Plan Commission

Thoughts on the 12/20 Plan Commission Meeting

by

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.

114 Lake Shore Drive

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.

810 South Main Street

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.

217 South Ohio Street

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…

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 3

by

This is a continuation of my thoughts on the 7/19/22 Plan Commission Meeting. You can find the previous posts here and here. This one is more of a whiny rant, so if you’re not up to hearing me complain, it would be best to skip this post!

412 Lake Shore Drive

I own the property at 412 Lake Shore Drive. It is a postage stamp size parcel with a 100 year old kit home on it. The lot would be unbuildable by current standards. According to the Accessor, the lot is 38′ x 120′. There is an alley down one side which makes it a corner lot. 38′ minus 10′ Side Yard Setback, minus 25′ ROW Setback leaves 3′ buildable without some extreme variances. The home also sits well into the 25′ front setback.

Do you know how our lives are divided into pre-pandemic and post-pandemic now? Sometime pre-pandemic (2020), the adjacent property owner at 404 Lake Shore Drive built a fence on the property line. Before I even noticed it, then Plan Commission member, Marty Oosterbaan, pointed out that it was not built per standards. Chapter 6, Section 070, B.1. – Within the limits of a required front yard setback area, no fence shall exceed 5 feet in height and shall have a minimum of 50% of its surface open to permit visibility. The fence as constructed extends into the front yard setback area, thus in that area it is too high and does not provide 50% visibility. The Plan Commission directed Chuck DeWitt, then Building Inspector, to pursue a remedy.

Multiple things happened: 1) Covid and the associated lack of public meetings for the Plan Commission; 2) Mr. DeWitt left his position as Marshall County Building Inspector and took a job as Building Commissioner for Culver; 3) The property changed ownership; 4) Ginny Munroe replaced Jonathan Leist at Culver Town Manager; 5) Marty Oosterbaan stepped down from the Plan Commission (and there were other member changes as well.) Throughout this, I continued to bring this up to the Plan Commission every month or so. At one point, I even drafted a letter for their use citing the violations. When the property was on the market, the Plan Commission directed Mr. DeWitt to let the realtor know about the violation in hopes that it would get corrected as part of a sale. While there was an open building permit on the property, the Plan Commission requested that the Marshall County Building Department not provide a Certificate of Occupancy until the violation was corrected.

412 Lake Shore Drive

At the meeting on the 19th, a status report on this issue was requested by the Plan Commission President. Mr. DeWitt reported that he had inquired about this with the Town’s Attorney handling Plan Commission matters and was told there was no grounds for enforcing this issue. This was a shock to me as well as some of the commissioners!

And here’s the Rant… I’m not the guy that comes in and raises a stink at meetings. I have a lot of respect for volunteers and what they do for the community. I don’t call them out or try and embarrass them in public meetings. But this is part of a string of promises from the Town, that I have waited patiently on, that have not borne results. This happened with Sand Hill Farm Apartments, The Paddocks and most recently the READI Grant applications. I have trusted in the process and been disappointed again and again. While I don’t volunteer with the expectation of returns, it’s frustrating to lose property value and business opportunities to others who have contributed little or nothing to the community. I’ve always been optimistic, but pragmatic. My optimism is waning lately… and my pragmatism is transitioning to cynicism…

Culver Zoning 7/19 Update – Part 1

by

The Culver Plan Commission is looking into some changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of this is prompted by what is coming before the BZA for Variances and some of it is based on recommendations from the Building Commissioner and various commission members.

R-1 Setbacks

The first issue under discussion is rear yard setbacks in the R-1 district. The two things being discussed regarding this are:

  1. Single Family Rear Yard Setback: 25′ (page 26)
  2. Accessory Structure Setback: no less than 10′ from the rear lot line (page 82)

Regarding #1, some of the members on the Plan Commission also serve on the BZA. They referenced this as one of the issues that comes up constantly. This is particularly an issue in the areas of town where the Lot of Record is non-conforming by size, i.e. too small. The discussion initially centered around reducing the R-1 Rear Setback requirement from 25′ to 10′, which is apparently a commonly granted variance request. There was pushback on this from some members that felt that this needed BZA review and shouldn’t be the default.

I made the suggestion that the ordinance be modified to allow the 25′ setback to remain in place for conforming lots and allow the reduction for the smaller non-conforming lots. This seemed palatable to the majority of the members, but it was tabled for further thought and discussion at the next meeting. One additional thought I had is how this change would affect the R-1 impervious surface limitations in the ordinance. (Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage: 50%) Many of the lots requesting setback variance may still be coming to the BZA due to this limitation. This becomes a trickier issue as it not only affects the adjacent neighbors, but the entire storm water system and Lake Maxinkuckee. This should be considered as well.

