The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on April 24, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Tim Cole, Ray Riddell, Harvey ix, Joey Larr, Mike Haller and Ray Joseph.  Staff members present were Fred M. Siminski and Toni Byers.

The following Cases were heard by the Committee on this date:

Case 09-4-5.  Petition of Ronald & Susan Stangebye, 2320 Portage Rd., Niles, MI, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Woodland View, to be located at 940 N. County Line Rd., in Jackson Township.  To contain 4 lots on 17.91 aces.   Zoned RR.  (Sec.13-36N-5W)

Mike Duffy stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.  One of the primary outstanding issues from the last time here is the same issue that was presented at the Drainage Board for consideration.  There’s that drainage swale that cuts through Lot 3, and then it goes through what was Lot 1 of the minor subdivision prior to the South. And there’s been some question about any type of downstream improvement or something that could be done on that.  Carole Knoblock, Ed Gutt and he, along with Jim Dunlop from Duneland Group met with the homeowner to the South onsite yesterday and went through it.  He inspected the ditches and everything looks to be in fairly good shape, other than the swale along the roadside probably  could use some cleaning.  It’s got some debris in it.  What looks like the major issue is the water crosses over underneath County Line Road, just to the South of this site, and it would appear that someone filled in a drainage ditch that goes East-West and put in a 12-inch HDPE and it’s picking up either a 24-inch or a 30-inch CMP that’s going under  the road.  After talking with Commissioner Knoblock and Mr. Gutt, he decided to call the LaPorte County highway engineer and they’re going to take a look at it.  He explained to them that it looks like this is starting to affect the roadway. There’s quite a bit of a wash that’s starting to happen underneath the HDPE pipe, so they have started conversations in that regard.

Mr. Joseph stated that issues raised last meeting were:  Lot 3 needs another soil boring, and they are going to rectify that; keep septic out of hydric soils, and they will do that; file for Rule 5.

Mr. Duffy stated that he needs to look into that because he’s not sure how that works with this development because there’s actually no improvement and he needs to review the rules on that, because he’s not sure if it actually falls under that.

Mr. Larr stated that any disruption of an acre or more of land is Rule 5.

Mr. Duffy stated that he’s not sure if there’s actually going to be an acre of disturbed soil, since all these people are going to be building is the houses. 

Mr. Larr stated that the County has a 10,000 square foot rule for erosion control, and it’s basically the same form. 

Mr. Joseph stated that they were to try to resolve drainage issues towards LaPorte County, and  that’s what they were just talking about; calculations of how much water goes through the right-hand turn into the ditch, and that will be put on before Plan Commission.

Mr. Duffy stated that he had to look through the old drainage narrative because that was for off-site water calculations for the pond.

Mr. Joseph stated that there was a suggestion to try to get rid of the right-angle on the swale.

Mr. Duffy stated that there’s a few different discussions about that swale going on right now. One of his concerns, right now they’re not doing anything to the swale or anything on the site, and the calculations are supporting the fact that they are going to be discharging less water into that swale.  He’s concerned with doing anything to the swale. If he starts messing with the swale and then people start complaining downstream that they’re having more water than what they used to, we no longer have the defense of, they didn’t touch anything. If he starts making the water go through the swale quicker and reshaping it and moving it around, there is a worry that it might create issues.  One of his concerns is they were talking about routing that swale around the West side of that existing Lot 1, and if you go out there and look at the site and talk to the neighbor, he said every time that they get a major gully wash type rain, it goes over that swale and goes out into his yard and he’s worried if they move that swale farther West they’re going to bring that water up closer to his house.   He’s not sure  that’s really the best avenue for this.  His preference would be to leave it alone or figure out some other way to get it on to the LaPorte County side quicker, as opposed to bringing it farther to the West. He thinks instead of bringing the water in a couple hundred feet off that guy’s roadway when it goes over top, now they’re going to bring it in 600 feet off the road way up close to the house.  He thinks they’ll hear more problems about that.  and if they get the water down to the South any quicker, all they’re going to do is back up that culvert until LaPorte County takes care of that.  So, he thinks leaving it alone might be the best alternative until LaPorte County gets their guy to put the pipe in.

