Trends

Little Pink Houses…

by

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!”

Cookie Cutter

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.

Welcome to Culver Sign at intersection of 10 & 17

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!

Preliminary Plan for The Dunes development on South Main Street.

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.”

CRC Facade Grants

by

At the November Meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) there was a discussion on Facade Grants. This is one of the ways the CRC uses Tax Incremental Finance (TIF) money to improve the town. There was some discussion on the ambiguity of the application. It sounds like that’s an issue as there have been a lot of misconceptions with them. I struggle with these grants for a few reasons:

  1. In the past, CRC members have literally gone up and down the street trying to talk people into using these grants. While I think they should be a tool to encourage businesses (buildings) to make necessary repairs and improvements, I don’t know that the dollars should be treated as a line item that the CRC must spend every year. Letting some build-up in that fund would let them do more when there’s a need. (Building up funds may be harder now that there is a State required yearly budget…)
  2. The grants should be used as an incentive and not just a reimbursement, i.e. when someone has already completed work or is in the process of doing so, let them be! They obviously had budgeted the work and had it covered. Maybe talk to them about incentives to do more, but don’t retroactively give them grant money. (If they have already begun the work, they can’t even meet the preliminary minimum requirements expected of a normal applicant.)
  3. The grant area should be expanded outside the TIF districts more often. It’s common for other CRC funds to be used outside the TIF district for “things that benefit the TIF district”. Improving the facades throughout town benefits the ambiance of the whole town in the same way.

I have mixed feelings about the above, as I think the CRC members do too, but clearing up the ambiguity and making the applications more accessible would help with that. It’s ironic they’re having the discussion about the accessibility of the Facade Grant program when the link to the application is currently broken on the Town website. (I’ve included the link a couple of time here in case it is repaired soon. Culver’s Clerk Treasurer says there is a new site in the works, so updating the old site has become less of a priority.)

In a way, Facade Grants address blight. OCRA has a blight clearance program that specifically addresses blight, so maybe a separate CRC Blight Clearance program is appropriate. This could be a way of cleaning up properties that need it. By putting in place a specific program with criteria, it would allow the CRC to make decisions about moving properties in and out of the TIF districts when blight is addressed. Currently the Facade Grant program specifically excludes demolition, which is appropriate since demolition generally results in a lower assessed property value. (TIF districts capture the increased assessed value of properties when improvements are made, but they also suffer the losses created when a property in the TIF is devalued, i.e. through unrepaired fire and storm damage or through demolition.)

In my mind, if a Blight Clearance program is created, it should be expanded to include residential properties in Culver as well. While they would not be directly TIF related, there’s no doubt that the removal of derelict houses would improve the town as a whole. An incentive like this could be useful in motivating an owner to take the necessary steps, where the efforts to force things through the unsafe building committee have been unsuccessful. I’ve not researched this, so there may be pitfalls of which I’m not aware. Most Redevelopment Commissions make more use of the “things that benefit the TIF district” clause than Culver does.

I think the CRC is mostly on the right track with the Facade Grant Program, but as with most volunteer boards and commissions, they suffer a bit of ADHD, causing a flurry of activity around the latest “problem” and allowing last month’s topic to languish until a problem concerning it bubbles to the surface again. I am completely confident they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Keeping things on the agenda until they’re resolved might be the key.

Knox Boxes

by

One of my lurkers saw my instagram post about meeting the LaPaz Fire Department at LaPaz Commons Apartments last week. We always offer the local fire department the opportunity to walk through once the framing is in place. This gives them a better understanding of the structure in that worst case scenario of fighting a fire there. One of the things we discussed with the firemen was the location of the Knox Box. My Lurker sent me this picture of a Knox Box he had seen in Grand Rapids, MI. (See right)

Yes, that’s a Knox Box somewhere around 12′ above the ground above the awning. Pretty much inaccessible… I’m guessing this is a case where the City required a Knox Box, but didn’t include location specifications and the building owner didn’t want one and put it there out of spite. But I’m just projecting that scenario. Who knows?

Knox Box placed in an inaccessible location

Most communities set up standards for placement of Knox Boxes. These have to be carefully considered so they have some flexibility. All buildings are different. But as much as possible, you want the box placed in a location that is immediately recognizable and found by emergency personnel, else its intention is defeated. Firefighters in particularly are notorious for bringing their universal key (fire axe) and not hesitating to use it.

Easterday Construction Co., Inc. was responsible for introducing and writing the Key Box requirement in Culver’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 6, Section 100. Enforcement has been pretty limited though. We haven’t actually seen one installed on any projects completed by others. (That doesn’t mean there aren’t some out there.) Even with a pretty clear definition, we ended up getting cross-ways with the building commissioner on a project where he chose to interpret the requirements differently than they were written. (He lost. We don’t argue unless we’re right.)

There is more than one benefit to these systems, i.e. 1) limiting property damage from emergency personnel accessing the building by any means possible, 2) speeding up access when the building is extremely secure and 3) giving emergency personnel a place to find pertinent information such as building plans, electrical shutoffs, among others. But the system has to be set up for the municipality to make the Knox Box keying universal and the program must be understood by the emergency personnel it benefits.

We have promoted the use of these systems, but with limited success. We’ll continue to sing their praises, as they are a benefit to public safety.

