Tag:Plan Commission
Thoughts on Zoning Hierarchy
So, in the past few months, the Culver Plan Commission has rezoned several properties in what they would have considered spot zoning in the past. Two of these were on the main commercial corridors of Main Street and Lake Shore Drive. The first was at 303 North Main Street. This as the former Easterday Dental Office. The Plan Commission rezoned the property from C-2 to R-1 allowing the former residence turned dental office addition returned to residence to receive a permit for remodeling. The second was at 114 Lake Shore Drive. This was a older house used as a triplex. The Plan Commission rezoned the property from R-1 to R-2 allowing the current use to be legal. (They also rezoned 217 South Ohio Street and 810 South Main Street from R-1 to R-2.) I don’t particularly have an issue with any of these uses, but I think they could have been handled better.
The property on North Main Street is probably the most problematic to me. The Main Street corridor from the current Main Street business district north to Lake Shore Drive has been designated “Commercial” in the last two Comprehensive Plans. This has been followed up with a zoning district designation of C-2 in the Culver Zoning Ordinance. This has allowed the existing homes to remain, “grandfathered” in their current use; thus allowing the house at 303 North Main Street to be used as a dentist office, the house at 307 North Main Street to be used as a residence & art gallery, the house at 313 North Main Street to be used as a beauty parlor with second floor apartments, and the house at 212 North Main Street to be used as a law office with second floor apartment. This also allowed the expansion of Good-To-Go into the adjacent lot to the north without issue a few years ago.
In the case of 307 North Main Street, there was no issue when the owners of the art gallery sold the property and the new owners returned the use to residential only. The problem occurred with 303 North Main Street when the new owners wanted to use the property as a home (allowed), but also wanted to remodel. Remodeling required a building permit and residential use is not allowed in a C-2 district. The solution proposed by the then Building Commissioner and accepted by the Plan Commission was to rezone the property as R-1. When it was brought up that this violated the direction of the Comp Plan, the Comp Plan’s recommendations for this area were questioned. I felt the rezoning was a mistake and that considering rezoning that corridor would just compound that mistake. For one quick example, the Rezoning of 303 North Main Street to R-1 placed a buffer restriction that will be imposed if anything is done with 307 North Main Street: “Any property line abutting said residential district shall be required to be effectively screened in one of the following ways, or a combination thereof: buffering by a dense strip of natural plantings or by a solid of opaque fence.” – Culver Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, page 32. This buffer requirement doesn’t exist between commercial properties.
I have paraphrased something Jim Dicke II told me several times in this blog: “Communities are growing or dying. The Status quo cannot remain.” I think this is salient because I know of only two commercial properties that are currently for sale, i.e. 107 & 109 South Main Street and I would not say they are priced to sell. If we want Culver to grow and grow in a controlled manner, we need to provide areas for this to happen. It makes sense to expand our commercial corridor and move towards tying the two commercial districts together. The first step is the corridor from downtown Main Street to Lake Shore Drive.
Within the Culver Zoning Ordinance there is some existing hierarchy of uses. While not a 100% applicable rule, for the most part The I-2 district acceptable uses are allowed in the more restrictive I-1 district. The C-2 district acceptable uses are allowed in the more restrictive C-1 district. The R-1 district uses are allowed in the R-2 district. I think this would be worth considering across zoning districts as well. If this were the case, it would not have been necessary to rezone 303 North Main Street since the residential, R-1, use would have been a lesser use than the C-2 District allows. My rational is that this would have allowed the existing house to continue to be used and remodeled without losing the Town’s long-term goal of expanding the commercial corridor. It would have also kept it abundantly obvious to the land owners that the goal is commercial and not leave them thinking that their future neighbors will automatically be residential. That said, when a cross use is made, it would be easy enough to require any of the more restrictive requirements to be followed, whether it’s the lower use or the higher use, i.e. if a property owner wants to put a house in a C-1 district, this would be allowed, but the R-1 setbacks, impervious surface requirements, etc. of the R-1 district would apply as the more restrictive land use. This idea would require further examination and consideration, but it might be a good first step into some of the more mixed uses being considered in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan.
