The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on April 9, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Ray Riddell, Kelly Cadwell, Joey Larr, Harvey Nix, Ray Joseph, Mike Haller, Kevin Breitzke, Tim Cole and Robert  W. Thompson Jr.  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 acres.  Zoned RR.  (Sec.13-36N-5W)

Mike Duffy stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. 

Mr. Thompson stated that there were some Variances granted on this case, mainly for storm water.

Mr. Duffy stated that they went to the BZA for seeking relief from the storm water standards for the subdivision, which is 4 lots on just under 18 acres.  By calculation, the runoff is less once it’s developed  as opposed to the farm use that it is now. Per the ordinance, though, they would have to seek a Variance from the BZA.  So, they went and did that.  BZA asked for some guidance from DLZ. They made a submittal to them with all the calculations, and they also asked them to appear before DAC on an informal basis, which they also did. DLZ reviewed their calculations and agreed with them.  They submitted a letter to BZA along those lines.  So, now they are going through the primary plat process.

Mr. Thompson stated that this is located on a parcel that was before the Plan Commission about three years ago and was eight lots at that time and they are now down to 4.  It’s also a replat of a very large minor sub lot.

Ms. Cadwell stated that for Lot 3 they are requesting that they get an additional soil boring. On Lot 4, she believes what they had marked off as the Washtenau, basically, keep the septic out of the hydric soils.  But they do have an acre useable besides the hydric soils?

Mr. Duffy stated, correct.

Mr. Nix asked if there is enough area on Lot 4 taking out the hydric soils for a building site.

Mr. Duffy stated, yes.   When they came for the informal, Mr. Breitzke asked him to increase the size of the easement that goes through Lot 4. They platted an easement when they did the minor, but they increased it by 10 feet in each direction.

Mr. Larr asked if they have filed for Rule 5 yet.

Mr. Duffy stated, no. 

Mr. Thompson asked what the percentage of open space is.

Mr. Duffy stated that it’s 32.2 percent.

Mr. Thompson asked if they have the open space statement.

Mr. Duffy stated, yes.

Mr. Thompson stated that at the original hearing there was a discussion about problems with drainage towards LaPorte County.  Did they do anything to address that?

Mr. Duffy stated that it came up at the Drainage Board, as well.  He met with Ed from the Drainage Board and he’s done some conversations with some other people.  There’s not really anything that they can do with their site.  He thinks everybody would like for Porter and LaPorte counties to get together a little bit on the drainage issue.  The water runs through this site, and they are actually going to be reducing their runoff once developed.  But  there is an issue from talking to the residents and from seeing photos of some issues with where the water crosses underneath and goes over to the LaPorte County side.  Back when the first primary plat was denied, somebody came in and said somebody had filled in a yard or something on the LaPorte County side.  He doesn’t know if that’s the case, but, based on a couple pictures he saw, that could be the case. Maybe the Drainage Board in Porter County and the drainage board in LaPorte County can get together. It’s probably more of a highway department issue, if anything.

Mr. Thompson asked where they are proposing to put the house on Lot 4.

Mr. Duffy stated that he would say it would probably be facing East.  This one does have to go back before the Drainage Board on Monday for some additional questions.

Mr. Thompson stated that on Lot 1 they should encourage the house to be built up towards the County road, 950 N.  There are some steep slopes towards the back. 

Mr. Cole stated that there were a lot of statements made by Jim Gorski, who lives just across the road. He voiced a lot of concerns about the drainage ditch coming through the adjoining property parcel at  the end of that swale and making that right-hand turn along the roadside ditch.  We haven’t solved any problem there.  He knows they’ve reduced the water to grassy swale, in terms of rate of runoff.  They haven’t reduced the water; just the rate of runoff.  He wishes maybe we could get some calculations on just how much water might be expected to go through the right-angle turn and into the ditch, even with the new runoff.

Mr. Duffy stated that he has nothing with him.

Mr. Cole stated that he should have it when he comes before the Plan Commission. Mr. Gutt has shown up.  He wonders if he has any comments on this.