Impact Investing – READI 2.0

by

I attended the introductory meeting on READI 2.0 presented by South Bend – Elkhart Regional Partnership (SEBERP) at the Rees Theater yesterday. Honestly, attendance was pretty poor, but there was some good information. READI 2.0 is a refined repeat of the original READI (1.0) program which was a refined repeat of the Regional Cities Initiative. In various forms, these programs have been designed to incentivize municipal and private investment in statewide goals. As with the past programs, READI 2.0 offers the carrot of up to 20% project investment matched by 20% local government investment and 60% private investment. Whether the entire 20% is granted depends on the quality of the project, its merit for meeting goals and its ranking among other submissions.

Sand Hill Farm Apartments

Sand Hill Farm Apartments was awarded Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) dollars. Those funds, though only 7% of the project cost, provided some incentive to move the project forward when Culver‘s first Stellar application was unsuccessful. The project was initially to be the LIHTC portion of Culver’s Stellar application. When that wasn’t successful, the RCI funds helped make the project viable as market rate housing. Moving this project forward has been noted as instrumental in Culver’s success with their second Stellar application. Unfortunately, Culver did not follow through on their commitment, so some of those funds never were disbursed by RCI and those that were got redirected to reimbursements in lieu of benefiting the project.

Water Street Townhomes

Culver Sand Hill Farm was awarded READI 1.0 dollars for Water Street Townhomes. This is a mixed use building with 11 two-bedroom townhouses, 2 one-bedroom apartments and a corner commercial space. We are still working with the City of Plymouth to create the structure to put those dollars to work. SEBERP awarded less than the initial request, but Plymouth is following through with their entire match in order to make this project possible.

Culver Sand Hill Farm also submitted a townhouse project for Culver, Spirit Townhomes, which was named in the READI 1.0 Strategic Investment Plan. Unfortunately, after the fact, Culver chose to partner with a different developer on the much larger and more controversial project, The Dunes. (Discussed here.) C’est la vie! Sometimes you reap what you sow.

SBERP will be putting in an application for READI 2.0 funds for our region after the first of the year. Yesterday’s meeting was one of several where they are soliciting input on what goals of the SEBERP region fit within the stated READI 2.0 goals. This will help them refine their application. They feel confident that their track record managing the Regional Cities Initiative and READI 1.0 funds put them in a good position to receive the maximum award from READI 2.0. The handout to the right was provided at the meeting, showing some of the impact these investments have had. $878 Million in project investment through those two programs, which is 9.5 times the investment from the State. (See the backside of the flyer here.)

There is a rural component to READI 2.0, directing that 25% should go to rural areas. Of the three counties in SBERP (St. Joseph, Elkhart and Marshall), only Marshall County is designated at rural. That doesn’t mean that Marshall County doesn’t have to have competitive projects, but it gives a 25% set-aside leg up. L:ast time, READI 1.0 projects were rewarded on population, which put Marshall County at a disadvantage.

One of the interesting changes in the program is the option for receiving a loan in lieu of a grant from the program. The funds could be loaned out at a reduced interest rate, with the funds paid back to SBERP for future reinvestment in the region. While the concept is a good one, the implementation appears to be flawed, from my perspective. As it currently stands, the loan would be capped at the same 20% level as the grants. While both a grant and a loan could be awarded, they cannot total more than 20% of the project. I will need to hear more about this, but my initial impression is that there is not much incentive to take the loan in lieu of the grant, but I may be missing nuances here. It would make some sense to see loan amounts allowed to be larger percentages since the money will be recirculated. Then there would be more incentive to take that option.

Roger Umbaugh

An interesting sidebar – not only did I sit with Linda Yoder, Executive Director of the Marshall County Community Foundation (MCCF), at the READI 2.0 meeting, I also followed that up with an MCCF meeting at her office to hear from MCCF’s financial advisor on impact investing options for the newly formed Roger Umbaugh Local Impact Investing fund. (More on this in a future post.)

Impact Investing seems to be a great way to influence desired outcomes. Great projects that are good for the community often flounder because the investor ROI isn’t there. If Impact Investing can influence that through grants, loans and other creative means, then it benefits everyone.

I don’t yet know if or how Easterday Construction Co., Inc. (ECC) or Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC (SHF) will participate in READI 2.0. The experience with READI 1.0 hasn’t been bad, but there have been a lot of strings attached to it after the award that weren’t factored into the original project. I’ve been approached about several projects that would fit under the READI 2.0 umbrella. I’ll continue to monitor this and continue to be part of the discussion. Whether ECC or SHF participate or not, it seems that it’s another great opportunity for Marshall County and Marshall County communities.

Biannual End DST Rant

by

Admittedly, “Fall Back” is the least objectionable of the annual DST time changes, but it still messing with my system and is less than desirable. This time <pun intended> I’ll late the CATO Institute do the heavy lifting and explain why DST leads to “Dead Children” in their #EndDST article here. And again, Indiana is the poster child for why the energy savings justification is debunked. When Indiana adopted DST in 2006, energy use went up…

There is still active legislation trying to eliminate DST on the Federal level. Contact your Senator and Congressman and ask them to push this! Marco Rubio has been pushing this for several years.

As usual, the CATO Institute has a great article here with lots of great charts, facts and quotes, but John Oliver still wins the award for the funniest take… “If it doesn’t benefit our energy bill, our health or even our stupid, stupid cows… Daylight Savings Time: How is this still a thing?” Enjoy!