Mr. Breitzke stated that originally what he suggested was to go to the East, back to the roadside ditch and that met with some resistance.  They did some shots on the culvert  and found out if they had a culvert to the parcel to the South.  He agrees with him.  It was the thought to run it to the West side and around that he had more concerns about the first South of the (inaudible) subdivision of that impact, but the preference still would be to run it Easterly to see it if would alleviate the water running on the lot.  When they did the subdivision, they should have had some kind of easement back there, but that didn’t happen in the middle of the lot.  Even then, it’s still outside.  If they put up an easement, that will stop the construction from happening typically, but that doesn’t stop someone from doing some landscaping or put a fence across there. I’d still like to see it run up to County Line Road, parallel with the South line of Lot 4, somewhere in that vicinity, with Outlot A, Lot 4, somewhere.  Probably on Lot 4 would be best, because that’s where the access is to the outlot.

Mr. Duffy stated that one of the things he went to LaPorte County about and it would probably have to be a combination of efforts between the different entities.  But one of the things that might alleviate a lot of these problems at  this point is, if they can’t do anything about the pipe, because it was put in and now it’s there, and I don’t know how  they’re going to be able to lift it out of the guy’s property without a long, involved process, what might happen is the South side of 300, which is the road in LaPorte County, across from, basically, across from Lot 1, he’s wondering if they might want  to improve the roadside ditch and reverse it and head it North and then bring it along 300 when they got right-of-way, because the ditch that this used to tie into crosses over under 300 about 400 feet, he thinks East of County Line Road. If that was the case, maybe a culvert pipe could be put in under County Line Road.  If they just bring it North, maybe it would solve the problems. He thinks what’s really causing all the problems is the pipe.  

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks the culvert down below might be more on track with redoing the ditch, reversing the grade, reworking that to the North, if it can take it to the East.  Porter County Highway has control over County Line Road, responsibilities for it, and he doesn’t want to speak out of turn, but he can’t believe we’d be interested in placing another culvert at that location for the intrusion and the expense, unless they could find someone willing to partner for, at least, the pipe. The bottom line is the water still probably should be directed back to County Line Road, just to keep it on site.

Mr. Duffy stated that he is right about the underground utilities, because there are signs all over the place.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s another reason why we don’t put it into the culvert. It’s risky business.  The condition in LaPorte County seems like it’s been there a long time and, to make it clear, they are getting washout under the pipe on the adjoiner to the East of County Line, not our culvert. Things are happening that demonstrate that that is an inadequate outlet on the LaPorte County side.

Mr. Duffy suggested that Mr. Riddell go out and meet with him and the LaPorte County highway engineer and look at it together and see if they can come up with something.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks the first thing they need to do is figure out who owns that land that the 12-inch is on and meet with them.

Mr. Riddell asked what size pipe he said was under County Line.

Mr. Duffy stated that it was either a 24 or 30, but it’s taking flow from the West side, both North and South of that culvert.  Once it gets on the other side, once again, it’s taking flow from both directions because everything’s draining that way and it all pools.

Mr. Riddell stated, so, whoever put in that 12-inch is restricting anything that (inaudible).

Mr. Duffy stated, yeah.  What the neighbor said is what used to happen is that that pipe was never a pipe and it was an open ditch and it bisected that property right in half and took it there.  Then they put in the 12-inch HDPE.   Looking at it from the aerial, he’d say it’s probably pretty fair statement.

Mr. Cole asked if Ed Gutt feels more comfortable now about this.

Mr. Duffy stated that he would say that they all pretty much agree that the major problem out here is that ditch.  They are going to try and do what they can on their site to slow down the water even more, the time it takes to get across their property from the homesites.  He can restrict  that on the primary.