Personally, I would not only keep this corridor commercial, but would expand the Main Street Commercial Corridor on down to Davis Street and expand the Lake Shore Drive Commercial Corridor west to Main Street. On the south end, there is already commercial property at the corner of Main & Davis. There is already commercial property on both sides of the street on all corners of the Main and Lake Shore Drive intersection. Linking these together makes planning sense. It opens the opportunity for more mixed use little shops and businesses such as the former art gallery at 307 North Main Street and the law office at 212 North Main Street. This would promote more foot traffic between the two commercial areas of town. I am not sure I would find fault in making this C-1 while we’re at it…
Sometimes the desire to be helpful overcomes the mission of long term planning and the vision that involves. It was helpful to the new owners of 303 North Main Street to rezone the property, but there were other options. Sending them to the BZA for a “Variance of Use” would have made more sense. Rezoning is the more radical choice.
This also applies to the other three rezonings that were completed, changing R-1 zoned properties to R-2. This is undoubtedly spot zoning creating a future problem where a problem didn’t exist. All of these properties were grandfathered in their current non-conforming use, but now they are allowed to remodel, upgrade or even tear down and build something that solidifies the use, that doesn’t fit the long range plan, for the foreseeable future. While these property owners believe this “fixed” their problem, in reality, all of these properties would require variance for any changes they want to make as they don’t meet the R-2 requirements either!
Before this escalates from commentary to rant, I’ll leave it at here. It will be interesting to bring these things up as the Comprehensive Plan proceeds.
Follow up on Tamarack Road Annexation
This is a follow up on my previous post, Musings on Tamarack Road, regarding the Beachview Properties project. Just to reiterate, I’m basically indifferent to this project, other than I believe that in general, growth is positive for Culver.
There was a public hearing on the annexation for this project at the Town Council meeting, Tuesday, January 24th. I brought up my question about how Tamarack Road will be handled. Ginny Munroe, Culver Town Manager, answered this question saying that there were no plans for Culver to take in any of the Tamarack Road Right-of-Way. Ownership and maintenance would remain with Marshall County. She further explained that Culver would maintain the frontage on West Shore Drive.
This means that no maintenance or improvements to Tamarack Road will be included in the Financial Management Plan for this annexation. It’s a little dated, but this document provides some explanation of what’s involved with the Financial Management Plan on pages III & IV: https://iacir.ppi.iupui.edu/documents/Fullreport_fromWeb_wCover.pdf
Later in the discussion, in response to questions from the Culver Fire Chief, Terry Wakefield, the owner’s representative, Burke Richeson, indicated that the property will be gated and due to the size of the expected vehicles to be stored, there will be one entrance on West Shore Drive and one on Tamarack Road so they can pull through. This means this development will have an impact on Tamarack Road. I am unclear on whether the County has to consent to the annexation, but I would assume they would have concerns about increased traffic loads caused by the proposed project.
This in no way suggests that Culver is doing anything covertly. I have to assume the County is fully aware of this project and the upcoming annexation. After all, the Town Board and County Commissioners share the same attorney and it’s been in the press. It’s just a question of how this benefits Marshall County if it means they take on additional costs.
Shared ownership of streets and roads is always an issue. The coordination of services ranges from the minor, i.e. who plows the snow, to the major, i.e. when one entity decides it needs paved, how is the bill divided? In the case of paving, so much is tied to State funds, it becomes complicated when grant applications are made. Culver just recently has been through this with the west end of Jefferson Street…
Until about 10years ago, the west end of Jefferson Street was still County Right-of-Way. This was a hassle for the County as it was one short section of road to plow that connected to Town streets on one end and the State highway on the other. An agreement was made to transfer this Right-of-Way to the Town and as incentive for the Town to take it, the County paved it one last time before the transfer. Last year, when Culver decided to improve Jefferson Street as part of gateway improvements and pedestrian trail expansions, they found that the transfer had not been completed and MACOG did not have this section as a Culver Street, thus they could not include it in their application.