Mr. Duffy stated that he explained to DAC that Mr. Gutt had come by and shown him some pictures of some of the surrounding areas and there’s still some question about what’s happened between Porter and LaPorte counties.  When this was done as a minor, Mr. Kadish owned it and he bought the property and renovated the house.  The reason he did the minor is because he renovated the house and was going to get rid of the house.   The swale cuts through what was originally Lot 1. Mr. Gutt recommended that somehow somebody reroute that swale around that lot.   Because what happens right now is – and I have those pictures with me – the water…

Ed Gutt stated that the swale continues from the property across the road, which is probably about 50 acres, Mr. Gorski’s property.  It crosses the NIPSCO easement and then under the County road and it’s a natural flow of water that continues on down to the back of this residence. There is a so-called ditch, about 5 feet wide, and maybe a foot and a half deep, and the pictures show the water, how it comes across that area.  My concern is the Drainage Board is that you consult the neighbors before the plans come in to prevent further repercussions later.  I know there is a rise in the back yard of about 2.5 feet.  My suggestion was to pick the swale up back a ways and run that around to the so-called ditch that’s on the other man’s property. It’s on the other fellow’s property, the neighbor to the South.  And that ditch picks it up, takes it to County Line Road and runs it South, probably a couple of hundred feet, estimated, under the next neighbor’s driveway. Then it takes a turn and goes into LaPorte County.  That little ditch should be cleaned.  My thought was, in order to keep this other residence from being flooded that the swale be moved around somehow. I failed to tell him at the time, but, if this was done, the excess dirt from the swale could go back into this person’s property and fill that existing so-called ditch, and we’d have friends all around.  The other thing I would just comment on before you get there is, I did check with the neighbors on the South end of the property and the woods and the wetlands. They had known about this being subdivided before and the one neighbor’s only concern was the septic systems, and as I showed him the print, the lots are plenty big, so he didn’t have any concerns then.   But the water does flow across this property out to the County road – I think it’s 875, then West probably 1,000 feet, at the most, and crosses CR going South into the cornfield, which we all know we’ve had excessive water and has caused a wash in this cornfield.  But he wasn’t too concerned with that.  He just thought if somehow the developer could get with the County and clean the ditch, it would alleviate the few concerns that he has, so, the main concern would be to this house on County Line Road and their property.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke joined the meeting.

Mr. Duffy stated that that was an easement that was asked for when they did the minor, is that swale goes across that property, as well, so it kind of turns into a difficult situation, because now it’s not part of this development.  So he doesn’t know if that’s something the Highway Department or the Drainage Board or what not can get involved in something like that to get that swale moved.

Mr. Thompson stated that he thinks they’d have to approach both boards.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks Mr. Gutt was concerned about if there’s any way to get that water around and Mr. Duffy probably explained it pretty well.

Mr. Nix asked if they’re talking then if, instead of this watershed coming through Bouchet, bring this around and back?

Mr. Duffy stated, yes.

Mr. Gutt stated that if you look at the rise in the soil, he thinks it’s 1.5 to 3 foot.  But if you picked  this back up here and run the swale around the back of this into this ditch over here, you could use the swales to fill that and make everybody happy.

Mr. Nix asked if this is going to be widened out down here at the bottom.  This is what Mr. Cole was talking about, when it makes that little ditch, it’s only this wide and a foot or so deep. 

Mr. Gutt stated that this ditch is not on this property at all and you would have to just pick up the ditch, what little it would take to pick that up. 

Mr. Nix asked if there is a way to make this watercourse bigger on this other gentleman’s property.

Mr. Gutt stated that they would have to contact that man.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he was just suggesting that he contact the Bouchet people and see if he diverts that water around…they really don’t have easements…this is the critical thing, that if that property owner’s willing to bring it back around and work with them and create some kind of easement it might work.

Mr. Duffy asked, what about instead of bringing it around the property, why not bring it up to the County road, try and gradual out that turn, instead of making it that 90-degree turn that it has at the end?  Bring it up, extend the County highway roadside ditch up farther to the North and bring it out a little more gradually.