Issues raised were suggest working with LaPorte Highway Department regarding pipe under County Line Road; examine if this needs Rule 5; reshaping swale is debatable – might cause more water; Mr. Breitzke’s  preference is to run water Easterly to County Line Road parallel to line of Lot 4.

Case 09-4-6.  Petition of John Arndt, 8356 Granada Blvd., Orlando, Fl, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Rilan Acres, to be located South of CR 1000 N., on the West side of CR 400 E., in Jackson Township.  To contain 3 lots on 20.34 acres. Zoned RR. (Sec.16-36N-5W)

Mike Duffy stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.   He stated that there were a couple issues on this one from the last meeting.  They wanted to put on Note 16 that reversed in the open space specifying how many acres was on it and that it was for the enjoyment of the people living in the development, and then on Note 17, Robert W. Thompson Jr. wanted to make sure that it was going to be clear that the existing house on Lot 2 is going to be is going to be non-conforming and that any possibility of expansion was not going to be permitted.  So he put in a note that it’s subject totally to the Porter County code, and that to make it clear that it’s non-conforming. Also, Mr. Riddell and he talked about the sight distance last time.  He went out and looked at it. He believes Lot 1 is fine; Lot 2 is existing and up on a hill and should be fine.  The only one he saw any possibility of any issues with is Lot 3. He thinks what they’ll do, with Mr. Riddell’s permission, is make a no-access easement for a certain distance coming down from the North side of Lot 2, heading down to the South and trying to get that drive down there close to the drive that’s already existing on the opposite side of the road to try to keep them as in line as they can and as far South as they can to give them the best opportunity to see them coming over the crest of the hill.  He doesn’t see that it’s going to be a major issue anyway, but he doesn’t think it hurts to do that, to push it down to the South. There’s another existing drive that is just out of the scope of the topo probably another 100 feet from the lot itself.

Mr. Joseph stated that they needed covenants and  they will have them for Plan Commission;  they were to watch how the driveways line up with the ones across the street.  They also mentioned addressing or denying using  the open space with the Girl Scouts, and we are going to wait for that.  He asked if there were any questions on the addressing.

Mr. Siminski stated that as far as he knows it might be 986 N.

Issues raised were to make a no-access easement for a certain distance coming down from the North side of Lot 2, heading down to the South and trying to get that drive down there close to the drive that’s already existing on the opposite side of the road.

Perry Ryan, pre-BZA meeting on a Use Variance at 1027 N. SR 149.

Attorney Greg Babcock stated that his client bought the old Security Fence site on 149. It’s between Great Oaks Nursery and the Northern neighbor is Excel Box,  the old Waste Management site.  It’s about 5.3 acres, zoned I-1.  He’s been out there cleaning the site up.  It’s got several different metal buildings that are there.  He’s also refurbishing the inside of  the office building. He’s been approached by quite a few people to look at some type of outside storage.  If you look on the drawing, they just put together kind of an idea of the places where you might be able to shrink-wrap and put a boat out  there for the season, also RV’s.   That’s going to be open storage, by that he means they’re not going to be covered sites, from that perspective. And they just use 15 by 40 as kind of a slot size to put those items in there.  They should be able to get 60 items back there. He also had a couple of contractors using the metal building where they could store their equipment, bring an employee on-site to pick a piece of equipment up, go to the work site and come back. Unfortunately, one of the guys already went bankrupt and the other guys didn’t have much work, but that’s part of what that site could be used for.  In addition, he is in the industry where they assemble, re-assemble and ship various type of for steel production products from various mills all over the country and he comes in contact with pieces of equipment that he might either  utilize himself or purchase for jobs and then might have them available for sale.  If you look at the drawing, if you’ve been to the site, there’s an existing fence on the site.  the idea is to move the screen fencing so that it matches up to the back end of the office building and come all the way across with a gate.  In the area that would be roughly the width of that building, about 60 feet, he’s proposing  to do like a split-rail fence, small sign that would be allowed on the site, remove the other free-standing sign that’s there and then have that area with some gravel so they can put a few pieces of equipment out there and offer them for sale. He’s talked to them about the equipment having to be in working order when they go in front of the BZA as probably a condition and to limit the number, and a lot of those items that are movable would go back behind the fence at night.  If you look in the center section of the property, it has an existing functional retention pond.  By that he means the water comes to them, is retained and it filters down through the site. Recently, when we had the rain with the frozen ground, the site had not filled up.  One reason they are going to leave  these proposed outside storage sites open is to allow that whole site to be not pervious, so they got some type of movement there.  The property is an I-1 zone and he thinks it’s a decent location for that.  They will be doing for  the BZA presentation a split-rail fence with low-lying shrubs and then some fir trees up against what would be a screening fence.  His client has kind of a photographic rendering that he was going to hand out to give an idea of what it’s going to look like.  They’ve got a fence with screening so you don’t see into the site necessarily from that perspective.  Those would be the two items that would be going in front of the BZA with.

