Tag:Zoning Ordinance
Extraterritorial Boundaries
I’m currently sitting on committees forming new comprehensive plans for Plymouth and Culver. I’ve been pushing Culver to do a new Comp Plan since 2020. (See post here) Wouldn’t ‘2020 Vision for Culver’ been a good name!?! But I think they had some Stellar fatigue followed by pandemic malaise…
This will be the third time I’ve done this for Culver and the second time for Plymouth. MACOG has started offering this as a (paid) service and is leading these meetings for both communities. Ratio Architects did the previous one for Plymouth and an earlier one for Culver. The last one for Culver was completed by Houseal Lavigne.
What have I learned from these experiences? You’re buying a template. They all have strived to “personalize” the product, but lined up on a table without the credits, it would be pretty easy to group them by consultant. The format would give it a way.
But to paraphrase Arlo Guthrie in Alice’s Restaurant… But that’s not what I came to tell you about. I came to talk about… Extraterritorial Boundaries.
If you follow that link, you’ll see that the Indiana legislators are constantly messing with the definition and powers granted to municipalities for their extraterritorial jurisdiction. The core premise is that municipalities are allowed to extend their zoning boundaries to cover areas of potential future municipal expansion. This is done with the consent of the County. It has generally been a 2 mile zone. The distance is increased when there is a lake involved, i.e. in the case of Culver, the south end of Lake Maxinkuckee is more than 2 miles from town, but is included in Culver’s Zoning Jurisdiction. This is not annexation. It doesn’t change tax rates. It doesn’t include water, sewer or road extensions. It just brings those areas under the municipality’s land planning jurisdiction and provides some control over how it is developed. In most cases, any development of significance would need municipal connections and most other developments will feel minimum impact. It’s a good way for the municipality to keep track of what’s happening around them and how it will affect them.
The pink area shows the current extended authority. The loop outside that shows the approximate limits if the Two Mile area was granted.
I have pushed several times for Culver to expand their Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to the limits allowed by the State. This is just good planning practice. I have an extended post about it from February 14, 2013 here. The drawing to the right is from that post. It shows where Culver’s Extraterritorial jurisdiction should have been then. That was before the annexation of The Paddocks PUD on the west side of town, the Beste annexation on the west and north side of town and the upcoming annexation on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery. All of those would extend the potential jurisdiction to the south, west and north. (The main effect would be on the north side since in the drawing we’re already running into to edge of county boundaries and the chances of Starke or Pulaski counties granting Culver jurisdiction are slim.)
The other change from the map above is that the current boundary became much more jagged after that. Sometime around 8 years ago, Culver chose to partner with the County on permitting, using their system. Unfortunately their system is quite crude and couldn’t handle parcels that had split zoning. This ended up in some negotiations which moved split parcels in and out of Culver’s jurisdiction based on the percentage that was in Culver’s jurisdiction at the time. At that time I argued strenuously that all the partial parcels should be brought under Culver’s jurisdiction since they were all fully within the allowable extraterritorial jurisdiction, but the Marshall County Plan Director and Marshall County Building Inspector pushed back on this, not wanting to give up County control. This was a huge missed opportunity, but it’s water under the bridge now.
I have been told that Plymouth’s Extraterritorial Boundary does take in all of the allowed jurisdiction. Looking at the drawing to the right, this is mostly correct, but not 100%. This is most obviously an issue in the industrial area on the NW side of Plymouth.
The Comprehensive Planning process will not change this, but I would suggest that the new Comp Plans include strong recommendations to expand the boundaries. That is a first step. This is not so much a power grab. It’s not about control. It’s more about knowledge and PLANNING. Both communities should look at Bremen and their struggles, where they’ve allowed their industrial area to become landlocked. This is an easy, local example of why planning outside the immediate boundaries of the community are important.
Currently, there are new things going on which should be part of this extraterritorial planning. One of these, which is of huge significance, is the County’s pursuit of expanded sewer districts. In Culver, it is likely that the town would be asked to take in sewer for Burr Oak and Hibbard. The push for inclusion of lakes means it is likely that Plymouth may be asked to take in all of the chain of lakes all the way to Lake Latonka. If these areas start to become municipal “customers”, then their future development becomes the concern of those municipalities. Look at the trend towards bigger and bigger houses around Lake Maxinkuckee and Pretty Lake. Sewer access will make this likely with the other lakes as well Many of them have lots that are currently unbuildable, but with sewer, that will change.