The Council decided there were enough changes yet to be made to the plan that they tabled it. First of three reads are scheduled for the next meeting. I expect it will go through and the Tamarack “Can” will get kicked down the Road…
Extraterritorial Boundaries
I’m currently sitting on committees forming new comprehensive plans for Plymouth and Culver. I’ve been pushing Culver to do a new Comp Plan since 2020. (See post here) Wouldn’t ‘2020 Vision for Culver’ been a good name!?! But I think they had some Stellar fatigue followed by pandemic malaise…
This will be the third time I’ve done this for Culver and the second time for Plymouth. MACOG has started offering this as a (paid) service and is leading these meetings for both communities. Ratio Architects did the previous one for Plymouth and an earlier one for Culver. The last one for Culver was completed by Houseal Lavigne.
What have I learned from these experiences? You’re buying a template. They all have strived to “personalize” the product, but lined up on a table without the credits, it would be pretty easy to group them by consultant. The format would give it a way.
But to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie in Alice’s Restaurant… But that’s not what I came to tell you about. I came to talk about… Extraterritorial Boundaries.
If you follow that link, you’ll see that the Indiana legislators are constantly messing with the definition and powers granted to municipalities for their extraterritorial jurisdiction. The core premise is that municipalities are allowed to extend their zoning boundaries to cover areas of potential future municipal expansion. This is done with the consent of the County. It has generally been a 2 mile zone. The distance is increased when there is a lake involved, i.e. in the case of Culver, the south end of Lake Maxinkuckee is more than 2 miles from town, but is included in Culver’s Zoning Jurisdiction. This is not annexation. It doesn’t change tax rates. It doesn’t include water, sewer or road extensions. It just brings those areas under the municipality’s land planning jurisdiction and provides some control over how it is developed. In most cases, any development of significance would need municipal connections and most other developments will feel minimum impact. It’s a good way for the municipality to keep track of what’s happening around them and how it will affect them.
The pink area shows the current extended authority. The loop outside that shows the approximate limits if the Two Mile area was granted.
I have pushed several times for Culver to expand their Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to the limits allowed by the State. This is just good planning practice. I have an extended post about it from February 14, 2013 here. The drawing to the right is from that post. It shows where Culver’s Extraterritorial jurisdiction should have been then. That was before the annexation of The Paddocks PUD on the west side of town, the Beste annexation on the west and north side of town and the upcoming annexation on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery. All of those would extend the potential jurisdiction to the south, west and north. (The main effect would be on the north side since in the drawing we’re already running into to edge of county boundaries and the chances of Starke or Pulaski counties granting Culver jurisdiction are slim.)
The other change from the map above is that the current boundary became much more jagged after that. Sometime around 8 years ago, Culver chose to partner with the County on permitting, using their system. Unfortunately their system is quite crude and couldn’t handle parcels that had split zoning. This ended up in some negotiations which moved split parcels in and out of Culver’s jurisdiction based on the percentage that was in Culver’s jurisdiction at the time. At that time I argued strenuously that all the partial parcels should be brought under Culver’s jurisdiction since they were all fully within the allowable extraterritorial jurisdiction, but the Marshall County Plan Director and Marshall County Building Inspector pushed back on this, not wanting to give up County control. This was a huge missed opportunity, but it’s water under the bridge now.
I have been told that Plymouth’s Extraterritorial Boundary does take in all of the allowed jurisdiction. Looking at the drawing to the right, this is mostly correct, but not 100%. This is most obviously an issue in the industrial area on the NW side of Plymouth.
The Comprehensive Planning process will not change this, but I would suggest that the new Comp Plans include strong recommendations to expand the boundaries. That is a first step. This is not so much a power grab. It’s not about control. It’s more about knowledge and PLANNING. Both communities should look at Bremen and their struggles, where they’ve allowed their industrial area to become landlocked. This is an easy, local example of why planning outside the immediate boundaries of the community are important.
Currently, there are new things going on which should be part of this extraterritorial planning. One of these, which is of huge significance, is the County’s pursuit of expanded sewer districts. In Culver, it is likely that the town would be asked to take in sewer for Burr Oak and Hibbard. The push for inclusion of lakes means it is likely that Plymouth may be asked to take in all of the chain of lakes all the way to Lake Latonka. If these areas start to become municipal “customers”, then their future development becomes the concern of those municipalities. Look at the trend towards bigger and bigger houses around Lake Maxinkuckee and Pretty Lake. Sewer access will make this likely with the other lakes as well Many of them have lots that are currently unbuildable, but with sewer, that will change.
