Plan Commission

Accessory Dwelling Units

by
451 North State Street Aerial Photo from GIS

At the September meeting of the Culver Plan Commission there was a rezoning request for the parcel at 451 North State Street. The request was for a rezoning from R-1 to R-2. The property was originally two lots. Due to one of the Culver Zoning Ordinance restrictions (a lot must have a primary structure before an accessory structure can be built) the lots were combined so that the house on the north lot could have a garage on the south lot. The current owner wanted to add an apartment over the garage for when they had family there. The comments from the board, as well as comments from the neighbors, indicated the use desired wasn’t the problem, but the spot zoning to R-2 and the implications of what could be allowed in the future was at issue. R-2 would allow much denser development including many forms of multi-family residential. Unfortunately for the owner, this was the recommendation from the Building Commissioner and they weren’t given much encouragement to seek a variance as there wasn’t a hardship. Subdividing back to the original two lots would be an option, but there was a concern about the two existing buildings meeting setback requirements. The spot zoning was less of an issue since the Plan Commission spot zoned three different homes that contained 2-3 units to R-2 so they met zoning requirements earlier this year. (See previous post here.)

There was considerable discussion about the issue and it was noted that the current Comprehensive Plan added language that Accessory Dwelling Units should be considered. A work session of the Plan Commission was scheduled and held October 8th to address this issue.

At the work session, the Building Commissioner put forth a proposal to create a new zoning district, R-1.5, to add areas that could have have accessory dwelling units. The counter proposal was, that these should be allowed throughout R-1. What follows are some of the discussion points and my thoughts on them:

  1. Addressing the Comprehensive Plan directive – The Comp Plan makes recommendations from the consensus of public meetings. It is passed by the Plan Commission and the Town Council. In this case, the latest Comp Plan passed both groups unanimously, so the question is more about how to address the issue rather than whether to address the issue. The Comp Plan isn’t binding, but it does give direction. This is just one of many suggestions in the latest plan that contemplates the Plan Commission reexamining the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Comp Plan recommendations.
  2. New District vs Subdistrict vs allowable with restrictions – Both the New District and Subdistrict options suggest that the Plan Commission would have to go through some kind of rezoning process to either recategorize an area of R-1 District to the new standards or effectively spot zone each request as it came up. This would be burdensome for the Plan Commission and property owners and create a spot zoning situation every time it came up. The allowable restrictions should be definable and something the Building Commissioner could handle.
  3. Need for separate water and sewer – This was suggested by the Street Superintendent in case of future lot subdivision. This really should be a moot point though, since this is an accessory use, not a new primary use and most of the lots these would go on would be too small to subdivide. The Comp Plan contemplated this as a way to achieve additional workforce housing on existing infrastructure. This would go against that purpose. (Though I could see requiring a covenant against future subdivision of the lot if an accessory dwelling structure is allowed.)
  4. Garage Renovations – There was quite a bit of discussion regarding renovating a garage to be an Accessory Dwelling Unit. There were concerns about garages that were too close to property lines and whether a second floor for a dwelling unit would increase non-conformity. While some garages could be renovated this way, the building code overrides zoning, so many older garages would not meet those requirements and those too close to a property line could not be converted and meet the building code setbacks which override zoning setbacks for some conditions. Aside from those building code violations, most of the other concerns could be address through the allowable restrictions. There is also a separate garage height restriction that would have to be addressed.
  5. Some R-1 Lots are too small – There were concerns about shoe-horning these in on smaller lots. This could easily be handled with a lot size restriction and actually makes the case for making them allowable throughout R-1, but with restrictions. Lots like 451 North State Street would meet the size requirements, but the adjacent lot to the south wouldn’t. Also, this would not eliminate the impervious surface requirements. The need for off-street parking would have to be discussed too.

There were a myriad of other things that were not discussed or were just briefly touched on. Most of these could be handled with a matrix or a Chinese Menu approach. Square Footage of the building could have a minimum and then an increase based on lot size, but still controlled by the base impervious surface requirements. Additional parking requirements could be determined by the number of bedrooms, but still controlled by impervious surface requirements. There could be a requirement that it be smaller than the primary structure. There could be a lesser height allowable than the 35 foot currently allowed in R-1 or even required to be a certain percentage shorter than the primary structure. All of these and others could be check-off items determined by the Building Commissioner rather than having each one appear before the Plan Commission.

