The Dunes

Targeting

by

The Town of Culver (TOC) and the developer at The Dunes have mostly stated that the project is like the movie Field of Dreams. To paraphrase the movie, “If you build it, they will come.” (The original movie line is, “If you build it, he will come.”) I have no grounds to dispute that, nor to dispute TOC’s hope that adding additional housing options will lower costs in Culver. But do we have to just hope “they” are who we want?

At the last Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) meeting, the developer had an request before the commission, asking for the release of the next tranche of bond money to begin the next phase. Citing strong interest, they felt the need to get started on an additional 70 units. Several inciteful questions were asked by audience members that were not well addressed by the commission. One stood out to me that I wanted to address here: “Are you targeting who you want to live there?”

In a round-a-bout way, TOC has a goal that these new residents be full-time residents. There is a move to get the “Papa’s to Pinder’s” business district in shape to serve these new residents, but it’s not moving too quickly. That is definitely an important piece. As was brought up at the meeting, can Park ‘n Shop serve the additional residents? Should TOC be talking to CVS about the potential extra need and whether an onsite pharmacist would be justified again? The commission members didn’t have good answers. Hopefully, there is more going on behind the scenes that wasn’t ready for public discourse or alternatively, the discussion sparked some additional goals to strive for.

But the main thing I think is missing is targeting who TOC wants to populate those new homes. Left to their own devices, the developer has only one goal (as he should to satisfy his investors): fill the units as quickly as possible with the residents that will pay the most to be there. The project is somewhat insular by design, turning the back side of homes and apartments toward South Main Street, rather than embracing the existing neighborhoods. TOC will have to make the effort to reach out and make those residents part of the community. Wouldn’t that be easier to do if that welcoming hand were extended before they moved in?

There is a new battery plant under construction in St. Joseph County. There is a new distribution center under construction in Elkhart County. There is a new truck factory going into Kosciusko County. Driving to those sites from Culver seems like a long distance, but compared to living in a larger city, the commute time would be similar, but the drive would be more pleasant! Worst case, if commute distance is too long, those people will still be looking for housing and likely push some existing residents in those counties to look elsewhere. Culver has some nice amenities to offer, if they are promoted. Per the recent UWMC Housing Matters study, Marshall County has a housing deficit of 1,300 dwelling units.

This seems like an area where TOC should be proactive; soon, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. If nothing is done, I believe the developer will get those homes rented. There is no strong impetus for them to care whether they are rented to full-time residents or not. If TOC does not want more part-time summer residences, part-time Culver Academies‘ parent residences and part-time overflow from lake house residents, then they will need to make an effort to attract who they want.

Dunes Approvals

by

The Dunes received a major subdivision plat approval and site plan approval from the Culver Plan Commission on June 18th and from the Culver Town Council on June 26th. This was somewhat a foregone conclusion since Culver has been working with the developer for over a year on this project. It was interesting though that neither entity passed these approvals unanimously.

The preponderance of people in attendance at the meetings were against the project. Some in its entirety, but most in its scale. Some (falsely in my opinion) called the Town to task for not communicating enough and not listening to concerns. (If there is one thing that I would say Culver is above average in, it’s communication with its citizens…) There were also those that attempted to complain on both sides of the issues, saying it was too big, but might be left incomplete; it was being pushed to quickly, but the developer shouldn’t be give 8 years to complete it; it was not planned to be part of the community, but but it should be connected directly to State Road 17, to direct traffic out of community.

I remain generally in favor of the project. I am a little disappointed in the the follow through on requirements the town had placed on the project. The project presentation to the plan commission has been delayed twice because of engineering questions being unanswered. As presented, at the meeting, most of those were answered “in concept”, but details were still not complete. There were also pending questions regarding the projects connection to South Main Street that were not complete. And then there was the statement from the developer that the town would be receiving a lot of money from increased TIF capture on this project which could be directed towards some of the short falls in water and sewer needs. Many of these things affect adjacent property owners, including a wetlands and the town’s own well field, while the money being proposed for water and sewer improvements had previously been suggested for other TIF district needs not connected to this project. I would have liked to have seen all these things tied down before authorizing them to proceed.