Mr. Ryan handed out renderings to the DAC members. 

Mr. Babcock stated that this is what it looks like currently. Then this is an example of what you might see with a split rail fence in the front.  They would do some shrubs.  The fence  that they would reconstruct is going to be a screen style fence so you don’t see any of the storage activity that you might have in that particular study.  They would have some fir trees in front of  that fence, shrubs around the front, and then the sign would be placed sort of centered in the property.  The stuff you see on the left-hand side, that free-standing sign would be gone.  Those shrubs would be out of there, and then they would have some kind of a cleaner look.  This is Perry Ryan, the owner of the property.

Mr. Joseph asked if they plan on doing something with that existing sign out there.

Mr. Babcock stated that they are going to take that down.

Mr. Ryan stated that they are going to go to a low-profile sign, a monument sign, about in the middle of the property and they will follow the ordinance for the overlay district.

Mr. Nix asked, with this being this big a storage area, like having RV’s and all this, do these buildings have drains in the floors now?

Mr. Ryan stated that some of them do and some do not.

Mr. Nix stated that if they have all that storage area, he was wondering if  the water drains to this pond, let’s say you spill a lot of fuel…

Mr. Ryan stated that there’s a separator that catches the water that comes out of the one building that has the drain in it, and what it does is separates the grease and dirt and what have you, and then it goes into  a tank that overflows into a drain.

Mr. Larr stated that he thinks it’s going to be a great re-use of  the building, so  they should be successful there, but the protection of the retention pond in the back, especially if they are going to be working on equipment and salvaging…

Mr. Ryan stated that the only thing that goes into the retention pond is drainage off the property.  Nothing in the buildings is connected to the retention pond.

Mr. Larr asked, so, do the fuels and stuff go into a separate drainage system?

Mr. Ryan stated, yes.

Mr. Larr asked if it’s underground.

Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t honestly know.  Since he’s bought it, he hasn’t investigated that.  But, in other buildings that have similar equipment, it’s like a septic tank.  But there’s no actual backup hooked to it.  It’s just typically for the floor drains.

Mr. Larr stated that if you’re granted the open storage, you’re going to have to find some way of protecting anything from runoff going into that pond, because it is…he’s sure that’s the standard.

Mr. Babcock stated that the industry he’s in, he’s in the mill a lot, and he just thought he’d kind of give some ideas that Mr. Joseph and the guys have given them about – if you’ve got outside storage, let’s say, of an RV, and he winterizes it, he’s still going to have gasoline in it.

Mr. Ryan stated that these are pads. They’re designed to absorb oil. For, like a motor home, he’s going to offer winterizing it, shrink-wrapping it, storing it and, if it looks like it’s going  to be a problem, he’ll immediately put these under the motor home.  He’s going to get some trays – they’re about 2 inches deep – lay those down and put the pads in them.  These will absorb the oil and even if you were to lay these on the ground they’ll absorb the oil that’s in the ground.   He uses them in the steel mills all the time and they’re just wonderful. After they’re done, they go in a barrel, and then he has Safety-Kleen come and pick them up. 

