I shared some of my rants regarding the changes to the zoning boundary with Jeff Kenney of the Culver Citizen and he suggested that I send him a letter to the editor on the subject. I am a little freer with my writing here in the blog since I know my audience is different, so I wrote a separate Letter to the Editor and cleaned up my prose a bit. Hopefully it will encourage people to get involved and do some of the research themselves. My earlier piece included all of the links and drawings, so I’ve made it easy for anyone to follow my research. What do you think?
PS – If anyone can tell me why I lose my paragraph breaks on text I cut & paste into a post, let me know! Drives me nuts! It looks right in the editor and then loses the spaces between paragraphs when it posts… I guess I’ll go old-school and add indents…
I went home pretty frustrated last night. I had shared my previous post on the Two Mile Zoning Boundary with the Town Council and Plan Commission last week. I am also on the Steering Committee for the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review and attended that meeting Monday evening. (6:00 until 9:45! Sheesh!) The topic of the Two Mile Zoning Boundary came up and there was a lively discussion. Yesterday I sent the following email to the Town Council and Plan Commission ahead of the Plan Commission meeting last night:
All,
I attended last night’s Plymouth Comprehensive Plan review on behalf of MCEDC. One of the items that Jackie Turner with Ratio Architects had in the draft plan was ceding some extra territorial control back to the County. I questioned why this would ever be considered as the extended territorial control was there to allow the municipality to control its destiny. She replied that if Plymouth was looking at the plan as a 10 year document, then they might want to divest themselves of the burden of supervising areas that weren’t planned for annexation in the next 10 years. I asked why a municipality would EVER want to cede control to the county and shouldn’t our vision be for 50 years, not just 10? I then asked about problems with residential development surrounding industrial areas making expansion difficult, the problem with subdivisions just outside the territorial boundary which used services, but did not pay for them (fire, police, parks, etc.) and and the difficulties of leapfrogging areas that had been developed that resisted annexation to serve new development or other older developments that needed services. This started a rather spirited response from Plymouth departmental staff naming specific instances where this is already a problem.
Ms. Turner agreed with my points for the most part, saying she was just giving that as an option to be considered as part of the comprehensive planning process. She said there still may be areas of no growth where Plymouth might want to consider this, but all the points I made need to be considered before making that decision.
I’m paraphrasing the discussion above, but I double checked it with Brent Martin who was also in attendance. Ralph Booker was there also. One of the big points I think Culver should take from this is that determining the extended territorial boundary is a discussion that should be had as part of the Comprehensive Planning process. There is no reason that we can’t put this off until our planning process is complete.
Kevin
After sending that out yesterday, I had a meeting with the representatives from Houseal Lavigne Associates who were here doing interviews to start our Comprehensive Plan project. I was there representing MCEDC. As part of our discussion, I laid out the scenario of the property swaps to Devin Lavigne and he agreed with me that it probably was not appropriate to give up any control since it was so hard fought to obtain. He also agreed that this should be part of the comprehensive planning process we were just beginning.
At the Plan Commission last night Ralph Booker, Marshall County Plan Director, presented the maps including a calculation of the acreage of the land that was swapped. Ralph Winters, Plan Commission Chairman, called for a vote without audience input and it was passed without discussion. My arguments were not mentioned. Our new planners, sitting in the audience, were not consulted. Opportunity missed. Do you like the Face Palm GIF? That was me last night!
Passing this last night puts it in front of the Town Council for approval. I’m not sure when that will happen or whether the Town Council will buck the Plan Commission on this again.
I was disappointed to hear that the Culver Beerfest died. It’s always sad when people with enthusiasm for promoting Culver get shut down. Unfortunately the Culver CAVE society wins out.
I think we’re fortunate that the Peseks have been innovative in reinventing the former Marmont Grille as the Evil Czech Brewery. There have no doubt seen some growing pains, but this is the kind of entrepreneurial spirit we need, i.e. if the first effort fails, try again!