I was pleased that many of the questions from the audience were addressed, but I have concerns with their substantiation. I do not in anyway want to speak ill of the developer and their honesty regarding the project, but the answers given were off-the-cuff, having little if any documentation or requirements of follow-through. Many of the questions were, frankly, not the business of anyone but project investors, but the reassurances carried no weight. While I trust that everything said was in good faith, there is nothing that keeps them from changing direction on them if economics of the project suggest better uses of funds. As suggested here before (second to last paragraph), their development agreement included none of the delineated requirements seen in past agreements.

That said, I think many of those protesting this development fail to understand that this project was not a surprise, but something that has been in the Town of Culver’s plans and one of their goals for over a decade. When the Culver Garden Court property was annexed around 2010, the surrounding property was annexed as well. It was rezoned as R-2 to promote housing in that area. When the last revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance were completed, R-2 was rewritten to allow higher density developments. The 2014 Comprehensive Plan suggested, due to citizen input, that more housing is needed. The Stellar Communities surveys of 2016 and 2017 indicated more housing is needed. The 2024 Comprehensive Plan still indicated the need for more housing, even with The Dunes under discussion. This was not a project that required a rezoning or multiple variances to make happen. It fits with the planned development of the town.

Do I think things might have been done better? Always. Until I’m appointed benevolent dictator, I will most likely always see alternatives that I would have pursued. (I still have questions about whether it follows the Culver Complete Streets Ordinance, whether there were drywells added, where they drain and who owned them, and whether the wetlands have been properly addressed, etc.) Do I think those in charge were (mostly) following the will of the majority of citizens? Yes.

The Dunes Work Session

by

There was a work session held Wednesday evening, 5/15/24, to discuss The Dunes project. This was a combined session with the Culver Town Council, Plan Commission and Redevelopment Commission in attendance. Despite being advertised as a work session, they did allow limited questions from the public in attendance. I am not sure how many were watching via Teams, but there were only 7 “public” in the room.

Combined Work Session for the Culver Town Council, Plan Commission and Redevelopment Commission May 15,2024

I attended just to listen. As I have said before, I am generally in favor of this project, but The Devil is in the Details. This is the third project of this type, one of two that has regional matching dollars, that has been come up for the Town in the last 10 years. It’s been interesting to see how these things have morphed over time. Since the meeting, I have been approached by several people, some on opposite sides of the issue, for my thoughts on the meeting. I thought I would include some of my responses to them here.

The meeting was ostensibly to hear the Town’s Engineering Firm, Midwest Engineers, Inc., give their assessment of the drainage plans. Some of what was presented was by the developer’s attorney though, so there may have been some honest miscommunication. That said, it wasn’t corrected by the engineer. As a disclaimer here, I have not seen the drainage study, final plat, or construction plans, so I can only speak to what was presented.

Thoughts on the drainage:

  • There was a question from a plan commission member concerning the adjacent wetlands behind the water treatment plant which currently comes up into adjacent property owners’ yards during heavy rains. The response was that there would be no increase in water volume entering the wetlands, but that it would enter faster. There would be an overflow established for the wetlands routing the water somewhere (town storm drains?). This is one of those where I wonder if there was a misstatement, as the general design of a detention basin is to detain the water and slowly release it at a rate no faster than predevelopment. Flushing the wetlands with a rapid release and an overflow to the storm drain could well be detrimental. This wetland is directly adjacent to the town’s well field, so its health is important. Also, this seems counter to town’s storm water requirements which state, “It is the responsibility of each land owner to insure that any portion of precipitation from such sources as rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water that flows over the ground surface be contained within their lot or channeled to an appropriate storm sewer, ditch, or stream.” – Chapter 6, Section 250, page 115. This is tricky. It’s important the the wetlands still receives the pre-development runoff (contrary to the ordinance), but does not get flushed with a rapid release of runoff.
  • There was a discussion about making the pond deeper. Deeper will increase the volume held, but won’t necessarily increase the rate of absorption, which they stated they are counting on. The depth in comparison to the wetlands is important and the plantings and maintenance of this detention pond is critical, else the bottom seal and no longer provide absorption. I trust that Midwestern Engineers is considering the possibility of multiple 100 yr storms and the possibility of 500 year storms, since their occurrence is a possibility.
  • There were questions about the start of earthwork before Culver approvals. It was stated that they didn’t require any Culver approvals and they had the State approvals required for this work. It wasn’t clear if they had obtained an erosion control permit from Culver. I believe that should have been required and applied where it might be stricter than the State. – Chapter 6, Section 050, H, page 87
  • There was discussion of possibly adding large drywells. Drywells are generally pervious vessels such as manholes, vaults and oversized pipes which detain some of the water and allow for absorption into the surrounding soil. They work well when they are maintained, but cease to work if they are allowed to clog. They only work in suitable soils. The addition of drywells would move this maintenance from the HOA (responsible for the detention pond) to the town, as they would become part of the built storm system, dedicated to the town with the streets. A potential alternate solution would be the creation of small drywells associated with the downspouts on buildings and the creation of rain gardens and/or bioswales to slow water flow and increase absorption.
Minimum Lot Area Chart for Culver’s R-2 District