There is also a concern with allocation of resources. The County is struggling to hire and struggling to provide coverage. In the Culver area, a potential solution for both entities would be to expand Culver’s zoning jurisdiction to the County lines to the south and west of Culver. This would eliminate the small fringe area of county zoning around Culver and it would help Culver with planning control.
While Burr Oak and Hibbard aren’t exactly booming communities, sewer access could change this. Again, bringing this under Culver’s zoning control would help the town anticipate and plan for any growth. Sewer access could well spawn growth in Burr Oak. As mentioned in my article, the proximity to major electric service from the Burr Oak substation and access to an significant railroad line could be the catalyst for growth if sewer were available.
I don’t see much in the way of downside to this expansion. I know some in the AG area don’t want this oversight, but in reality, the municipal zoning has been changed so that the AG designation for the municipalities reasonably mimics the AG designation in the County. The municipal plan commissions have a county appointed member so there is representation. This is not to say that the municipalities don’t occasionally over step, as they did with the WECS rules, but even with those, the county eventually came pretty much in line with the same rules.
I will continue to advocate for expanding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Plymouth and Culver as I serve on these committees. I think this is appropriate and necessary planning. It should be positive for all involved.
Parking Lots & the Environment
I’ve written about the new parking lot slated for downtown Culver here and here, I had a somewhat heated exchange the other day regarding the parking lot and whether it was an issue that affected Lake Maxinkuckee. So here is my mini rant list on why this is an environmental issue:
- Parking Lots and their environmental impacts are addressed repeatedly in the new Culver Comprehensive Plan. Yes, I realize it is a “plan” and plans change… But, it is only 14 months old!!! It seems ridiculous that all of the recommendations regarding future land use for that piece of property and how parking lots should be installed and whether we even need another parking lot are outdated at this time! All of those things were addressed in detail in the Plan. (It’s interesting… and sad… to note that at the three town meetings I attended where this issue was discussed, the Comprehensive Plan was only brought up one time and that was as part of a protest from an adjacent property owner. It was never referenced by the Boards and Commissions reviewing the proposal.)
- Parking lots are the antithesis of green space within Lake Maxinkuckee’s watershed. This parking lot only works by violating the buffer requirements. The Culver Zoning Ordinance calls for 20′ wide buffer on C-2 parcels that abut residential properties. The properties on either side of this parking lot are zoned R-1. Buffers would have been green space. The Town requested variances down to 1′ from the property line on each side and after debate obtained variances for 1′ on one side and 7′ on the other side.
- The Culver Zoning Ordinance now includes limitations on impervious surface. This lot was rezoned to C-2 in order to accommodate the parking lot. C-2 zoning districts require a maximum 60% impervious surface coverage. As originally proposed with 1′ setbacks on each side there is no way the impervious surface requirements would not have been violated. Even with the revised variance which was approved it is questionable whether coverage is not greater than 60%. In any case no calculations were provided to show that this requirement was not violated.
All of this is nothing but a philosophical argument at this point anyway. The die has been cast on this one and my only reason for arguing about it is to point out a missed opportunity. Still, it is frustrating to see those opportunities slip away…
Comic source: thedrunkencyclist
Extra Territorial Boundary Update (cont.)
The Villagers were out with Pitchforks and Torches at the Culver Town Council Meeting on Tuesday
The Culver Town Council held a public hearing on the new building permit fees Tuesday evening. As expected, someone had rallied the troops, and there were quite a few people there to protest. The room wasn’t quite filled to capacity, but it was close. There were quite a few contractors present as well as residents living in the extra territorial boundary. Kevin Overmyer, Marshall County Commissioner, was there as well as Chuck DeWitt, Marshall County Building Inspector. Al Eisenhour was there speaking on behalf of the Marshall County Home Builders Association as well. For the most part they echoed the concerns I expressed in my previous post here. Where it took a wild bounce though was when they started comparing permit fees between those proposed in Culver and those proposed in the county. They were listing comparisons where the fees would be double or sometimes quadruple or more for a permit for the same building in the county as opposed to within Culver’s jurisdiction. This appeared to resonate with Commissioner Overmyer. It was fairly clear that he was there to support those in the audience not the Town of Culver. This concerns me because it is my understanding that Culver’s extra territorial boundary is administered by Culver at the discretion of Marshall County. It could be rescinded. It appears that instead of taking steps to expand our extra territorial boundary for which I have lobbied, Culver is now in a position of potentially losing what they have.
