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.
Riffing off my last post, here are a few things that I think an Urban Planner or similar professional can bring to the table… In the vein of my post, “Culver Needs an Infrastructure Czar”, an Urban Planner could step back and take a holistic approach on how this affects Culver now and into the future making sure we aren’t making another two steps forward, one step back mistake. I’ve broken these things up into major headings for some organization:
Infrastructure
in-fra-struc-ture – /ˈinfrəˌstrək(t)SHər/ – the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
Aesthetics
aes-thet-ics – /esˈTHediks/ – a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
Culture
cul-ture – /ˈkəlCHər/ – the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular social group.
I feel that an outside eye is needed here. I’m sure I’ve only scratched the surface of things that should be considered. Someone (or firm) that has worked with communities like ours and has experience in this type of change to smaller towns. Just like the funds being expended on outside legal advice and outside financial advice, this is place where we could benefit from planning advice. I think it could go a long way to making things better.
It seems that The Dunes is not just the talk of Culver, but that has bled over into other areas of Marshall County. It came up in side conversations at the last One Marshall County meeting, which was interesting. Local Architect, Brent Martin, made the comment, “300 doors? That’s a small community.” That made me think. Most of the conversations in Culver revolve around that number being more than 25% of the current population of Culver. So Culver grows by about 20% with this addition. That number is 17% of the population of Argos. That number is 61% of the population of LaPaz. That number is less than 3% the population of Plymouth. It’s probably at least 6 times the population of Burr Oak! And yes, all these numbers assume that there is no more than one soul behind each of those 300 doors; an unlikely prospect.
But this is an unusual conversation. I don’t recall that kind of percentage being discussed when other developments have been planned. It’s more usual for there to be a discussion about jobs created, kids in school, etc. Few communities in our area would consider adding population a negative. I know the fact that The Paddocks and Sand Hill Farm Apartments was adding residents was never discussed as a percentage, though using the same fuzzy math, they added 6% to Culver’s population.
I’ve heard from multiple people how much this will change Culver. Many of these are people that moved here and undoubtedly created some change in the fabric of the town as well. When I look at the pie chart I included here, 20% doesn’t seem that large to me. Though most of us know the 80-20 rule, I doubt that this 20% will be that cohesive and organized.
But this is also why I’ve advocated for some additional urban planning input on this. I think the Town has done a reasonable good job in hiring appropriate legal representation. They have hired appropriate financial representation. Why not hire a consultant that will look at the land-use/infrastructure/social-fabric parts of this addition to the town? It would seem to be money well spent considering the amount of angst it is causing with current residents. It will never and has never been easy. Back in the dark ages when I was on the Culver Chamber of Commerce board, Eric Freeman, then Chamber President, and I joked that the unofficial motto for Culver was, “Change is bad, even if it’s Change for the Better.” That’s one thing that hasn’t changed…
Just a mini rant… I was a bit upset to find out that the September Plan Commission meeting was cancelled because there wasn’t anything on the agenda. (Per the Building Commissioner) I know it’s a mostly thankless job and that the pay is poor. ($0: They’re volunteers) I was still disappointed that the commission didn’t take the opportunity to catch up on some of the things that they don’t have time for because their meetings are usually busy. Here’s a short list off the top of my head:
That’s my short list… With a little thought, I’m sure I could double it, but there are hours and hours that could be spent related to the five thing above.
I give volunteers a lot of respect. I’m not going to come down hard on them for taking a breather. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t important things to do.
Culver Building Permit Fees
October 23, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver
Building Commissioner, Building Inspector, Community, Culver, government, Plan Commission, Town Council
Sometimes it takes an outside voice to change things… Rob Hurford with Culver Storage Unit Solutions came before Culver Plan Commission on October 17th to request relief from permit fees on their project. They are building mini storage units on the property west of The Paddocks.
Around 2017/2018, Jonathan Leist, then Culver Town Manager, spearheaded increased building permit fees. The increases were based on what was being charged in larger surrounding areas rather than the cost of services rendered. I protested this at the time, saying they were punitive, unreasonable and comparable fees had been cherry-picked to justify high fees… I was mostly ignored with the argument being presented that the building permit fee was still such a small part of the overall project cost for lake houses and commercial structures that it would not stop construction. I argued that wasn’t the point! The money collected does not go to the plan commission, but to the town’s general fund, i.e. it was a money maker, not a service fee.
The permit fees for the storage unit project were over $17,000. That was partially because the County was requiring each building to be permitted separately, rather than looking at the project as a whole, but also because Culver piled on. These are simple. single story, pole building construction with no water or sewer hook-ups. There will be minimal electrical for lighting. That means that Marshall County’s Building Inspector will have very little to look at and Culver’s Building Commissioner can almost do his job looking at setbacks with a drive-by…
Mr. Hurford is the Building Inspector for Warsaw, IN. He said in Warsaw, the permit fees would amount to 6% of the Culver fee. They have completed these projects in Winamac and Bass Lake and fees there were less than 15% of the Culver fee.
Culver’s Building Commissioner, Steve Gorski, did a review of permit fees based on costs and has provided the plan commission with revised numbers. These changes were passed on first read and were used to lower the fee for the project to $9k. Still high (and still inflated by the County in my opinion), but much better than the original $17k.
I’m pleased to see that the Plan Commission is taking steps to correct this one. It ultimately falls on the Town Council to make the Ordinance change. Hopefully they follow through. There are other, regressive, junk fees the town charges that don’t reflect services rendered, i.e. private fire hydrants, private fire sprinkler systems, etc. Hopefully this will prompt a review of some of these fees as well.
0 comments