Thoughts on size:

  • There was audience pushback on the size of the development. The concern being that the addition of “300 doors” (the developer’s term), will cause traffic problems, tax the municipal systems and generally be disruptive to Culver as we know it. I tend to trust the numbers provide by town officials on this. We have been assured that the sewer and water capacity is not only adequate, but there will remain excess capacity for other future projects. Town officials have also cited demographic numbers showing that if all of these new units are filled with fulltime residents, that will only bring our number of fulltime residents back to the mix of the 1980’s. I am most interested in the utility capacity, as I would hate to see us with limited capacity if something comes up we really want. As mentioned in this post, Culver Meadows is still hanging out there as well.
  • There was audience pushback on the the “surprise” involved with this development. The land involved was annexed in the 2010’s to promote its development. The R-2 zoning district was rewritten in the 2010’s to allow greater density. Finding ways to add housing to Culver has been a goal for decades at this point. It’s hard to justify the pushback when it’s been in the plans for that long and came up again as a major goal in the current comprehensive plan. There is some question of the development size. It was stated as 60 acres in the meeting, but the parcels on the GIS add up to 65 acres. (Are the roads being discounted?) Either way, worst case scenario, if all 300 doors were counted as single family residences, then 300 units x 7,500 sf (from R-2 Lot area chart) = 51.65 acres. They are well under the density allowed. The only question here is the division of lots and whether each of the proposed lots stays below the density standard. I am guessing they’re safe on this.

Thoughts on traffic:

  • There were audience concerns about the added traffic in the downtown and the desire to reroute this development’s traffic out of town. I was pleased to hear that the downtown merchants had been surveyed and they were in favor of the additional traffic downtown. They see this as a benefit to them. As I previously wrote in this post, I think development around the perimeter of Culver should be directed in and efforts should be made to make new residents part of the community, rather than creating our small version of Suburban Sprawl.
  • The financing was discussed and the additional funds coming to Culver through the TIF can be used to address infrastructure issues that may come up from this. This is one I do take some exception to. I am not privy to current plans and negotiations, but I am concerned that street improvements may require additional right-of-ways as discussed in this post. Even if these aren’t required for The Dunes, there was discussion of the development occurring further south on Tamarack Road and 19th Road. If this is an area of expansion, provisions for improvements should be obtained from this developer now. There would be little effect on their project, but could make a huge difference in addressing future needs. I fully understand the town’s position, i.e. they don’t know what might be needed until the problems arise, but having additional right-of-way now would prevent eminent domain problems in the future. As discussed in multiple comprehensive plan meetings, municipalities need to do their best to plan for 50 to 100 years from now and not do things that can’t be easily rectified in the future.
  • Under things not discussed, but I thought should have been… I still have concerns that the new street across South Main Street from Tampa Street does not line up with Tampa Street. I think this is creating a dangerous intersection. I also think this is the time to address the Davis Street/South Main Street intersection. On that issue, there is scuttlebutt that a possible solution is to end Ohio Street as a cul-de-sac. That should be part of this discussion now, as well.