Culver Downtown Parking Lot
I’ve been at four meetings where a downtown parking lot has been discussed: two Redevelopment Commission meetings, a Plan Commission Meeting and a Town Council meeting. At two of these meetings I’ve listened to the adjacent property owner discuss her concerns. So far her concerns have received little sympathy, though I believe they have some merit. In my opinion there are two issues here, 1) Rezoning the property from R1 to C2 and the subsequent variance and 2) the parking lot itself. The rezoning has been completed, so that’s basically a moot point, but just for kicks and giggles, I’m going to discuss both here:
Zoning and Variance
Let’s start with the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map shows this block on Main Street as Mixed Use: “Mixed Use development is characterized as multi-story structures with retail, restaurant and service uses on the ground floor and office or residential uses on the upper floors where appropriate.” (pg 45) In the downtown district there are multiple references to the maintaining the “streetwall”, in general would imply a C-1 Zoning District.
The downtown, between Washington Street and Madison Street along Main Street, is zoned C-1. The block south of Madison Street is zoned C-2 on the east side and R-1 (with the exception of this recent rezoning) on the west side. Where this determination came from is somewhat puzzling since the description of the C-2 District in the Zoning Ordinance starts off: 
“The C-2 Commercial District is a general commercial district designed to serve free-standing commercial activities which may be highway oriented or those business establishments which by their nature do not readily adapt to a downtown location.” This area is obviously compatible with “downtown” since it is downtown and these businesses are in no way “highway oriented”. They also meet the requirements of maintaining the streetwall, though they do have off-street parking. So… this rezoning is a case of spot zoning, i.e. an island of C-2 in between R-1 lots. It is also contrary to the Comprehensive Plan which shows this area as part of downtown and suggests that it be C-1 to encourage the streetwall.
The adjacent property owner has legitimate complaints. 1) This will not enhance her property and will no doubt be detrimental to it as a residence which she hopes to maintain and 2) by making this a spot zoning and not rezoning the entire block as a commercial district she has not even benefited from the possibility of increasing the value of the property as a potential future commercial development site.
And to address the variance, the C-2 rezoning created this problem. C-1 has zero side yard setbacks, so this could have been moot on that basis.
I would argue that if rezoning was to occur here, the entire block should have been rezoned as C-1.
Parking:
There is some question in my mind regarding the need for additional downtown parking. Again, looking at the Comprehensive Plan I found the following references to parking:
- Page 27, Business Surveys – “Proximity to home, parking availability, were identified as the greatest advantages for businesses [sic] owners.” Emphasis added.
- Page 30, Desired Use/Development – “Other points identified developing vacant lots and underutilized parking lots in and around the downtown.” Emphasis added.
- Page 45, Future Land Use, Mixed Use (definition) – “Mixed Use buildings should be located at or near the sidewalk with parking in the rear, so as to establish a consistent streetwall and foster a sense of activity. Emphasis Added.
- Page 59, Commercial & Employment Areas Framework Plan, Mixed Use – “Parking should have a minimal presence along primary roadways such as Main Street and Lake Shore Drive.”
- Page 60, Commercial & Employment Areas Framework Plan, Downtown Culver – “Buildings along Main Street should be at or near the sidewalk with parking at the rear.”
- Page 62, Commercial Area Policies, Maintain the Streetwall in Mixed Use Areas – “The success of Mixed Use areas can be undermined if the streetwall suffers from large gaps between buildings, buildings that are substantially setback from the sidewalk, or parking area adjacent to the sidewalk with no perimeter landscaping, fencing or screening. In areas where gaps are unavoidable, a combination of landscaping, decorative fencing and masonry/stone walls should be used.:
And there are more references such as the section on creating Parking Policy on page 65 and the discussion of Complete Streets on page 94 continue to talk about avoiding parking lots on Main Street and encouraging on-street parking or parking in the rear. There are also sections that suggest parking be screen, include planting islands and trees for shade. None of which have been included in the plan up for consideration.
