government

Extra Territorial Boundary Update

by

There has been some recent debate about Building Permit Fees in Culver.  Two things have prompted this:  The first being the new County Online Building Permit system and the second being the low reimbursement fee Culver pays the County Building Inspector.

Culver has a Building Commissioner to review zoning requirements and issue building permits.  Our Building Commissioner does not have the proper certifications to do building inspections so we have relied on the County Building Inspector to do building inspections.  Several years ago a fee to the County of $50 per permit was set for projects that required building inspections.  Building inspections are required on any construction involving new or changes to structural, mechanical or electrical systems.  Since that time, some of the larger home projects and commercial projects at Culver Academies have resulted in multiple trips (sometimes dozens) by the County Inspector.  Obviously the $50 fee did not cover the costs.  The County came to Culver asking for several revisions to the way Culver issues permits so as to bring the fees in line with the County fees and to make it more standardized so that the building permit process could be automated across the entire county.

For various reasons, Culver has chosen to not just raise the fees to cover the additional expenses, but to jump the fees well above those in the County and surrounding area.  Where the County has a flat fee for a commercial building, Culver has a fee based on square footage and value which could easily double or quadruple the fee the same building would cost in the county.  The same applies to residential projects.  This is hard to justify within the Town limits, but almost impossible to justify in the Extra Territorial Boundary where there are no municipal utilities, roads or other services.

As discussed here before, I thought it was in Culver’s best interest to expand their Extra Territorial Boundary to the maximum allowed by law.  I fought it when the Town gave up areas due to the new County Online Permitting.  I gave up the fight when Culver didn’t follow the County’s Wind Turbine Ordinance for the Extra Territorial Boundary. (Too Tired to Fight About it Further…)  Now this latest overreach could jeopardize the Extra Territorial Boundary we currently have.  If the County feels the Town is taking advantage of landowners in the Extra Territorial Boundary, they could rescind Culver’s control over this area.  Instead of providing a service this could be considered a case of taxation without representation.

This issue will be before the Town Council tomorrow night.  It has already been before the Plan Commission where it was passed.  I will probably not speak tomorrow night since I already did at the Plan Commission.  My points there were the following:

  1. The fees aren’t justified.  While Culver should be able to recoup costs involved with having a Building Commissioner and the costs to reimburse the County for the time spent by the Building Commissioner, Building Permit fees should not be a money making venture.  The arguments I’ve heard that the Contractors will just pass on these costs to the owners and in the case of large commercial customers and Lake homeowners that “They can afford it.” don’t justify it.  Building Permit fees are supposed to be a fee for services, not an admittance fee.
  2. It seems ironic that Culver has formed an Entry Level Housing Task Force charged with trying to bring some affordable housing to Culver while they contemplate raising fees on building construction.  Granted, the building permit fee is a small percentage of the cost of a new home, but so is the water tap fee and the sewer tap fee and the stormwater control requirements and the green space requirements, etc., etc., etc.  All of those small percentages that the Town increases are on top of all the new Building Code requirements and other impact fees that affect the cost of a home.  I’m not saying that any of these aren’t necessary or don’t make the home better, but they all contribute to pushing the cost of a home out of reach of the average young family in Culver.

It will be an interesting meeting tomorrow night.  I understand the troops have been rallied against this.  I think what started as a reasonable response to outside costs have taken an unfortunate turn.  We’ll see how it shakes out.

Picture Source:  colliergov.net

Comic Source:  studious-catz.com

 

BZA Sand Hill Farm Special Use Meeting

by

As my loyal lurkers know, I got run around by the Town trying to set up a special BZA meeting to hear a Special Use request on my property.  I really appreciate Dan Adams and the other BZA members making the effort to be there for me!  (Jerry Chavez with MCEDC had also called some favors for a abatement hearing at the County Council as well.  That got cancelled.)  But…  That was before the Town Council chose to pull the plug on the project for 2015.

Jonathan Leist, Town Manager, was kind enough to suggest that all I needed to do was submit a letter withdrawing the application and he would appear at the meeting for me.  I didn’t think that was appropriate since I had made the request.  I attended the regularly scheduled BZA meeting on the 15th to thank the BZA members for the indulgence, apologize for the withdrawal and ask whether they wanted to have the special meeting on the 22nd.  After some discussion it was agreed that the meeting should proceed since it had been advertised.  I agreed to attend and formally withdraw my request and answer any questions posed by the public.

There were 8 people there in the audience on the 22nd which made me nervous going in.  It’s unusual for people to come out in support, so I pretty much assumed they were best case coming to hear about it  or not the best, coming to protest it.  Based on the comments, it was a little of both.  The meeting opened and I withdrew the request, but said I was there to answer any questions.  This is paraphrasing at best, but here’s what was asked and answered:

Example of apartments buildings put up by Equal Development, the developer considering working with Culver on Entry Level Housing

Will there be apartments?  Yes, that is why I made the request to the BZA.  Current zoning, S-1, allows single family housing, but apartments are only allowed with a Special Use variance.