Mr. Nix asked if he’d be going up on a ridge, though.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he’s coming up hill about 2 or 3 feet. That’s the only trick is how deep is that roadside ditch and what abilities do we have along County line? 

Mr. Thompson asked what that is on the very front page.

Mr. Duffy stated that that’s the open space buffer.

Mr. Thompson stated that there were other Variances besides storm water.  It was also for the sidewalks and to waive landscaping requirements and a few other ones.

Issues raised were Lot 3 needs another soil boring; keep septic out of hydric soils; file for Rule 5; try to resolve drainage issues toward LaPorte County; calculations on how much water goes through right-hand turn into ditch; recommend ditch be cleaned; suggest trying to get rid of right-hand angle on swale.

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 20.38 acres.  Zoned RR.  (Sec.16-36N-5W)

Mr. Duffy stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated that this is 3 lots on 20 acres, approximately, primary plat review.  This was also at the Plan Commission, at one point.  At that time it was 12 lots. This one has a number of Variances on it:  storm water manual resolution, pedestrian network standards, storm water standards, perimeter landscaping standards, (inaudible) the road.

Mr. Duffy stated that this followed a similar path as the previous case.   It went before the BZA and they asked for some guidance as far as the storm water Variances and to go before DAC informally and also to submit to DLZ.  They reviewed the calcs and agreed with them that putting 3.6+ acre lots out here, and there are 3 of them, the runoff generated by those lots, once developed is less than the runoff as a farm field runoff.  They sent a letter to the BZA confirming.  They were passed out of Drainage Board, as well, at the last meeting, with no regulated drain status. They asked them to have the developer or his representative on Lot 1 put in a swale along the open space on the Northern side of the property.  Porter County rules make it so you have to have positive drainage either front to rear or to the back of your lot when you develop a homesite. The contouring is such on that lot, if they didn’t put in some type of a swale or did not follow the standards to the letter, it could push additional water onto the Northern adjoiner. They went out and talked to the owner and there was some ponding of water onto his property. It was unclear whether it was caused by this property, but this property shouldn’t contribute any more to it.  The developer made a commitment that a swale would be installed along Lot 1 alongside where the homesite sits to avoid that problem in the future.

Ms. Cadwell asked what the existing building is on Lot 1.

Mr. Duffy stated, it’s a pole barn.

Ms. Cadwell asked if there’s a graveled parking area, a graveled drive or…

Mr. Duffy stated that he doesn’t believe there are any parking areas.  There is probably a drive to it. His understanding is that the building is probably going to be destroyed when the lot is developed.

Mr. Nix asked if Lot 2 is already a residence.

Mr. Duffy stated, that’s correct.

Mr. Nix asked, the soil borings 4, 5 and 7 that are represented on there, is there some reason that it’s on that lot?

Mr. Duffy stated that the reason why there are so many soil borings on there is because when it was the 12 lots, it’s the same soils report that was done for the property, so those actually line up with where a lot used to sit. 

Mr. Nix stated, if something happened there, would they be using these soil borings on this lot; that was his only question.

Mr. Joseph stated that he spoke with Scott about adding the wording plus the amount of the open space.

Mr. Duffy stated that it’s 8.6 acres total open space out of 20 acres.

Mr. Thompson asked if they are going to have covenants and restrictions for  the maintenance.

Mr. Duffy stated, yes.

Mr. Thompson asked if he would also add the attorney provision in there, too, that Mr. Detert always asks for. Basically, some kind of language that states that the prevailing party can recoup attorney fees.   He asked if that’s a 50-foot strip coming down on each side.

Mr. Duffy stated that it’s 30 feet. It’s mainly because of the frontage.

Mr. Thompson asked if they’ve cleaned up around the house.

Mr. Duffy stated that he hasn’t been out there in a while.

Mr. Thompson stated that when he first came through it was a little messy.

Mr. Duffy stated that it’s probably been cleaned up.  There had been a renter out there.

Mr. Thompson stated that eventually on the plat he would like a note with the house across the building line that it’s legal non-conforming and that he can’t expand it.