A few additional things that should be address:

  • Can these be three season dwellings that are shut down and winterized at the end of the season or must they be available for year-round occupancy?
  • Can a mobile home or a motor home fit the criteria?
  • Must it have a kitchen/cooking facilities or just bathroom facilities?
  • Must it be detached?
    • The discussion centered around detached units, but that wouldn’t address the R-2 spot zoning discussed previously.
    • It would also preclude uses like mother-in-law suites which are currently a gray area.
    • It would also preclude larger homes subdivided into apartments, i.e. multi-family use of existing single family structures.
  • Is an Accessory Dwelling Unit different from other, possibly existing, accessory structures, i.e. if there is a house and a detached garage, does that mean the detached garage has to be eliminated in favor of the Accessory Dwelling Unit? I don’t think that’s in the spirit of the Comp Plan goal, but it should be defined one way or another. It is another item that might be determined by lot size in the matrix.

There was a lot of concern about spot zoning or even using the idea of allowing it within R-1 with restrictions, because of these things happen without neighbor input. This is one of those things where the Plan Commission will have to be open to thinking outside the box a bit. The Comp Plan goal for this was to provide additional workforce housing by making the best use of existing infrastructure. Based on this, they need to work on making this easy and inexpensive rather than hard and costly. Some will no doubt be full blown vacation spaces like contemplated in the State Street rezoning. But others will be studio and one bedroom spaces suitable for wait staff, teachers and other workers just starting out. Those are the ones we need to encourage as those spaces are in demand and those workers are in demand.

I’m glad to see the Plan Commission taking this up. If you want to follow along, the Building Commissioner has committed to posting updates and additional information here. I know this was pushed by a rezoning request, but it is just one of many Comp Plan recommendations they should be considering. As per a previous post, they are way behind where they were after the 2014 Comp Plan was created. Fingers crossed they build momentum from this start.

Nonconforming

by

While I’m not a fan of conformity in everything, I do tend to be a rule follower. Yes or No rules are fairly easy to follow, but so many rules in the real world don’t easily fall into Black & White, but actually fall into gray areas. Even ones that are clearly yes or no, sometimes cause hardships that need consideration. In the world of Zoning, this is the reason for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). When a building or property doesn’t fit neatly in the box laid out by the Zoning Ordinance, the BZA has the ability to inject some flexibility.

This is a recurring topic with the Culver Plan Commission and it came up again in the January meeting. There is always a laudable effort to reduce the load on the BZA, when the BZA is continually hearing similar requests on which it routinely grants variances. There is a whole chapter in the Culver Zoning Ordinance for this. Chapter 8 is titled, “Nonconforming Structures, Lots and Uses” to try and handle this, but there are times that it is still not enough. The Building Commissioner put forth a proposal that a structure should be allowed to be rebuilt on the same footprint without a variance. Again, this is something that is routinely granted. But I don’t think it is something where a variance should be waived.

As with a lot of our government where there are multiple individuals involved, the BZA is often in the business of finding reasonable compromises. The concept of allowing reconstruction on the same footprint is already a bit cumbersome in practice. Often, the reason for wanting to build back on the original footprint is because that allows continued violations of required setbacks, impervious surface standards or other ordinance rules. Sometimes this is a necessity due to lot sizes, but there can still be issues. Without review, the policy can be abused.

In the past, every nonconforming structure required a BZA review and variance in order to make any changes. The idea was for there to be a review to see if the proposed project could make the structure less nonconforming, if not bring it completely into compliance. This not only gave the BZA the opportunity to review the project, but allowed the neighboring property owners to voice support or concerns regarding the project. The current thinking is that this is unwieldy, but it served a useful purpose.

I have three main concerns with this proposal and the current ordinance:

  1. Chapter 8 is hard to read. It attempts to deal with nonconforming lots, nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. Often two or more of these issues apply at the same time and the overlapping controls become confusing. For example, a structure housing a nonconforming use cannot be expanded, while a nonconforming structure can be expanded if it doesn’t increase the nonconformity, when the structure is nonconforming because it’s on a nonconforming lot. I would suggest that the chapter establish a hierarchy of priorities to help with these decisions. While each case is different, they are not completely unique.
  2. Chapter 8 should require some stringent guidelines regarding documentation. If reconstruction is to be allowed on the same footprint, then that footprint must require specific documentation before foundations are removed. Documentation should include locating existing overhangs and variations in the foundation line. There is also a provision that the height may not be increased, so this becomes another specific documentation requirement. Don’t allow 8′ ceilings to become become 10′ ceilings and low foundation walls don’t become daylighted basements.
  3. Lastly, I think there should be consideration given to destruction by Acts of God versus demolition for modernization. If a project is literally building back on the same foundation because the house was destroyed by fire or tornado, that is different than tearing everything out and rebuilding on the same footprint because the structure is old. If it is a 100% new structure and there is any way of reducing the nonconformity, even just by inches, the potential for becoming more in compliance should be evaluated and considered.