Mr. Babcock stated that some of those items – say, a snowmobile – those guys will put them on a trailer and then set them out, but motor homes, the big issue and the boats sometimes, too.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s basically a spill cap.  It’s the same principle and he applauds him.  The issue with the site and the pond, he’s not sure how much of this runoff actually goes to the pond, collectively.  They probably need to have a good idea where their outdoor tank is for the water that comes out of the building and where that discharge pipe is, specifically – whether it’s in a pond, roadside ditch or someplace else.  You could probably assume it goes to the pond, but he doesn’t think that’s a very good assumption when it’s so flat out here.  There’s a lot of possibilities. Does he have any topography related to the site at all?

Mr. Ryan stated, no.   Ah, yes, I do.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he’d really like to have a copy of it to look at it to get a better feeling for where the water runoff is, what it ends up going off to. In the front, on the drawing he has with the BZA file, it’s got stone – the building, asphalt, parking and then stone.  Is the asphalt parking already in place?

Mr. Ryan stated, yes. Uh, no.  That’s concrete right now.  It’s been cut up at different times, and this summer he’d like to cut that out of  there and then re-asphalt that so it’s nice and smooth and looks presentable.

Mr. Breitzke stated that on the other side it’s marked stone.  Is that currently stone?

Mr. Ryan stated, yes.

Mr. Breitzke asked if he is going to make it grass.

Mr. Ryan stated that he just did this to kind of give you guys an idea of what it’s going to be. In the front of the split-rail fence is already grass, and that will remain grass with some shrubs.  Between the screened fence and the split rail fence is now stone, and it will remain stone. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that we need to make that clear. Your rendering is colored green, but it’s already existing there.  What other changes do you propose to do to this site?

Mr. Ryan asked, overall?  Just clean it up.

Mr. Breitzke stated, so, basically, you’re not constructing anything new at this time; you’re just going to repair and maintain; remove a large sign that’s on a pedestal and replace it with a low-profile sign.  Are you going to have signs on your fence, too?

Mr. Ryan stated, no. He has no intentions of ever building any more buildings.

Mr. Breitzke asked, were there any other Variances that he was asking for?

Mr. Ryan stated, just those two.

Mr. Breitzke stated that because there’s a lack of new construction and the only other issue might be some demolition and they’re removing the concrete, as long as the rebars are moved and the pieces are small enough, it might be considered clean fill.  What do they plan to do with that concrete?

Mr. Ryan stated that he’s going to hire it done, so the contractor that will do this will remove it from the site.

Mr. Riddell stated, this being a state road, he really has no jurisdiction over what the access point is or anything like  that, however he would suggest that he go to INDOT and make sure everything’s okay with them, regarding the changes, different recreational vehicles and things that are going to be there.  Is the access point right here by the sign?

Mr. Ryan stated that it’s between the sign and the office building.

Mr. Riddell asked if that big old bush is a rendering, or is it actually there?

Mr. Ryan stated that it’s there.  That will be gone.  The two trees that have no leaves on them, those will be gone, as well.   Then they’re going to go all the way across the front with something low, some nice shrubs.

Mr. Riddell stated that he would make sure they get approval from INDOT. 

Mr. Haller stated that they have 13,520 square feet of metal building behind the office building.  What is that used for currently?

Mr. Ryan stated that he’s a rigging contractor and that’s where he runs his business out of. Part of it is, he runs his building out of; the other part is just cold storage.

Mr. Haller asked how many people work for him?