Mr. Duffy asked if they can rebuild it if it burns down.

Mr. Thompson stated, within 1 year’s time, but it has to be on the same footprint.  The large pole barn building does concern him. It’s also probably going to end up being legal non-conforming. He said they probably are going to tear it down?

Mr. Duffy stated that that was his understanding of it.

Mr. Riddell stated, looking at the terrain, he’s a little concerned about safe sight distances out of the driveways, not knowing what’s going on to the North and South of this parcel. Maybe if we could see something that reflects what’s going on, or he’ll go out and take a look at it.

Mr. Breitzke stated, just to reiterate, they are creating a lot with a legal, non-conforming use with that out building.  We need to know for sure, from the standpoint of the Plan Commission, as it gets to the final plat, that needs to be resolved what the final plan is.

Mr. Duffy stated that he will write the petitioner and ask him if he is going to have the building razed. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that if he does, he needs a demolition permit from the Plan Commission. If he does want to keep it, can he go to BZA?

Mr. Thompson stated, sure.

Mr. Breitzke stated, that’s an option.

Mr. Haller asked if this house has an address.  Is that where the fellow lives?

Mr. Duffy stated, no, it’s actually a rental property.

Mr. Haller asked if he rents it.

Mr. Duffy stated that he believes he was renting it to take care of the property.

Mr. Haller asked if there’s any reason why he can’t put the address on here.

Mr. Duffy stated that he can add it.

Mr. Haller asked if there’s any reason why he can’t put them on all of them.

Mr. Duffy stated that he would have the addresses on final plat.

Mr. Haller stated that he would like them on the primary plat. In the packet he gave them a schedule of septic types for each lot, but it’s dated July 2005.

Mr. Duffy stated that that was from the original submission.

Ms. Cadwell stated that they’ve both been updated.

Mr. Haller asked if Lots 1, 2 and 3 on this plat correspond with Lots 1, 2 and 3 on here.

Ms. Cadwell stated, no.

Mr. Duffy stated that there’s a new letter that’s been generated.

Mr. Cole stated, in previous conversation they’ve talked about the open space possibly being shared with the Girl Scout camp as a gesture of goodwill and allowing it to be used by nature lovers.  He thought about that, and he thought that the homeowners’ association would have to agree in the covenants.  Not every homeowner might agree because of a liability issue and he just thought he’d bring it up. Regarding the question of liability, insurance companies get kind of specific about that.  That might be something they might want to prepare in regards to either denying any use by the Girl Scouts or sharing it with some contingencies, some responsibilities on their part.

Mr. Duffy asked what the policy on that has been from the County’s point of view.

Mr. Thompson stated that the way the language goes it’s specific to those lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the reason for that is that it’s specific for the insurance and the taxes and the maintenance fee to tie down a specific group. 

Mr. Cole asked if this is pretty much at the top of a hill. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that he just had a question on the open space.  He’s got two 30-foot strips back to the open space. Is there an issue with the width of that?

Mr. Thompson stated that it needs the perimeter landscaping.  The question that the 50-foot access addresses is that’s it’s 50 foot to a proposed internal road and there’s no internal road proposed.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they have driveways across from them.  One of the problems we have when there are people living across the street from one another, sometimes they set their houses and their driveways so that when one guy’s coming out of his drive, his lights are going right into the house across the street and sometimes the homeowners on the new development set the bedrooms so the lights from the driveway across the way come right in. He thinks we have to be aware of that, and at least urge the developer and homebuilders to kind of plan for that.

Mr. Thompson asked if they are going to do a plan to show erosion on this just to make sure that Sand Creek is protected.

Mr. Duffy stated that in this instance he doesn’t know that anything other than the standard lot detail for erosion control for the individual building sites would apply, because the open space is going to be restricted to no construction on it.

Issues raised were commitment to swale along Lot 1; rework open space wording; additional provision to covenants that prevailing party can recoup attorney fees; existing house, though legal non-conforming, can’t be expanded – if it burns down, it would have to be built on the same footprint; plans regarding legal non-conforming pole barn; document sight distance from driveway; add addresses to primary plat; address sharing or denying open space with Girl Scouts; watch how driveways line up with ones across the street to avoid light issues.