I think the Building Commissioner is right to ask for clarification and if enough detail is put into determining allowable reconstruction, this is a reasonable thing to delegate to his authority. As it’s written, it’s a minefield and I be concerned about uneven application.

Municipal Services

by

One of the things that continually comes up in response to the controversy regarding The Dunes, is the State requirement that municipalities provide utility service to annexed properties within 3 years. The parcels The Dunes is being built on, plus the next parcel south were annexed into Culver around 13 years ago. This was done when Culver Garden Court was being built. The Town is remiss in providing water and sewer to these properties. Granted, they hadn’t asked for services before and as I understand it, the south property doesn’t particularly want services, but it is an obligation the Town accepted in their annexation plan which included a fiscal plan on how to pay for the utility extensions.

The initial impetus for this annexation was to bring Culver Garden Court into Town and provide utility service to support the project. As often happens, politics entered into this. The then Clerk treasurer had just moved to the southernmost property. So the annexation was expanded to include that parcel, else she would have had to resign her position as she would no longer be a resident. Doubling down on this, Culver has annexed the property on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery and that property owner HAS requested utility service. As I understand it, Culver has sufficient utility capacity for this extension, though it will use a significant portion of the capacity reserve.

I have no issue with any of the above. But the conversations regarding the municipal obligations do cause me some concern. If those are truly an issue, there is another ticking timebomb for Culver…

Culver Investment Corp holdings

As with most of us, my life is now divided into prepandemic and post-pandemic, so I’m going to forego the research on the timeline beyond that as I talk about the property owned by Culver Investment Corp outlined in cyan and yellow on the adjacent map. (Also known locally as ‘The Beste Property’.) Prepandemic, Culver was presented with a plan for a PUD development at the Northwest corner of Town. This would take in most of the unannexed area within S.R. 17 and S.R. 10. Along with that area (72 acres), the PUD included 14.6 acres of land on the north side of S.R. 10. The majority of this land was to be residential, a continuing Town priority, with the parcel north of S.R. 10 slated to be a gas station/convenience store (area in cyan on the adjacent map). As part of that negotiation with the developer, Culver had sufficient utility capacity, but the developer would be responsible for extending utilities to serve the property. Overall, this was a positive for Culver. I didn’t have any issues with the project, though I did have a few issues with it holding up Sand Hill Farm Apartments and with the treatment of existing business, Good to Go. The property was annexed and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning was approved.

The project stalled shortly after that. No doubt the pandemic was a factor, but I suspect there were other issues as well. The Plan Commission gave the developer several extensions, but in the end, the PUD was rescinded this year (’23) and the land was rezoned back to S-1, Suburban Residential, as it was prior to the PUD. Shortly after the PUD was rescinded and the rezoning was completed, the property went on the market.

This brings me to my concern: The properties were never combined and are listed for sale individually. Culver Investment Corp is not doing any development of these properties, so the development agreement with that corporation is null and void. If the 6.7 acre parcel at the north east corner of S.R. 17 and S.R. 10 sells and is developed, Culver must run utilities to that parcel per State annexation requirements. (Culver would be unable to deny a permit for a house on that property per current zoning.) It would appear the nearest utilities at 4/10ths of a mile away… as the crow flies… There are no easement provisions to get utilities to this property. Right-of-way access would require INDOT cooperation, which can be tedious at best and require nearly a mile of utility extensions without even considering the need for a water loop.

I have not seen or heard anything about this in public meetings, but this seems to be a potentially large budget item. One potential solution, would be to de-annex the property, but I would suggest that’s not best for Culver either. Having control of that area is important. That was discussed extensively with the Comprehensive Plan Committee. (There was also extensive discussion about increasing our extra territorial boundary.) Getting together a new fiscal plan for the area would seem to be another important step. Culver can’t be completely distracted by the growth on the south side of town and ignore this 86 acre area on the north. That could come back to bite us.