Who would manage the apartments and who would make sure they didn’t deteriorate?  Under the scenario currently being pursued, the apartments would be subsidized through a government program and the developer would be responsible for the apartment management.  There would be State inspections to make sure they would be maintained.  (I’ve included a picture of a previous complex completed by the developer to the right and there are more pictures in a previous post here.)

Would you pursue annexation?  I would not pursue annexation, but I would require municipal water and sewer for the apartment project and I would assume the Town would want to annex the property at some time in return for this service.  Jonathan Leist also responded:  The Town would want to annex the property since it is to be served by Town utilities.

How many apartment units are planned?  Initially the discussions are for 24-48 units, but there could be more depending on demand.  There will also be single family homes in the development as well.

There was quite a bit of further “comment” that the apartments would deteriorate over time.

There were “comments” from one adjacent business that they would fight any annexation as it would end them.  It was unclear if the annexation they would fight would be annexation of their property, my property or both…  Meanwhile another business looked at it as an opportunity.  (Currently my property is contiguous to Town, so if I request annexation it’s unlikely that any protests would matter.)

Eventually Dan ended the meetings as the concerns became repetitive and the points were somewhat moot considering that the BZA will probably not be involved with any of the decisions.  Since plans are back up for reconsideration between now and next November, any specifics are subject to change anyway.

It was good to have the discussion and hear what some of the concerns are.  Better to be prepared so we can try and address them positively before we go before the various boards and commissions again.  I still think the project is positive for the Town and I don’t feel there is a downside for the neighborhood.  I think after hearing some of the discussion, some of those that came for information probably agree.  Others may not be so easily swayed.  (Any new lurkers that are interested in reading what I’ve said on these subjects in the past can click the Sand Hill Farm tag (top of post) to see thoughts about the property or the Affordable housing tag to see discussions on affordable housing.  For those of you on Twitter, if you follow @eccculver I tweet out a notice of new blog posts.

 

 

Culver Candidate Night

by
Candidate Night 2015 (reduced)
Joel Samuelson addressing the “crowd” Thursday Evening

I attended the candidate’s night last night at the Culver Depot.  Thank you to Kathy Clark, Jeff Kenney and Bill Githens for helping arrange it.

First off, let me repeat my mantra regarding these things:  These are volunteers putting themselves out there so I cut them a lot of slack.  That mainly applies to the Council candidates since the clerk’s position is a paid position, but even that is a public position where keeping your job is as much a popularity contest as it is an assessment of your skill.

The event was set up as a “get to know the candidates” forum as opposed to a debate.  It was very easy to see that some were comfortable with public speaking while others weren’t.  Weeding through that, it was a matter of determining what they were saying as opposed to how they said it.  While I did form some opinions, suffice to say that I’m going to keep those to myself for now.  I was there because even though I can’t vote for them, their decisions will affect my business and property.

If I had to pick up the major themes that came out last night, the three that I thought came through the most strongly were Affordable Housing, Community and Fiscal Responsibility.  I’ve written a lot on my feelings about the need for affordable housing in Culver and how that can bolster our community.  Those discussions were the most pertinent to me.  All of the candidates made some statement regarding the importance of affordable housing and community even before it was presented to them as the main question coming from the audience.  While I feel the current council lost their sense of urgency on these issues this past month, I do agree that they have made positive strides and I have hopes that whatever the new mix is, the Council continues to move things forward next year.

Beyond the housing issue, community was addressed through various advocacy efforts and questions regarding how we can fill the vacant store fronts.  An item of merit was the call for surveys and interviews.  I appreciated the acknowledgment that just shooting at these issues in the dark was not the way to go.  There was also a call for working to bring young families back into the community.  I agree that this would not only be a boon to our local schools, but would be a positive economic initiative as well.  (And that once again circled back to affordable housing.)

I think the third theme, fiscal responsibility, was the issue with which all the candidates struggled most.  While it is a difficult question for candidates seeking a first term, I was disappointed that they hadn’t done more preparation on this issue.  It is important and all of the financial records are public records and accessible.  That said, I can’t honestly say the incumbents answered the questions better.  The question that was posed to them was somewhat nebulous, but I felt it might have been handled better.

In closing, I can personally say I recognized all but one candidate as active in the community, involved in various volunteer positions and generally working to make Culver a better place.  I commend them for taking the chance at leadership and trying to move Culver forward.  In almost all cases, I felt like their hearts were in the right place and their reason for running was to make Culver a better place.  As someone who attends the majority of their public meetings, I know it’s generally a thankless job.  I commend them for putting themselves out there.  To all of them I say, “Good Luck!”  But I honestly don’t know which outcome would signify that they were lucky!

Culver candidates in this year’s election include (top row, from left), Robert Cooper (town council), Karen Heim (clerk-treasurer), Ginny Munroe (council), Jean Rakich (council), Joel Samuelson (council), Tammy Shaffer (council), and Gil Standley (clerk-treasurer).

Candidate Picture Source:  The Pilot News

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.