There is also a concern with allocation of resources. The County is struggling to hire and struggling to provide coverage. In the Culver area, a potential solution for both entities would be to expand Culver’s zoning jurisdiction to the County lines to the south and west of Culver. This would eliminate the small fringe area of county zoning around Culver and it would help Culver with planning control.
While Burr Oak and Hibbard aren’t exactly booming communities, sewer access could change this. Again, bringing this under Culver’s zoning control would help the town anticipate and plan for any growth. Sewer access could well spawn growth in Burr Oak. As mentioned in my article, the proximity to major electric service from the Burr Oak substation and access to an significant railroad line could be the catalyst for growth if sewer were available.
I don’t see much in the way of downside to this expansion. I know some in the AG area don’t want this oversight, but in reality, the municipal zoning has been changed so that the AG designation for the municipalities reasonably mimics the AG designation in the County. The municipal plan commissions have a county appointed member so there is representation. This is not to say that the municipalities don’t occasionally over step, as they did with the WECS rules, but even with those, the county eventually came pretty much in line with the same rules.
I will continue to advocate for expanding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Plymouth and Culver as I serve on these committees. I think this is appropriate and necessary planning. It should be positive for all involved.
Thoughts on the 12/20 Plan Commission Meeting
The Plan Commission heard four cases in a long meeting on Tuesday, December 20th. The first case was a rehearing of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) request for 415 Lake Shore Drive. It was approved earlier this year, but vacated by the judge in a lawsuit against it. I’m a little unclear on how this is being handled. PUDs require a primary and secondary plan. Last time they were passed simultaneously, which is common for single phase PUDs. This time, it was presented and passed for the primary plan only, with instructions that they go before the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) for a variance before requesting secondary approval. So, is the BZA hearing just for the PUD, which would be unusual and unprecedented, or for the underlying zoning variances such as site distance and storm water control, which generally be handled as part of the PUD? I may have to attend the BZA meeting to find out as the BZA members I spoke to indicated that they have not seen anything on what’s coming before them.
There were three other hearings for rezoning R-1 properties to R-2. I do question the rational for these. In two of the three cases, the use is grandfathered as long as it doesn’t change. The property at 114 Lake Shore Drive was built as a single family residence, but has been a triplex for four decades and has been commercial and multi-family since before there was a zoning ordinance in Culver. While this one received the most opposition from neighbors, this is the one I have the least objection to, since it is actually adjacent to an existing R-2 parcel. It expands that existing zoning district in lieu of “spot zoning” and creating a new district. This one is clearly grandfathered and has minimal affect on the surrounding neighborhood now or in the future due to the new zoning.
The property at 810 South Main Street has a duplex on it, was built as a duplex and has been a duplex for decades. The case for spot zoning here is a little messier, but while their is no R-2 adjacent to it, there is R-2 directly across the street (Culver Garden Court). Spot zoning could be argued here, but a case can be made otherwise. It is clearly grandfathered and should have minimal affect on the surrounding neighborhood now or in the future.
The property at 217 South Ohio is a bit dicier. This property was developed as a single family residence in an R-1 district. At one time in the past, an addition was put on and it was used as a daycare. There was no discussion about whether there was a special use or anything that allowed the daycare. It may have just happened. That would have been in the 70’s or 80’s. After the daycare closed, it was remodeled as a mother-in-law suite. The owner would like to rent it out now, so requested the R-2. There are two reasons I think this one is bit more complicated. 1) It is spot zoning. There is no R-2 adjacent to it. 2) Unlike the other properties, this one is fairly large. Looking towards the future, if this house goes away, there could be a significant R-2 development on that lot… creating an island of multifamily in the middle of a single family district.
In general, I was against the rezonings, but fine with the grandfathered continued use. This is one of those cases where I know all the parties involved. I know those rentals have a place. But a zoning change follows the land, not the owner and the rezoning has opened things up to future issues. That said, if this is to be allowed and encouraged as it was Tuesday night, maybe a definition change would have been the better option. It would make more sense to me to change the R-1 Zoning District to allow multi-family as a Special Use where a variance could be obtained. Then it could be heard by the BZA and it would be a one meeting variance decision, not a multi-meeting rezoning that must also go before the Town Board. The Plan Commission has discussed changes to the zoning ordinance that would allow denser residential and multi-family options in what’s currently the R-1 Single Family District. The rezoning may be a premature response to this. Time will tell. (Plus the Town Council could deny the request.)