232 South Main Street from Comp Plan
The parking lot proposal is a collaboration between the Town and the developer of the building at 232 South Main Street. At the public meetings it is being discussed as a public project and fulfilling a need for downtown parking. In actuality it seems to be more of a response to the relocation of the Lake Shore Clinic to 232 South Main Street and the perceived increase in parking needs. This is somewhat frustrating since prior to construction in 2007, the developer was granted a parking variance from ordinance standards. It would seem that if the building had included the required parking spaces this new lot would not be required. But doubly so, since as the Comprehensive Plan, just completed last year, discusses parking availability and underutilized parking lots as positives.
I would also question whether the proposed parking lot meets the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements, specifically 1) There shall be onsite stormwater detention (pg 54, Design and Maintenance #7) and 2) There shall be no parking in the front yard (pg 54, Design and Maintenance #11) While there are drywells called out on the plans, I would rather see an above ground detention structure that can be cleaned and maintained. Regarding the front yard, I had an interesting discussion with the Building Commissioner. He does not consider this property as having a front yard since there is not a building on it, but also noted that the setback is considered the front yard when looking at site distance in L-1. That also then brings up whether the parking lot is considered a structure, which it would be under the definitions on page 14, at which point it might again need a variance for violating the front setback. And then there is the impervious surface restriction. I’m not sure how they are going to keep less than 60% impervious surface with a parking lot that is only setback 12″ from the side lot lines. The Building Commissioners position is that parking lots are not defined in the Zoning Ordinance which means everything is up for interpretation by the Plan Commission. Fair point, but not particularly helpful heading into a hearing.
A couple of final thoughts I have. First, I would probably not be in favor of the variance request tonight (though I won’t speak against it). If the entire block had been rezoned, I would have been more likely to support it, but the spot zoning seems quite odd. The decision making seems a bit schizophrenic in that we’re shoehorning in a spot zoned commercial use, without making the commitment of expanding the surrounding residential area as commercial use. Second, I am very disappointed that the Comprehensive Plan was not consulted in this decision. I did not see it discussed in any of the above meetings and that’s unfortunate when the plan is not much more than a year old. True it is just a plan and as with all plans, subject to change, but my feeling is that it was ignored, not changed. Such is life in the big city… or Culver…
++++++++
See an after-meeting follow-up post here.
Thoughts on Zoning Hierarchy
February 6, 2023
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Culver
Community, Comprehensive Plan, Culver, government, Plan Commission, Zoning Ordinance
So, in the past few months, the Culver Plan Commission has rezoned several properties in what they would have considered spot zoning in the past. Two of these were on the main commercial corridors of Main Street and Lake Shore Drive. The first was at 303 North Main Street. This as the former Easterday Dental Office. The Plan Commission rezoned the property from C-2 to R-1 allowing the former residence turned dental office addition returned to residence to receive a permit for remodeling. The second was at 114 Lake Shore Drive. This was a older house used as a triplex. The Plan Commission rezoned the property from R-1 to R-2 allowing the current use to be legal. (They also rezoned 217 South Ohio Street and 810 South Main Street from R-1 to R-2.) I don’t particularly have an issue with any of these uses, but I think they could have been handled better.
The property on North Main Street is probably the most problematic to me. The Main Street corridor from the current Main Street business district north to Lake Shore Drive has been designated “Commercial” in the last two Comprehensive Plans. This has been followed up with a zoning district designation of C-2 in the Culver Zoning Ordinance. This has allowed the existing homes to remain, “grandfathered” in their current use; thus allowing the house at 303 North Main Street to be used as a dentist office, the house at 307 North Main Street to be used as a residence & art gallery, the house at 313 North Main Street to be used as a beauty parlor with second floor apartments, and the house at 212 North Main Street to be used as a law office with second floor apartment. This also allowed the expansion of Good-To-Go into the adjacent lot to the north without issue a few years ago.