There was an article in January/February 2013 issue of Building Indiana titled “Locally Made Brews Brings Dollars to the Community”. It talks about the Shoreline Brewery in Michigan City, Indiana. From the number of employees hired to reuse of abandoned buildings to increased visitors to Michigan City, the brewery has been a boon to the community. The brewery sponsors concerts and events that bring people from across the border in the Chicagoland area. That in turn stimulates the local economy. (I’m going to put Shoreline on the list for Becky and I to visit!) Micro Breweries are on IEDC‘s radar. Recently MCEDC was notified of a seminar that was being put on by IEDC for entrepreneurs interested in starting craft brewing operations.
We’ve attended events in the past at the Round Barn Winery near Baroda, Michigan. While it was started as a winery, it has expanded to include Vodka (from grapes) and a micro brewery. A couple of years ago they attracted us with a one time event with Duke Tumatoe performing. Apparently the success of that and other one time events led them to have outdoor concerts every weekend throughout the summer and fall of 2012. It was apparently successful as Jammin’ in the Vineyard is on their events calendar for late May through October. Becky and I have attended several of these events and thoroughly enjoyed them. They were not drunken free-for-alls. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone over indulging, let alone being asked to leave. Did we do anything but visit the vineyard the first time we went there? No. Did we explore Baroda on our last visit? Yes. In fact we actually made a trip up there specifically to buy a Christmas present based on something we’d seen on a previous trip.
I was unable to attend the Park Board meeting where the Park Board voted it down, but I did hear some of the congratulatory comments expressed by the audience at the Town Council meeting on February 19th:
Comment: The Park is for our children and people that can’t otherwise have access to the lake. (Uh, remember Lakefest, Tour de Max and the Corn Roast? Don’t those fundraising events take up parking and limit access to the Park? Doesn’t the park rent the Pavilions on a regular basis?)
Image borrowed from originalhooters.com
Comment: They wanted to use the event for breast cancer fundraising and call it Beer for Boobs!(Really? And that slang is more crass than the nationally recognized Susan G. Komen for the Cure‘s breast cancer events called MargariTa-Ta’s? Beer for Boobs is actually the brewing version that works with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Some would like to go back to the past, but in a world where there are restaurants named Big’uns, Hooters and Chi-Chi’s… that ship has sailed…)
Comment: We really didn’t want the kind of people this would draw.(Again, Really? We’ve become alcohol snobs now? A winefest (Chamber event) is okay, but a beerfest is beneath us?)
Comment: Someone volunteered a vacant corn field for the event and it wasn’t considered. (Yes, I want to trek through a furrowed, dusty field rather than have a nice view of the Lake under shade trees. That promotes Culver…)
I’m paraphrasing the above comments. Those are just some that I remember.
At the end of the day, I don’t know whether I would have attended the beerfest. If I didn’t, it wouldn’t have been because I was offended. I had conflicts last year and didn’t attend the winefest, though I heard it was well attended and should grow this year. For that vocal crowd that thinks Culver should concentrate on being a tourist town, we just missed an opportunity.
Read Jeff Kenney’s article in the Culver Citizen reporting on the Park Board meeting where the festival was killed here. His opinion piece on this issue in the Citizen and repeated in the Pilot is spot on as well, but I couldn’t find a link to that. He makes my point better than I do! I guess that’s why he’s a professional writer…
For those of you that followed my posts on the Firemen’s Memorial here and here, I hope you liked the design I suggested. (See the picture to the right.) Unfortunately, I have to report that the firemen have apparently chosen to go a different direction. At least I assume that’s what’s happening at the northeast corner of Lake Shore Drive and Slate Street… I found out about this the same way you did, i.e. I didn’t know they were going a different route until I saw it under construction.
I wish them the best as always, but it’s unfortunate they have chosen to build a less than permanent structure skinned with faux cut stone rather than following the guidance of the Culver Community Charrette as I suggested. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and time will tell as to whether this becomes the cherished landmark I intended with my design.
I was disappointed to hear that the Culver Beerfest died. It’s always sad when people with enthusiasm for promoting Culver get shut down. Unfortunately the Culver 
We’ve attended events in the past at the 
Comment: We really didn’t want the kind of people this would draw.
For those of you that followed my posts on the Firemen’s Memorial