I think all of our boards and commissions get caught up in personalities. The concern is, that the current owner, which they know and would like to help, will not always be there, but some of the decisions made about the property live on in perpetuity…
Our Customers Say…
MacKenzie Ledley - Executive Director, Pulaski County Public Library
Connections to Culver
March 29, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Tips
Community, Culver, Development, government, Plan Commission, Planned Unit Development, Trends
It came to my attention the other day that there are people suggesting that The Dunes not have a street connection to the Town and only connect to S.R. 17 to the west. This seems ludicrous to me, from a planning standpoint, an economic development standpoint and a citizen involvement standpoint. Aside from the bad planning involved with this idea, it is probably a logistical moot point. 1) S.R. 17 is a limited access highway and INDOT is rather jealous with their driveway permits and 2) Cabinetworks owns the parcel to the west between The Dunes and S.R. 17 and are unlikely to want to bisect it with a road. *The picture to the right shows the relationship between the property being developed as The Dunes and S.R. 17.)
Interestingly though, this seems to be a recurring “problem” in Culver. This goes back to at least the early mid 2000’s when The Riggings were initially developed on the north side of town with its street, Anchors Way. At the time of the initial development, the town required a connection to State Street, but later the development was allowed to void that connection. Similarly, there were no connections required between The Riggings and the adjacent vacant property to the west.
West of the The Riggings, the Maple Ridge PUD subdivision was built a few years later. It again does not connect back into Culver, but only connects out to S.R. 10. Maple Ridge was not required to provide any connection points to adjacent properties.
This came up again with The Paddocks with a suggestion that it connect with S.R. 17 in lieu of Jefferson Street. (The Paddocks connects to Culver on Jefferson Street and includes long range plans to connect back to Academy Road to the north.) And then again, the Culver Meadows development proposed on the NW corner of town by Culver Investment Corp (CIC) was allowed to proceed through the primary PUD process with no connections back to Culver.
The Culver Meadows project was particularly troubling since it was allowed to ignore the Culver Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the extension of Academy Road to S.R.17. The reasoning given for not making the connection a requirement was that there were property owners between Culver Meadows and Academy Road that were opposed to the connection. But that is short-sighted. The Town of Culver is theoretically here in perpetuity. Those homeowners will change over time. Culver Meadows should have been required to provide their portion of the required Right-of-Way through their property and Culver could have waited for the right time to make the connection using that Right-of-Way. CIC was already planning a connection to S.R. 17, so it was just a matter of making that connection where it could serve both needs.
From the developer’s standpoint, these controlled entrances are the next best thing to creating gated communities, but with the benefit of dedicating the streets for municipal maintenance. Theoretically they are reducing traffic in the development to their residents only. This is part of the mindset where we’re seeing more privacy fences and complaints at Council meetings about street traffic. The last drawing I saw for The Dunes has a single entrance and that didn’t even align with adjacent streets. (That drawing is several months old.) There are reasons why towns are laid out on grids and Cul-de-Sac developments lead to more sprawl. (See previous post here.) Grids don’t always work, but the connections are still important.
Connected streets cut down on traffic bottlenecks. What are the residents of The Dunes going to do when street work is required at the entrance? That’s 200 residences with no redundant connection. There is a reason water lines are looped. The same principle applies to streets.
Connected streets promote walking and biking. They invite current residents into the new neighborhoods and vice versa. This is how connections are made. This is where a new resident might get invited to a local Church or civic club. This is how they hear about town initiatives.
Connected streets promote block parties, garage sales and other community involvement activities. The goal of new development goes beyond the head count and ad valorem increase. Culver should want the new residents to become community members. We don’t need more part-time residents and we don’t want to be a bedroom community.
I talked about changing The Dunes’ connections to the town before. (here) I think that idea should be expanded to include additional connections. Make them part of our community for the future. Maybe this is another case made for an Infrastructure Czar… And as far as a connection to S.R. 17? Let’s suggest connection points to the west and south for future development. It’s just good planning.
0 comments