Mr. Ryan stated, now, none.  He stated that he did have 6.  Generally, when he’s running real well, he’ll have six people working.  Since the first of  the year, he’s got everybody laid off.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s always concerned about outside storage.  It attracts crime.  The nature of that neighborhood, with a couple of nice subdivisions to the East, belonging to the Town of Chesterton, some of the heavier industry to the North, which essentially might have some attractive items in it.  And the R-1 zoning to the South – that’s quite a mix of things.  He’s not going to object to outside storage because this property needs some use and you need to get some revenue from  it.   He’s just going to say that it should be in the back, screened in some way.  He doesn’t like jalousie fences as much as he does shrubbery and trees.  They’re going to need a fence, of course, but he’s suggesting that he use vegetation along with that to make that attractive because they’re going to go from this directly into a heavy commercial use.  Is that conducive to Great Oaks Nursery?  Is that conducive?  Is that heavy commercial?  Is that how it should be zoned?

Mr. Babcock stated that it’s zoned CH.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s just looking for a transition there in the near future and then we go right into R-1.  And then what does our corridor plan say?

Mr. Joseph stated that he’d have to review that.

Mr. Cole stated that we’re going into a nice, scenic area, so the transition should be conducive to that area, to the way the people have made it, the farmer that lives to the East, the next road down.  He just gets concerned about that.  He doesn’t want to see him have to go to any huge expense, especially in this economy.  He doesn’t want to discourage any industrial development in Liberty Township.  We could use that revenue, as well, but if we can make it as nice as possible. What kind of signage are we talking about?  It says 85 square feet, but…

Mr. Babcock stated it’s going to be a monument style sign.  Illumination would be in the interior.  They are staying within the sign guidelines for the ordinance. 

Mr. Joseph stated that they are in an overlay zone, so it would have to be a monument sign – maybe brick, stone.  It will be a nice sign.

Mr. Cole stated that the concerns about drainage had been addressed and he wants to just reiterate that, because he’s sure that pond was probably put in in an era at a time when maybe calculations weren’t necessary. It was just dig a hole and let the water go and maybe we just want to have some data measuring the depth of it, possibly how the water flows – just simple engineering that would make us comfortable that that pond really does work and can work under the various conditions that we experience here. Landscaping should be within our ordinance.  He would just caution the BZA not to be too quick and as he’s said in the past, he’s not really in favor of waivers or releases; he’s in favor of negotiation and contingencies. When we release people from the ordinance, from the suggested rules of our ordinances, they essentially are saying  that our ordinances have no effect or they are ineffective or  they were wrong in the beginning.

Issues raised were to protect the retention pond in back from grease runoff; find where the oil is stored; fine where the tank is where the water comes out of the building and where it is discharging; topo of site; consult INDOT regarding changes; outside storage should be in back, screened with vegetation; engineering data on existing pond.

 

Case 09-4-8.  Petition of Richard Staresina, 575 N. 250 W., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Staresina Addition, to be located at 573 N. 250 W., in Center Township.  To contain 2 lots on 4.7 acres.  Zoned RR. (Sec.4-35N-6W)

Mike Rozycki stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter. He stated that this is two lots. Mr. Staresina lives at the site and he wants to build a house on the smaller lot for retirement.  He stated that open space had been an issue at the last meeting and he thinks that has been added in the back Easterly part of Lot 1.  Don Bengel had talked to Mr. Joseph or Robert W. Thompson Jr. about it, and he can use 25 percent of the common area as open space.

Mr. Rozycki stated that the Easterly 102 feet of Lot 1 will be open space. 

Mr. Joseph stated that there are specific words that are required for open space to be put on the plat.  Is that on there, as well?  Issues that were brought up were to extend drainage easement straight.

Mr. Rozycki stated that he thinks they took that all the way to the North line of Lot 2 and that will be all drainage easement.

Mr. Joseph stated that they were to stipulate on the plat that there’s no future development on Lot 1.

Mr. Rozycki talked to Mr. Staresina about that.  He would like to address the Plan Commission about that issue.  And also there was an issue about no basement – he would like to address the Plan Commission about that, too. 

Mr. Joseph stated that there is minimum side-yard setback in the notes.

Mr. Rozycki stated that they had that, but the common area, you can’t consider that your setback.  It will be 30 feet from the common area.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he wishes we had the revised version, because it’s tough to tell what was committed to and what wasn’t. 