Case 09-4-7.   Petition of Delgado Construction, 280 Larwick Court, Valparaiso, seeking review for the 23rd Replat at Aberdeen, to be located Lot V-16 Aberdeen Phase A on the North side of Fentree Drive, North of Tayside Street, in Center Township.  To contain 4 lots on 1.364 acres. Zoned PUD. (Sec.33-35N-6W)

Jim Hipskind of Palm & Associates stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated that he was speaking with Bob Palm on this one.

Mr. Hipskind stated that they are taking one multi-family lot and are subdividing it into 4 single-family home lots.  Originally, this lot was planned for 21 condos; that never went through.

Mr. Thompson stated that he dealt with Mr. Palm and the Realtor on this one and they were going through the covenants on Aberdeen to figure out exactly what could go on this lot.  Mr. Palm called him back up and said his client wants to put up single-family, four of them. He looked at it and they could have gone metes and bounds type descriptions to divide off this lot, probably, but they both agreed that probably the cleanest way to do this is to come in with a replat.  It’s going from 21 living units down to 4, so it’s a major change, but it’s not one that he felt is deserving of a public hearing. There is less impervious surface and housing units that are going to be in there. 

Mr. Nix asked if there is a retention pond close by one of these lots.

Mr. Thompson stated that when you go in the main entryway and they have those little commercial strips with a fountain there and a stop or yield there, turn right – if you’re going back into the gated section, it’s that one vacant parcel there. Right behind it is that large pond.  If you’re on the 14th tee, you have to tee off right across that pond there.

Mr. Larr stated that he’s just assuming that as they go through the process the erosion control plan will be filed, especially for the protection of the storm water ponds and the golf course.

Mr. Hipskind stated that the Rule 5 permit had been extended.

Mr. Joseph asked if there are existing sidewalks out there.

Mr. Hipskind stated, not in front of this lot.

Mr. Joseph asked, an adjacent lot?

Mr. Hipskind stated that there’s open space on both sides, so, no. 

Mr. Thompson asked if there is any way to connect some lots with possible sidewalks.

Mr. Hipskind stated that they could put sidewalks and then put a stud so they can get across the street.

Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Siminski if he checked out the addresses on this.

Mr. Siminski stated that he was going to ask what the adjacent addresses were first.

Mr. Thompson stated that he doesn’t think there are any residential structures on this side. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that he agrees that this is substantially reducing the impacts of the use of utilities, drainage, traffic…you name it.  When you’re talking to or about the golf course, are there issues with errant balls coming toward the houses?

Mr. Thompson stated that there’s always that possibility of errant golf balls.  The tee’s kind of to the Northeast of this, and the way you have to shoot, the pond is coming across this  and you have to shoot pretty much straight across this.  It’s a pretty wooded area.  He doubts any golf balls would get into that area. 

Mr. Haller stated that Mr. Delgado needs silt fence like there’s no tomorrow on these four, when ground is broken.  He sees storm water detention written all over this thing.

Mr. Cole asked what the multi-family was.

Mr. Hipskind stated that it had 21 condo units with underground parking.

Mr. Cole asked how tall the buildings were to be.

Mr. Hipskind stated, three stories.

Mr. Cole stated that he guesses he’s a proponent of multi-family.  It reduces the amount of ground that’s necessary to sell off to other people for their big mansions, but he can understand why, in this area, he would probably want to revert to single-family residences.

Issues raised were Rule 5 permit was extended; erosion control plan; sidewalks; addresses; silt fencing.

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)

Don Bengel stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated that they have Variances for minimum lot width for the RR district; reduction of frontage on Lot 1 from 160 to 60 feet; waive sidewalks; waive storm water standards and requirements; and conventional subdivision, to waive the 30 foot of common area between all lots and all their parent tract boundaries to create a 2-lot subdivision.

