Planned Unit Development

Culver Plan Commission September MIA?

by

Just a mini rant… I was a bit upset to find out that the September Plan Commission meeting was cancelled because there wasn’t anything on the agenda. (Per the Building Commissioner) I know it’s a mostly thankless job and that the pay is poor. ($0: They’re volunteers) I was still disappointed that the commission didn’t take the opportunity to catch up on some of the things that they don’t have time for because their meetings are usually busy. Here’s a short list off the top of my head:

  • The Comprehensive Plan – Most of the Plan Commission has not been involved in the production of the new comp plan, having delegated it to Culver Crossroads. Only one Plan Commission member has been an active Culver Crossroads participant. While the production has been delegated, passing of the plan will still fall on them and this would have been a good time to familiarize themselves with the current draft before the required public meetings. As it stands, they are going to have trouble answering public input questions, since they are not familiar with the new document or the decision making process that went into it.
  • The Solar Ordinance – They have discussed the need to move this forward quickly as the moratorium passed by the Town Council has left property owners in limbo. This would have been a good time to start assembling names of potential subcommittee members.
  • The Zoning Ordinance – We have been talking about cleaning up the mistakes from the last go around for several years. Just taking a section at a time in slow meetings would move this forward.
  • The Dunes – This too will be coming before the Plan Commission as a subdivision request. The planning for this is an important function of the commission.
    • Related to The Dunes, we are about to start the process of establishing the biggest subdivision (that I know of) since Culver established zoning in the 50’s. I don’t know when the last time the Subdivision Ordinance was updated, but it has been more than 20 years. It references old standards and doesn’t include things like the Complete Streets Ordinance, which was passed 4 or 5 years ago.
  • Beste Property – The Planned Unit Development zoning district for these parcels has been undone and the property has gone back to its previous zoning designation, S-1. There has been discussion that there should be a change to this, since the property has been annexed. The property is on the market, so giving some guidance to future buyers would be appropriate.

That’s my short list… With a little thought, I’m sure I could double it, but there are hours and hours that could be spent related to the five thing above.

I give volunteers a lot of respect. I’m not going to come down hard on them for taking a breather. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t important things to do.

Connections to Culver

by
The Dunes property is highlighted in cyan and yellow. The CabinetWorks property is directly west between The Dunes and S.R. 17

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.

The Riggings, is highlighted in yellow. Maple Ridge is the subdivision adjacent to it on the west (left).

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.

Gated Community

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.

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.

Sandhill Farm – Suwanee Town Center

by

Last week Becky and I took a week and went to Georgia and Florida.  We drove down to Atlanta on Thanksgiving Day and spent that weekend with one of my best friends, Kim Whitten, who was also my secretary at my previous employer.  We spent the weekend with her family before going on to Florida and Key West.  We came back and stayed with them for the weekend on the return leg of our trip as well.  Even when I lived there, I referred to the area as Atlanta, but in reality, Kim lives in Suwanee, Georgia.  (Yeah, like the song.)

In touring around our old stomping grounds, we went to see Suwanee Town Center.  Rather than trying to revive the old downtown, Suwanee chose to create a new town center.  It is a P.U.D. in its truest sense, combining public service space, park space, commercial space and a range of residential types.  Read more about it here and here.

The Suwanee Town Center states their vision as “live…work…play…shop.”  This is something I would like to emulate in my proposed Sand Hill Farm development.  There are differences.  The Sand Hill Farm property is approximately 2/3rds the size and I have no vision for Sand Hill Farm to take the place of Downtown Culver.  Also, in keeping with the vision presented by the Culver Redevelopment Commission, I would like to keep an option open for a light industrial aspect to the development.

Read more