Mr. Rozycki stated that he dropped a copy off to Mr. Breitzke’s secretary.  There was a copy of this, plus an envelope for Drainage Board for the same project.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks we talked about a limited access easement across the North part of Lot 2 to try to force the joint driveway.  Also, when he said no basements, he wants to make it clear that we were recommending no basements because, with the first floor elevation they are proposing, a basement would put you below the bottom of the adjoining stream.  The first floor elevation already is about 2 foot below the pond, which is to the East of it, just a few hundred feet, so that’s why there were strong recommendations against having a basement.  He doesn’t know if we have the legal wherewithal to say you cannot have a basement, but at least it’s his opinion that it’s just asking for trouble, structurally and by way of what the physical conditions are.   He’d just really not rather see a basement there.

Mr. Rozycki asked if he wants no access from the Southwesterly corner up to like 50 feet from where the driveway is.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he’d like somebody to figure out where the driveway is within maybe 50 feet or so.  No-access across the front, and he thinks Mr. Bengel had talked about that on the West side of Lot 2 and then maybe along the North side for the first, at least to the building line, because we don’t want somebody driving over the top of an area where we may have to end up working on the drainage.   There is a tube crossing under the road in close proximity to where that could be. 

Mr. Cole stated that he’s confused about common area and the distinguishment of that from open space, from green space. We use a lot of terms, sometimes interchangeably and sometimes not, especially now that they’re saying that the open space can only comprise 25 percent of the common area, that essentially says to him that common area is not open space, but something different.

Mr. Joseph stated that the common area is almost like an easement that surrounds all subdivisions.  It’s based on the subdivision type.  On this one, it’s a 30-foot common area and you can use a certain percentage of it for your open space.

Mr. Cole asked if that’s going to be shown on the plat in front of the Plan Commission. In the back of the 162 feet for the open space, what’s in there now?

Mr. Rozycki stated that it's just open field.  There’s some pine trees as a buffer between Fox Burrow Run and in that common area basically.  North of that is a little bit of woodshed, still nothing great, which will not be in the open space, but where the open space (inaudible) is the open field. 

Issues raised were put specific verbiage regarding open space on the plat; address issue of recommendation of no basements and no future development at  the Plan Commission; 30-foot setback from common area; no-access easement across the front, on the West side of Lot 2, on the North side to the building line, at least.

Case 09-4-9.  Petition of Ourbor LLC, 400 Southfield Lane, Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat review for a major subdivision, Arbor Lakes Estates Phase A, to be located on the North side of CR 100 N., ¼ mile West of 325 W., in Union Township.  To contain 21 lots on 19.56 acres.  Zoned R-1. (Sec.29-35N-6W)

Mr. Rozycki stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner, Don Blum.  Mr. Rozycki stated that it’s a proposed subdivision on 100 N., just South of Shorewood Forest, and they’re coming in for Phase A, which is the first 21 lots on the Easterly side of the proposed subdivision on Barker Drive.

Mr. Joseph stated that issues raised at  the last meeting were to build storm sewer before the subdivision starts.

Mr. Blum stated that he met with Mr. Breitzke at the site Tuesday to shoot grades.

Mr. Breitzke stated that what they had done on the primary plat was to ask that the storm drainage work to connect Summerhill over to the pond on the West side of the subdivision.  Apparently he’s working, in  this phase, on the East side. We need to proceed with the West side, because there’s a commitment to some degree by the Commissioners. 

Mr. Blum stated that it’s not just putting the storm sewer from Summerhill pond, because they have an elaborate system worked out  with 15-inch pipe from the existing storm structure at Summerhill to our subdivision and outlet it where the little ditch is.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that will be an issue for the Plan Commission to decide how far they take that.

Mr. Blum stated that he is going to farm it this summer and would hate to tear it up for a pipe for something they’re not going to impact for a year.

Mr. Joseph stated that they were to estimate the performance guarantee.

Mr. Riddell asked if that was all-inclusive—did they have the offsite stuff, as well.  His revised one had an additional $100,000.

