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!”
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.
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!
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.”
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…
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.
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.
This is a follow up on my previous post, Musings on Tamarack Road, regarding the Beachview Properties project. Just to reiterate, I’m basically indifferent to this project, other than I believe that in general, growth is positive for Culver.
There was a public hearing on the annexation for this project at the Town Council meeting, Tuesday, January 24th. I brought up my question about how Tamarack Road will be handled. Ginny Munroe, Culver Town Manager, answered this question saying that there were no plans for Culver to take in any of the Tamarack Road Right-of-Way. Ownership and maintenance would remain with Marshall County. She further explained that Culver would maintain the frontage on West Shore Drive.
This means that no maintenance or improvements to Tamarack Road will be included in the Financial Management Plan for this annexation. It’s a little dated, but this document provides some explanation of what’s involved with the Financial Management Plan on pages III & IV: https://iacir.ppi.iupui.edu/documents/Fullreport_fromWeb_wCover.pdf
Later in the discussion, in response to questions from the Culver Fire Chief, Terry Wakefield, the owner’s representative, Burke Richeson, indicated that the property will be gated and due to the size of the expected vehicles to be stored, there will be one entrance on West Shore Drive and one on Tamarack Road so they can pull through. This means this development will have an impact on Tamarack Road. I am unclear on whether the County has to consent to the annexation, but I would assume they would have concerns about increased traffic loads caused by the proposed project.
This in no way suggests that Culver is doing anything covertly. I have to assume the County is fully aware of this project and the upcoming annexation. After all, the Town Board and County Commissioners share the same attorney and it’s been in the press. It’s just a question of how this benefits Marshall County if it means they take on additional costs.
Shared ownership of streets and roads is always an issue. The coordination of services ranges from the minor, i.e. who plows the snow, to the major, i.e. when one entity decides it needs paved, how is the bill divided? In the case of paving, so much is tied to State funds, it becomes complicated when grant applications are made. Culver just recently has been through this with the west end of Jefferson Street…
Until about 10years ago, the west end of Jefferson Street was still County Right-of-Way. This was a hassle for the County as it was one short section of road to plow that connected to Town streets on one end and the State highway on the other. An agreement was made to transfer this Right-of-Way to the Town and as incentive for the Town to take it, the County paved it one last time before the transfer. Last year, when Culver decided to improve Jefferson Street as part of gateway improvements and pedestrian trail expansions, they found that the transfer had not been completed and MACOG did not have this section as a Culver Street, thus they could not include it in their application.
The Council decided there were enough changes yet to be made to the plan that they tabled it. First of three reads are scheduled for the next meeting. I expect it will go through and the Tamarack “Can” will get kicked down the Road…
At last night’s meeting of the Culver Town Council, I again broached the subject of funding a new Comprehensive Plan. (See previous entries on this subject here.) Apparently the idea of pursuing a new income survey has been shelved, so it now becomes a budget item that will need to be funded internally. At the behest of Kathy Clark, I have approached the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) about funding all or part of a new Comp Plan. I also discussed this with Jennifer Laurent at MCEDC and she concurred that this is a viable use of the TIF funds that the CRC controls. The CRC is interested in pursuing this, but they would like participation from the Town, thus my request last night.
I brought this issue up again before the Plan Commission last week and offered to make the request to the Council on their behalf. I think the Council understands the importance. I reminded them of the recent article in the Pilot News last week that discussed Plymouth’s effort to update their Comp Plan since their current outdated plan was limiting their ability to obtain grants.
The Comp Plan is such an intrinsic piece of the puzzle for everything from infrastructure maintenance and expansion, land development, zoning issues, grant pursuits and economic development that it is critical that we have an up to date plan. There once was a chart on the wall in the Council Chamber showing how everything flowed down from the Comprehensive Plan. That is still an important point of understanding that I think is often missed.
The Town Council made the decision to schedule a work session on this issue around the middle of next month once the new Town Manager is in place. His start date is scheduled for June 4th and I’m sure he’ll have a lot on his plate. I hope we can keep this issue near the top of the agenda. With the Town coming up on the budget season, I’m hoping that we can get some money set aside to provide a Comp Plan that will provide the necessary guidance for the community.
Municipal Services
December 26, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver, Politics
Community, Culver, government, Plan Commission, Town Council
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…
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.
0 comments