Mr. Bengel stated, actually, that was a reduction on the 30-feet on the North side of the drive.   He stated that Mr. Staresina lived on this site for more than 20 years and built a very nice house and a nice pond, and he would like to downsize and build a new house in the front that would be on Lot 2.  He and his neighbor to the South cleaned out this ditch that goes down on Cruz’s property, comes back, and goes to Lot 2 and out across the road. In the back he butts up against Fox Burrow Run.  He actually owns Lot 20 there. He bought that for protection for his own house.  This is served by water and sewer and the road is paved. It’s a dead-end road that goes up to about 600 and quits.  He had to come back to BZA a second time because they didn’t have the Variance in there for the width of the lot.  They started this and used the former map and didn’t know that they changed the zoning to RR. 

Ms. Cadwell asked if there’s a sewer line that already runs along the frontage of this.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes. This line goes all the way up, he thinks, to the Girl Scouts.

Mr. Joseph stated that in his notes Mr. Bengel has that the minimum side-yard setback is 15, but it’s actually 30 feet; the drawing is fine.   He had said that he would show where the existing trees were for the street trees and he must have missed doing that.

Mr. Thompson asked if there is any open space.

Mr. Bengel stated that he doesn’t think it’s required on two lots.

Mr. Thompson stated that if he’s referring to the minor subdivision, there is no such thing.  He has to have it.

Mr. Bengel stated that they didn’t consider this a minor sub.

Mr. Thompson stated that he has to have open space.

Mr. Bengel stated that he and Mr. Joseph read the book and it said under four lots.

Mr. Thompson stated that that language was put in there because of the minor subdivision, but shortly after, they had the open space ordinance approved, the minor sub was repealed.   The minimum open space would be required, at least.  Please tell him they’re going to be accessing off the asphalt drive and not to try to put a culvert in there.

Mr. Bengel stated, no, they had an agreement and there is a note on there about ingress/egress and utility easement.

Mr. Breitzke asked if he could extend the drainage easement straight North through Lot 1, the one over on Lot 2.  That way they have enough room that if there is a problem with the 5-foot diameter CMP they have enough easement.

Mr. Bengel asked, what if they put it a couple feet South of the asphalt drive?

Mr. Breitzke asked, what’s the problem with it being on the drainage easement?  He’d like to have it just go straight up, too, just to keep things simple.  The problem is that that tube is pretty deep and, if something happens, they’ve got to repair it, they’re going to be cutting back quite a distance to get a new one in. 

Mr. Haller asked if Mr. Staresina has had any problem with the drainage coming off of Tower Meadows. He stated that he knows the Cruzes had an issue with water.

Mr. Bengel stated that Cruz did, but between him and Cruz they cleaned this arm out here.

Mr. Haller stated, because they’re going to build on Lot 2, so he just doesn’t want any trouble later.

Mr. Cole stated, for the record, if he’s correct, Mr. Bengel said when we approve this, or if we approve this – we’re not an approval agency.  We’re satisfied with the engineering, we’re satisfied with the codes; essentially you sit there to satisfy DAC that everything is copacetic, but we do not approve. DAC talked about one time about the large area to the East, which I guess not is probably going to be encompassing some open space, or hopefully, but we’d also talked about possible development of Lot 1 into 2 lots, and he thinks we would probably want to stipulate that no future development occurred in lot 1, and make that part of the covenants.

Mr. Bengel stated that that’s up to the Plan Commission.  He’s not sure he can do that.

Mr. Cole stated that Lot 20 in Fox Burrow is a separate parcel.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks we brought up before that, we really emphasize that they should not have a basement and should be very careful with the whole situation with the water here.

Issues raised were to put minimum 30-foot side-yard septic in notes; show trees; need open space; extend drainage easement straight North to North line of Lot 1; stipulate no future development on Lot 1; emphasize should not have basements.