Thoughts on costs:

  • There were questions on what this will cost Culver Taxpayers. I trust the town officials that they have negotiated this so there are no out of pocket costs to the current taxpayers and that the additional captured tax funds will be adequate to fix any problems and provide excess for other things beneficial to Culver. My only concern here is whether that will be burnt up addressing the infrastructure issues posed above.
  • Under things not discussed, but I thought should have been… In the previous development agreements mentioned above, there were more requirements put on the developer. When Culver put money toward the street construction, the naming of the street was by the town, not the developer. The other two agreements included requirements for part of the developments to have housing cost controls. The Dunes developer is receiving $1.3MM in READI funds as well as TIF bond funds from the Town. The Dunes developer has been very upfront in meetings that this project is not affordable housing. It is market rate housing. While the town (rightly in my opinion) believes that additional housing availability should have the effect of lowering overall housing costs, there is a question as to whether the developer will proceed with later phases of this development if that happens. If increased capacity lowers demand, the premium available for new housing may be lower as well. I do not foresee this, but it should be part of the discussion. Lowering housing costs is a double edged sword for current residents as well. While many of them balk at the tax increases associated with the rise in assessed value, they are pleased with the appreciation in value when they sell.

These are the main points and I think I will leave it here. If something else comes up, that I think should be mentioned, I may make some edits.

Traffic Calming…

by

It’s interesting that the small town of Culver is having heated conversations regarding traffic calming measures, but that was part of the discussion at the Redevelopment Commission meeting last Monday, 1/15/24. There was actually an impressive turnout for an evening with temperatures in the single digits.

Preliminary Plan for The Dunes development on South Main Street.

I already expressed some concerns about the connections between The Dunes and the rest of Culver here. Since that time, Culver has asked MACOG to fill a portion of the Urban Planner roll I suggested. MACOG is working on a traffic study to predict the impact of The Dunes. Town Manager, Kevin Danti, shared some of those results during the Redevelopment Commission meeting. The main thrust of this was that additional work need to be completed and probably would not be completed until this Summer when they would collect actual busy season data. Note: The plan to the right is old. There is a new one hanging on the wall in the Town Hall meeting room, which is probably out of date too, but closer to the final plan. The one to the right is close enough for representative purposes.

Most of the public comments were a rehashing of concerns expressed before. An interesting bit that caught my attention was the diametrically opposed conversation about the relatively new, pedestrian friendly, traffic calming islands on Main Street and Jefferson Street. Some audience members first expressed concern about additional traffic in the downtown causing safety issues, but then followed that up with complaints that the new traffic calming islands made it difficult for trucks with trailers to traverse these areas. Which is it, folks? Do you want to discourage the heavy traffic in the downtown and make pedestrian crossings safer for shoppers in the business district or do you want to change things to encourage truck and trailer traffic along these routes?

Traffic Calming Intersection Bulb-out

Cities and Towns around the world are looking at ways to make their streets more pedestrian friendly. This makes a lot of sense in business districts. Narrower lanes slow traffic. Corner islands reduce the distance pedestrians have to traverse. Both of these things serve to discourage unnecessary traffic in these areas. All of this fits with the trails that Culver has been adding. If residents are concerned about traffic downtown, don’t they want things that discourage it?

While I’m old enough to remember when Culver had two stoplights, I’m not old enough to remember when they were needed. I don’t remember when or why they were removed, but as a kid, I remember a stoplight at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street and a second one at the corner of Ohio Street and Jefferson Street. Now, I don’t remember the last time I’ve been behind more than one car at either of those intersection. We could always bring those back to slow things down…

Roundabout drawing at Davis St/South Main St intersection from the 2014 Comp Plan

The other thing that caught my attention is that while the committee working on this project recognizes the issues at the intersection of South Main Street and Davis Street, the idea of a roundabout has been taken off the table because the street department doesn’t like roundabouts. Really? I am not convinced that it is the best way to go, but it should remain a consideration until a better option comes forward. After all, it was in the 2014 Comp Plan. (I put the link in, hoping that the Town website will be fixed soon.) I am not saying that the street department’s input should be ignored, but I don’t think they should have that kind of veto power.

