 1) We applied for the Culver Garden Court project as Apartments which are allowed, but require a Special Use Permit under the existing S-1, Suburban Residential, Zoning District. 2) The 535 sf units are smaller than is generally allowed under Culver’s multi-family housing requirements. Since this is a HUD project and the 535 sf size is a HUD maximum square footage under 202 projects, the BZA agreed to this change and allowed the project to move forward. 3) Culver’s parking space standards require 2 spaces per unit. We were granted a change from the required 26 spaces to 16 spaces. This has proven to be an adequate ratio on previous Garden Court projects.
Culver’s Board of Zoning Appeals is operating with one vacant seat. Fortunately this wasn’t an issue and the Special Use Permit was granted unanimously, 4-0.
Dr. Ronald Liechty and Brent Martin presenting highlights of the Culver Garden Court Plan
On Friday, August 20th, there was a press conference at the Culver Union Township Public Library officially announcing the planned Culver Garden Court. Dr. Ronald Liechty, President of Garden Court, Inc., gave a speech congratulating all involved. Congressman Joe Donnelly spoke as well, giving accolades to Garden Court, Inc. and his assurances that he did all he could to make this project possible and that he knew that it would be a positive addition to the Culver Community.
Congressman Joe Donnelly speaking at the Culver Garden Court press conference
There was a fair turnout for the event. Culver Town Council board members Ed Pinder, Lynn Overmyer and Ralph Winters all attended. Greg Fassett was there representing both Miller’s Merry Manor and also wearing his hat as Culver Chamber of Commerce President. Representatives from the Garden Court, Inc. Board were there as well as several representatives from Real Estate Management Corp. Jeff Kenney, Editor of the Culver Citizen, was there reporting for the Culver Citizen/Pilot News. We ended up with a front page picture and article in the Pilot News, but it didn’t make the website, so I can’t provide a link. There were citizens there as well and Dr. Liechty fielded several questions from the audience regarding this project specifically and Garden Court in general.
We are currently waiting on plans from B.A. Martin Archtects, P.C. in order to begin pricing. We hope to have things together for a closing on this project prior to September 30, 2010 which is HUD’s year end. Unfortunately, we are also waiting on release of the 501(c)3 designation for this project. We cannot close without that. Despite all the talk about efforts to expedite projects, Washington still moves slowly on most of these things… We will be breaking ground on this project as soon as we can get the release.
Century Weekend
This weekend there were a couple of Century Celebrations in our community. Saturday afternoon was the dedication of the Boy Scout Headquarters at the Culver Academies Woodcraft Camp. Easterday Construction Co., Inc. was pleased to have the opportunity to build this new structure.
The Headquarters is a slightly smaller version of the camp’s existing cabins. It is cedar post and beam construction with a shingle roof. The building foundation consists of concrete piers. The original cabin design was such that the units could be moved to new locations as necessary. The project was completed on a tight budget and with an aggressive schedule. Initial discussions about building the cabin began in mid May followed by design, permitting and construction which were completed on Wednesday of last week, July 21, 2010. There are previous entries showing some of the construction and background information here and here.
The ceremony at Culver Academies coincided with a Jamboree being held in Washington, D.C. celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. I learned this weekend that Scouting was started by Lord Baden-Powell, a Lieutenant in the British Army, upon his return from the Boer War in 1908. The Boy Scouts of America was formed by W. D. Boyce in 1910 and that is the anniversary that was celebrated this past weekend. Culver Academies’ legend is that the actual birthplace of the Boy Scouts of America was at the then Culver Military Academy in 1910.
Nearly 100 people attended the ceremony. Julius W. Hegeler II was presented a plaque thanking him for his donation through his charitable arm, the Julius W. Hegeler II Foundation, which made the facility possible. Several representatives of Culver Academies as well as local and regional representatives of the Boy Scouts of America spoke.
Also celebrating 1oo years this weekend was the First National Bank of Monterey(FNBM). It took $25,000 in 1910 to establish a National Bank. From those small beginnings in 1910, FNBM has grown to a 280 million dollarbank serving Monterey and the surrounding area through branches in Winamac, Culver and North Judson. Several hundred people helped celebrate at an Open House held at the Monterey School on Sunday afternoon.
Joe DeHaven, President and CEO of the Indiana Bankers Association, was guest speaker and awarded the Board of Directors of FNBM a plaque commemorating the occasion. Bank President Claiborn (Clip) Wamsley spoke relating some of his personal experiences from his 60 years with the bank.
Kelly Field spoke relating some of the bank’s history. Notable highlights included FNBM’s move to insure deposits long before the FDIC was created, FNBM’s issuance of their own currency and FNBM’s collaboration with 5 other small banks to change State Law in 1981 to allow a bank branch to be established in a town where another bank already exists.
Easterday Construction Co., Inc. has had a long history of affiliation with the First National Bank of Monterey. We have expanded the Monterey facility several times including most recently in 2009. We remodeled and expanded the Winamac facility, built the Culver facility and have completed several projects at the North Judson facility. Larry Berger, past president of Easterday Construction, has served on the Bank’s board of directors for more than a decade.
$10 bill issued by The First National Bank of Monterey signed by Charles B. Kietzer, Cashier and V.E. Follmar, President issued 1929