Edit 4-3-24 – This past weekend, I was contacted by a Culver Town Council member regarding this post. The Town Council and their attorney believe my conclusions here are in error. They’re determination is that the development agreement with Culver Investment Corp. is still in force and Culver Investment Corp. is in default. The Council has signed and recorded a resolution affirming their rights of enforcement. I’m pleased that they are looking into this and are pursuing remedies. As attorneys are fond of saying, “Time is of the Essence.” I sincerely hope their interpretation proves to be correct.

Little Pink Houses…

by

After the last Culver Town Council meeting, John Mellencamp‘s Pink Houses song was in my head… “Little Pink Houses… for you and me!” Though on reflection, a couple of Talking Heads‘ more angry song lyrics might have been more appropriate, i.e. “Burning Down the House!” or “This is not my beautiful house!”

Cookie Cutter

A local resident rose to speak during public input. Apparently just recently finding out about The Dunes (seriously!?), she had many concerns, not the least of these being aesthetics. She wanted to see what the buildings were going to look like. She didn’t want a bunch of cookie cutter houses looking all the same. (What, like The Riggings, Chadwick Shores, The Harbour or The Cove?) Paraphrasing here, she used a line similar to what has been used from multiple perspectives and variations against The Dunes, “That isn’t Culver!” Really? What is Culver? She made reference to living on South Street. The last lake home on South Street, the Shaffer house, was demolished within the last month as it is about to be replaced by something new. In many ways, THAT is what Culver has become. A continuing renaissance of demolition and replacement.

Welcome to Culver Sign at intersection of 10 & 17

Back in 1998, Culver hosted a Charrette, where some themes were identified. Recommendations were made on things that should be highlighted. One of these was the use of field stone, which prompted the pillars for the Welcome to Culver sign at 10 & 17 and covering the wall at the Lake Shore Drive curve with stone. Even recently, this theme has been continued in the developments at Sand Hill Farm (Stone facades at The Paddocks & Sand Hill Farm entrance sign) and with the wall replacement completed by Boo Marshall & Paul De Benedictis on Lake Shore Drive. But there was never a directive or ordinance requiring compliance. Thus within a year or so of the Charrette, Bob & Mary Tanguy built Mary’s Shoppe, now the Culver Academies Museum, on the southeast corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street. (As another recommendation, the Charrette discussed the need to follow the existing downtown character with infill development, but Tanguys were allowed to do what they wanted.)

Where do we draw the line on such things? Culver has very few zoning requirements that apply to aesthetics. The first two that come to mind are the height restrictions (no, it’s not a fire department requirement) and side yard requirements that mostly are there to keep similar aesthetics in similar neighborhoods. On the lake, there is currently a line-of-sight front setback restriction which is mostly aesthetic. (And is currently under review for removal from the ordinance.) Culver has a grass ordinance and the unsafe building ordinance has been stretched to cover aesthetics, but other than that, residents are mostly free to do as they please. Much to some people’s chagrin, there used to be a pink restaurant building on Lake Shore Drive, a yellow house on the south side of the lake, a yellow & orange house on the east side of the lake and now there are a few that are nearly completely black. To each their own!

Preliminary Plan for The Dunes development on South Main Street.

As it has been discussed so far, The Dunes will be built out by the developer, so all decisions on construction styles will start there. It will have a Home Owners Association (HOA), which would control such things as colors and landscaping, if they want. (In reality, the developer plans to hold ownership on the majority of the properties and thus would have control of the HOA decisions.) All those decisions will be made based on their ability to wring the most profit from rentals and sales. I personally don’t agree with their decision to face all of the houses inward to the property with no front doors on South Main Street, but it’s their property, so they can do as they please. The decision to make the project self-contained makes the complaints about cookie cutter houses even less salient. As with all HOA style developments, buyers and renters know what they are getting when they move in. Some people like every property the same and under control, thinking that makes their neighborhood better. Isn’t that what the local ‘Walking Ladies’ hoped for when they would call out properties that didn’t meet those elusive Culver standards?

Due to the comments of this resident, the Town Council suggested asking for some renderings of buildings (reasonable) and maybe asking for a model of the property (totally unreasonable!). But before going too far with this, the council and residents need to ask how far they really want to go? Is this standard going to be the new one throughout Culver? Much like an HOA, is the council going to dictate paint colors, shingle colors, roof materials, siding types, etc. throughout Culver? Would the resident complaining about this, want that standard applied to her home?

Burning Down the House contains another line that might be salient here: “Ah watch out… you might get what you’re after.”

Culver Building Permit Fees

by

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…

Bass Lake Storage

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.

The forlorn fire hydrant that was removed from Sand Hill Farm Apartments

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.