In the case of 307 North Main Street, there was no issue when the owners of the art gallery sold the property and the new owners returned the use to residential only. The problem occurred with 303 North Main Street when the new owners wanted to use the property as a home (allowed), but also wanted to remodel. Remodeling required a building permit and residential use is not allowed in a C-2 district. The solution proposed by the then Building Commissioner and accepted by the Plan Commission was to rezone the property as R-1. When it was brought up that this violated the direction of the Comp Plan, the Comp Plan’s recommendations for this area were questioned. I felt the rezoning was a mistake and that considering rezoning that corridor would just compound that mistake. For one quick example, the Rezoning of 303 North Main Street to R-1 placed a buffer restriction that will be imposed if anything is done with 307 North Main Street: “Any property line abutting said residential district shall be required to be effectively screened in one of the following ways, or a combination thereof: buffering by a dense strip of natural plantings or by a solid of opaque fence.” – Culver Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, page 32. This buffer requirement doesn’t exist between commercial properties.
I have paraphrased something Jim Dicke II told me several times in this blog: “Communities are growing or dying. The Status quo cannot remain.” I think this is salient because I know of only two commercial properties that are currently for sale, i.e. 107 & 109 South Main Street and I would not say they are priced to sell. If we want Culver to grow and grow in a controlled manner, we need to provide areas for this to happen. It makes sense to expand our commercial corridor and move towards tying the two commercial districts together. The first step is the corridor from downtown Main Street to Lake Shore Drive.
Within the Culver Zoning Ordinance there is some existing hierarchy of uses. While not a 100% applicable rule, for the most part The I-2 district acceptable uses are allowed in the more restrictive I-1 district. The C-2 district acceptable uses are allowed in the more restrictive C-1 district. The R-1 district uses are allowed in the R-2 district. I think this would be worth considering across zoning districts as well. If this were the case, it would not have been necessary to rezone 303 North Main Street since the residential, R-1, use would have been a lesser use than the C-2 District allows. My rational is that this would have allowed the existing house to continue to be used and remodeled without losing the Town’s long-term goal of expanding the commercial corridor. It would have also kept it abundantly obvious to the land owners that the goal is commercial and not leave them thinking that their future neighbors will automatically be residential. That said, when a cross use is made, it would be easy enough to require any of the more restrictive requirements to be followed, whether it’s the lower use or the higher use, i.e. if a property owner wants to put a house in a C-1 district, this would be allowed, but the R-1 setbacks, impervious surface requirements, etc. of the R-1 district would apply as the more restrictive land use. This idea would require further examination and consideration, but it might be a good first step into some of the more mixed uses being considered in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan.
Personally, I would not only keep this corridor commercial, but would expand the Main Street Commercial Corridor on down to Davis Street and expand the Lake Shore Drive Commercial Corridor west to Main Street. On the south end, there is already commercial property at the corner of Main & Davis. There is already commercial property on both sides of the street on all corners of the Main and Lake Shore Drive intersection. Linking these together makes planning sense. It opens the opportunity for more mixed use little shops and businesses such as the former art gallery at 307 North Main Street and the law office at 212 North Main Street. This would promote more foot traffic between the two commercial areas of town. I am not sure I would find fault in making this C-1 while we’re at it…
Sometimes the desire to be helpful overcomes the mission of long term planning and the vision that involves. It was helpful to the new owners of 303 North Main Street to rezone the property, but there were other options. Sending them to the BZA for a “Variance of Use” would have made more sense. Rezoning is the more radical choice.
This also applies to the other three rezonings that were completed, changing R-1 zoned properties to R-2. This is undoubtedly spot zoning creating a future problem where a problem didn’t exist. All of these properties were grandfathered in their current non-conforming use, but now they are allowed to remodel, upgrade or even tear down and build something that solidifies the use, that doesn’t fit the long range plan, for the foreseeable future. While these property owners believe this “fixed” their problem, in reality, all of these properties would require variance for any changes they want to make as they don’t meet the R-2 requirements either!
Before this escalates from commentary to rant, I’ll leave it at here. It will be interesting to bring these things up as the Comprehensive Plan proceeds.
0 comments