On a side note, I was pleased to hear one of the members bring up the affordable housing issue and how zoning restrictions often stymie creative solutions. I hope he carries this forward into the ongoing Comprehensive Plan meetings. Some allowances for creativity and New Urbanism would put Culver ahead of most of our neighboring communities and the County.

Regarding #2, some members thought there was a discrepancy, since accessory structures were allowed within 10′ of the rear property line. I would argue that there is a big difference between the an accessory structure and a main structure within 10′ of the rear property line. An accessory structure, such as a garage, gazebo or yard barn, which is limited to a height of 16′ and generally will have a smaller footprint. The main structure is allowed to be 35′ in height and often has a footprint that fills the lot from side setback to side setback. This could be quite imposing for the neighboring property, particularly in cases where there isn’t an alley or other additional open space. Personally, I think this should stand as is, though I might suggest tweaking it to address garages that access rear yard alleys. When they are constructed 10′ off the alley, general access can create issues and often trespass on the neighbors.

The other issue that was discussed was the line of site setback requirement for L-1 properties, but I’ll address that in a separate post.

New Comp Plan for Culver

by

For the last couple of years, I’ve been trying to get Culver to consider a Comprehensive Plan update. There are a few reasons for this:

  1. It’s just good practice. Most of the time it is recommended that a town’s comprehensive plan is reviewed and updated every five years with a new one completed every ten to fifteen years. Culver’s current comp plan was completed in 2014. I really thought we should have done this in 2020 since we could have called it Culver’s 20/20 vision, but last year was, um, challenging, to say the least. I bet there would have been good Zoom participation just out of boredom though!
  2. Stellar… The two Stellar Strategic Action Plans that brought us Stellar designation used the 2014 comp plan as a jumping off point. (As they should have.) For that reason, most of the readily achievable goals and even a few aspirational goals have been met or at least advanced. No sense sitting our our laurels. What are the next things we need to achieve?
  3. Future grants will require an updated comprehensive plan. The Stellar program required a comp plan no more than five years old. Other grant opportunities may hinge on that as well. If that’s the case, a comp plan can’t be updated overnight.
  4. Our community has changed physically. We’ve added the housing at Sand Hill Farm. There are 72 new residences there since the last comp plan and many of those are new faces in Culver. The Maple Ridge housing was not here in 2014. More than a few infill lots have seen homes constructed, while we have lost the trailer park, the City Tavern building, the Evil Czech building and the Boetsma property has been partially destroyed by fire. We have annexed new property on the northwest side of town. We have accepted the East Shore Sewer Corporation into Culver’s wastewater system.
  5. Our Community leadership has changed. Ginny Munroe has stepped down from the Town Council. Her leadership in spearheading the Stellar effort was invaluable. Tammy Shaffer stepped out of town leadership after being an important part of the Town Council and Redevelopment Commission. Pete Peterson, a long time Plan Commission stalwart has retired and sadly, some community leaders like Ralph Winters have passed away… New people have stepped up to replace them and their voices need to be represented in a new comp plan.
  6. Building Commissioner Chuck DeWitt has asked the Plan Commission to start a monthly review of the Comprehensive Plan in advance of an update or new plan. The Plan Commission will take up a couple of chapters a month. As always, the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals are seeing new challenges to the Zoning Ordinance, which is based on the goals and aspirations of the Comprehensive Plan. We have new types of development occurring, such as the RV storage facilities planned at the end of Main Street, which will involve another annexation. These things need to be addressed in the comp plan.

Some things on my agenda?

  • I was disappointed that Culver didn’t work harder to obtain our allowed 2 mile extraterritorial boundary. We were already sorely below the allowable area, but since the last comp plan, we have annexed land to the north and west and we’re about to annex land to the south. There has been no expansion of our extraterritorial boundary with this growth.
  • Since I served on the previous Comprehensive Plan Committee, I have become more in tune to housing and housing needs. The video below is an example of how we could adjust our zoning requirements to allow new and different affordable housing. Should we be a bit more progressive, consider new urbanism and other non-traditional zoning options?
  • Little was done to advance zoning changes to reflect the land use planning included in the last comp plan. We need to be more proactive.
  • More education is needed on the use of the comp plan. (Part of this is due to the change over talked about above, so there are new people involved.) The Plan Commission has done better with it’s referencing of the comp plan, but it is still not regularly referred to by the Town Council when decisions are being made regarding infrastructure. It is still too common to see projects that address today’s needs without addressing future potential. The sewer lines at Sand Hill Farm were not extended nor at the correct depth for future growth in the area. Can we do better with the annexation and infrastructure extensions we’re getting ready to do to the south? When the (now defunct) PUD was created for housing on the west side, the comp plan’s goal of extending Academy Road to S.R. 17 was ignored. (The developer should have been required to plan for it on his property and Culver could have worked on the remaining pieces needed as development progressed in the future.)