Case 09-4-9.  Petition of Ourbor, LLC, 400 Southfield Ln., Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat review for a major subdivision, Arbor Lakes Estates Phase A, to be located on Case 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. Bengel stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter.  They’ve been about 2.5 years trying to get this thing to the point where it is now. This is the first phase of maybe two or three phases, maybe four, in the whole subdivision.  This particular part is separate from the rest of the development by a big ravine, that’s called Open Space Parcel A, on this plat.  There’ve been a few little lot changes, which he thinks they made on the primary plat approval.  Otherwise, it conforms with the primary.  It has water and sewer.  They added a conservation easement along the back of Lots 19-11, which is basically the top of the slope.  This will have sidewalks.

Mr. Nix stated that there will be some pretty good slopes.  The pump area, in the Southeast corner, is that for the septic itself.

Mr. Bengel stated that it’s for water. 

Mr. Nix stated that there are two drains in the Northeast corner.  Is that a 15?  Does that drain continue all the way…

Mr. Bengel stated that that easement is for the sanitary.

Mr. Nix stated that he thought that drain runs across the top of it, too.

Mr. Bengel stated that between Lots 10 and 11 that’s a utility easement and also access to the open space.  There’ll be a storm sewer in there; there’ll be sanitary and open space access.

Mr. Nix asked if the drain outlets halfway down the slope or does it outlet all the way at the bottom…

Mr. Bengel stated that it will be near the top of the slope.  They’ve got a drain that goes down to the pond from there.

Mr. Nix asked if this outlets into the proposed pond. Does this free flow or have a tube?

Mr. Bengel stated that it will free flow from there.

Mr. Larr asked if this is West of Leanna Lane.

Mr. Bengel stated, West.  Leanna Lane is part of Stonegate. 

Mr. Larr asked if Stonegate is on the same sanitaries.

Mr. Bengel stated that they have septics.

Mr. Larr asked if  the natural drainage of the groundwater goes to the Northwest.

Mr. Bengel stated, to the North. It all narrows down into that wetland in Shorewood and crosses that path, then there’s a ditch to my son’s yard. A lot of times that ditch will fill up almost to the bank, and once or twice has gone beyond the bank.  His yard is two stories below his basement level, and it filled his yard up.  Two hours after it quit raining, it was completely gone, into the ditch.

Mr. Thompson stated that the series of inlets, the one is going into Pond 5.  The one he’s concerned about is up by Lots 2 and 20, running between 20 and 19.  Where is that going to flow?

Mr. Bengel stated that that will go into this waterway, that big ravine, then into a pond.

Mr. Thompson asked, the agreement that was made with the Summerhill people with that storm sewer is going to be constructed when?

Mr. Bengel stated, as far as he’s concerned, it will be constructed when he gets over there. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that we want to do it before this starts. This is one of the first things we want to see in any development, that the storm water is taken care of, not just by phase, but any part that has significant impact on any of the neighbors.   He would rather see the system be put in.

Mr. Bengel stated that when he does it is up to him.  That’s far removed from this section.

Mr. Thompson stated that he does have the agreement and everything like that, but he was just thinking it would be a good faith measure for those people that live in Summerhill.  Since there was an agreement made, he thinks Commissioner Harper sat there and said he would work out some of the things.  If  they could get together and sit down and discuss this.

Mr. Breitzke stated that his intent was to contact him next week.  Mr. Harper has the money now.  We want to make sure that money’s available, and we can’t guarantee that’s going to be the situation 6 months to a year from now. Plus, if something happens and Mr. Blum sells off the balance of this to another developer, we want to emphasize whoever in the future would be open to what we’re talking about.

Mr. Bengel stated that to put the drain in is no problem; the outlet is a big deal.

Mr. Riddell stated that we need to get the performance guarantee going. 

Mr. Breitzke stated that approval will be based in part on getting the drain in Summerhill taken care of.

Mr. Haller stated that he thinks one of the bases for approval by Plan Commission is that a written erosion control plan be submitted with this.

Mr. Bengel stated that it was.

Mr. Haller stated that we will need two copies of the erosion control plan signed by Mr. Blum.  And he should think about buying some product other than silt fence.

Issues raised were build storm sewer before subdivision starts; estimate for performance guarantee; two copies of erosion control plan signed by developer; take care of Summerhill drain.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2.27 p.m.