Mr. Rozycki stated that he knows that the water that was here is for the…it’s offsite, too, because there are 1766 lineal feet. That’s coming from the subdivision to the East of the down. He doesn’t think the sanitary was in here because he either has a bond for the offsite with Shorewood.

Mr. Blum stated that he has a bond with Shorewood.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks we really need to coordinate that with Shorewood Utilities to make sure where everything’s at.

Mr. Rozycki stated that he has to put in a force main and a lift station.

Mr. Joseph stated that they need two copies of an erosion control plan signed by the developer.

Mr. Larr stated that he has one copy.

Mr. Nix stated that he knows he had asked for a copy of Rule 5 on this and all the sheets aren’t here.  On the comment section, which would be Page 4, the outlets of these drains…be sure that they have some fabric and rock under the drains.  And, when you get into these lots that have steep slopes, they may need erosion control, which could be fabric, hydroseed or mulch.

Mr. Rozycki stated that they got those instructions from DLZ on the slope and the matting that they need to use.

Mr. Nix stated that they need a sign posted on the site and whatever permits they were granted, they’d like to have that posted on that board, so if there’s an inspection on there, he knows who to get a hold of.  Fabric underneath all rip-rap is placed, and there should be a washout area designated in here for cement trucks.

Mr. Larr stated that he has the same concerns.  And, also, he has a copy of the erosion control plan, and it looks OK except for the concrete washout.  They should mark that somewhere.

Mr. Breitzke stated that on the East side of the subdivision, along Stonegate, what’s their water management plan?  The water runs somewhat Easterly and then he’s just concerned there’s a low area in here and we just need to make sure that they don’t miss out on that.

Mr. Rozycki stated that they do, on the final plat.  There’s a drainage easement along the backs of those lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they need more than that.

Mr. Rozycki stated that he thought they had a swale.

Mr. Breitzke stated that we just need to make sure that they have something back there to get the water back to the North and then to the West, back into the system. When does the water pump site go in?

Mr. Blum stated that it will be going in in the next four months.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it should be one of  the first things to go in.

Mr. Rozycki stated that they have to run the water from Sagamore to their site, under pressure, and then it’s going  to go to the pumping station and that’s the only way they’re going  to get water for their lots.

Mr. Blum stated that they are contracting a company to build a pump station. 

Mr. Breitzke asked if they are going  to be running water along 100 N.

Mr. Blum stated, correct.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they have talked to Highway and the utilities at this point.

Mr. Rozycki stated that he think Mr. Bengel talked to Mr. Riddell. He also talked to some of  the utilities, too.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s coming up real soon, and that’s what his concern was.  They should get together long before this happens.

Mr. Riddell stated that he needs a copy of the bond with Shorewood and he can get the final amount for the performance guarantee.   That should also be submitted  to the Plan Commission office.

Mr. Haller stated that they have about $100,000 in this bond estimate that covers excavation and seeding, etc.  Did they factor in for erosion control devices?

Mr. Blum stated, yes.   Can we bond for erosion control devices?

Mr. Joseph stated that it’s required in our code, a minimum of $5,000.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s pretty satisfied.  But he thought he heard them say they were bringing water from Sagamore.

Mr. Blum stated, from 325 W. 100 N.

Mr. Breitzke stated that ultimately they should be doing a whole loop. 

Mr. Siminski stated that he looked at the addressing, and he can’t really see anything wrong with it.

Issues raised were to make sure the performance bond is accurate; fabric and rock under drains for steep slopes for erosion control; all permits to be posted onsite; fabric under rip-rap; washout area for concrete trucks; water management on the East side of subdivision to carry water back to the North then to the West to the system; water pump site should go in as soon as possible; make sure erosion control bond is adequate.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke stated that Brigadoon will be back before us in one way or another.  It’s in the City of Valparaiso, but there is the potential for traffic issues and congestion with Salt Creek Bridge.  He would suggest no access off Tower Road.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.