I was pleased to hear that the Plan Commission is starting the discussion. A revised comp plan will lead to a zoning ordinance update, a new strategic plan and hopefully a new list of accomplishments for Culver to start working on. Jim Dicke once told me, “Towns are growing or dying. There is no way to remain the same.” Culver is on a growth trajectory. We need to keep that going!

Interesting Take at the Plan Commission

by

I attended the Culver Plan Commission with a client Tuesday night. I was a little surprised to be called out in front of my client regarding another project, but so these things go.

Some Background: Last month I appeared for the Secondary Plan Review for the PUD (Planned Unit Development) needed for construction of The Paddocks. The project is one of the signature pieces in Culver’s Stellar Strategic Investment Plan and had been before the Plan Commission multiple times. It passed with one dissenting vote. I wondered about that vote, but never questioned it. It was their right to vote against the project. If they had expressed their objections before the vote, I could have provided a rebuttal to their objections, but after the vote it was a moot point.

Tuesday, that commissioner chose to elaborate on their no vote. To paraphrase, their objection was that all ordinances should be treated equal and since the Town had adopted a Complete Streets ordinance, and The Paddocks had agreed to provide a trail connection through The Paddocks property, the developer should have been required to exhaust all options to continue the trail through the adjacent property. The Developer should also be held to a higher standard due to the Tax Abatement awarded to The Paddocks.

A few things bothered me about that, but again, it was water under the bridge so I did not attempt to address it at that meeting. This is my venue to vent though, so here are my thoughts:

  1. I was disappointed that this was brought up after the fact when I was there with a client for another project. I thought that was inappropriate as it put me in an undeserved negative light when the project I was there for had nothing to do with The Paddocks.
  2. Complete Streets aside, this has not been a standard applied in the past. The last PUD developer was asked to provide trail access and as with The Paddocks, they provided access up to their property line. The adjacent property owner was not amenable to a trail through their property, so that was left to be addressed in the future… similar to what was done with The Paddocks. In that case, that development was not even required to provide the future Right-of-Way that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan because adjacent property owners were not supportive. The Paddocks PUD was required to dedicate additional Right-of-Way that wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the current project. The Town will be setting a high bar to hurdle if they choose to start requiring developers to purchase or negotiate rights to additional property outside the initial development.
  3. The Paddocks PUD did receive some matching funds and a tax abatement from the Town, but this was done because incentives were required to get the housing that the Town had made a goal. This also allowed the Town to receive matching funds from the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) and qualify for the IHCDA LIHTC program. These were very public negotiations. Making one sided changes to those agreements will make developers leery of working with the Town. On a side note, to my knowledge, this is the only RCI funded project where that funding is given to the Town through the Developer. In the awards of which I have knowledge, the RCI funding went to the Developer.
  4. Originally, and in all the Stellar discussion, this property was to connect to the Town via the revitalization of the Jefferson Street corridor. That was to be the “Complete Streets” connection. It was not until later that a request came for a connection to Cass Street. The Paddocks did agree to provide a trail connection to Cass Street, but was required to do so now despite some objections, one of which was the lack of a connection through adjacent properties. The preference would have been to provide the connection at a later date when it would have connected to Academy Road. Connecting to Cass Street was also an option, but it would have made more sense to wait until the Town had worked out a route with adjacent property owners.

As I have said many times in the past, I respect the volunteers that serve on public boards and commissions. They take more slings and arrows than ever gets balanced out with accolades. That doesn’t alleviate their responsibility to know all the facts. In this case, some of the commentary was counter to things previously negotiated with the Town Council and the Plan Commission’s own Technical Review Committee. Speaking from the table at the front of the room gives their voice additional weight. That needs to be used judiciously.

Obviously this commissioner’s take differs from mine. Fortunately for me, the project and the Town, his position wasn’t shared by the other commissioners.