While Kevin Danti did a fine job of relaying the information at the meeting, I hope there is the opportunity for MACOG to present their ideas to the public directly. As with many things, there is unlikely to be 100% acceptance and agreement, but I’m pleased the effort is being made.

Culver Redevelopment Commission & The Dunes

by
CRC meeting October 16, 2023

The October 16th meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission had a pretty full house and the majority of the meeting was taken up with a Public Meeting (not Public Hearing) on The Dunes. I was pretty proud of Culver as the majority of the questions were well thought out and asked respectfully. There were only a few questions I thought were irrational and even those were asked succinctly and calmly. I was also pleased to see that all of the Town Council members and a few of the candidates for Town Council were in attendance to listen.

Burke Richeson spoke for the Developer and did a nice job. Only getting a little vex’d when another attorney representing opposition spoke. Kevin Danti, Culver Town Manager, did a good job of keeping things moving and controlling the conversation. (I was going to link to Kevin’s page on the town’s website, but it hasn’t been updated.)

USGS Map

There were questions about environmental concerns, but these seemed to center on the effect on Lake Maxinkuckee. It was stated by Karen Shuman, who is on the Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council (LMEC), that LMEC had determined that the property is not within the Lake Maxinkuckee Watershed. I’m not sure that’s 100% correct, but it is at least mostly correct. Lake Maxinkuckee’s watershed is not large, but since the lake is mostly sustained by springs, the quality and quantity of ground water is important. That said, besides the lake, there are other environmental concerns, one the bigger ones being the surface runoff flow to the wetlands at the north side of the property and the town well fields just north of the property. Protection of those are critical.

Nearly Full House at the October Redevelopment Commission Meeting

Most of the conversation was well presented and questions were mostly answered with the exception of questions regarding the bond structure. Those got rather deep and ended with an offer from the town to provide a visual chart and breakdown to make the flow of funds more understandable. At this time, an agreement between the Town and Developer has not been reached, so the final numbers remain in flux. Progress is being documented on the Town’s Website in a link to Dunes. They stated a plan to document the questions heard at this meeting as well as others under a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Aside from the bonding, which was confusing to all involved, I was a little confused about the Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF) discussion. This was presented by Marty Oosterbaan, Commission Chairman, and I think most people in attendance didn’t know the right questions to ask. A couple of the things that left me puzzled were: 1) was the new land area for The Dunes being taken into the existing downtown TIF as discussed or would it stand alone; 2) was there one new TIF area or two? There was discussion of a 20yr TIF (residential) and a 25yr TIF (commercial) to cover the areas with rental apartments. How do these fit? There was also a discussion about how this would affect local residents and again, the discussion of taxes were muddy. It was stated that there would be no effect for the life of the TIF, but I don’t believe that to be correct, since there will be a reassessment and taxes levied on the new development which could affect neighboring property.

Another positive I heard last night was the future involvement of Michiana Area Council of Governments (MACOG). Culver is already working with them on the new Comprehensive Plan and have engaged them for help on The Dunes as well. They will be conducting traffic studies, apparently including boat traffic studies. Hopefully they will also step in to fill the Urban Planner role I suggested here before. It would be interesting to see if they address the issue of suburban sprawl and disconnection of subdivisions in Culver I discussed in this post. Would this development be more acceptable if it followed the streets and alleys development grid found on the east side of South Main Street rather than as a controlled access, separate neighborhood? An interesting question…

Though there weren’t pitchforks and torches at this meeting, the tenor of the conversation made it clear that the community is not embracing this project yet. There were comments about screening it so it’s not seen and changing the entrance to face S.R. 17 in lieu of South Main Street, as discussed here before. These ideas treat it as if they expect an eyesore or having nothing to contribute to Culver. While there may be reasonable concerns, the Town government seems to be on a path to address them the best they can. There is good reason to be cautious, but there should also be efforts to take advantage of the positives that could come from this.