DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Regular Meeting
March 17, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Development Review Committee was held on March 17, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Kelly Cadwell, David Schelling, Jack Clem, Tim Cole, Harvey Nix, James Branham and Robert W. Thompson Jr. Also present was Toni Byers.

Informal review for proposed subdivision by Nick Andjelich at 600 N., between CR 450 W. and CR 500 W., in Portage Township.

Don Bengel stated that he is representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter. He stated that this case came as a rezoning petition before the Plan Commission a few months ago without a lot of information. He stated that now the developer has come in and the first phase of the subdivision would be what they show as the perimeter lots and it would be served by water and sewer, which allows in the RR zone the lot width to go down to 130 feet. He stated that in the layout they have they are all bigger than that, but that’s the allowable. He stated that the sewer would be served from the East side of 450, just a manhole, and at this time they propose to go down the rear of all the lots with that sewer. He stated that Indiana American Water will, he imagines, go down the rights-of-way and he’s pretty sure that will be in the front of the lots. He stated that all the roads are collector roads so that will be 80 foot full right-of-way, 40 feet on each side. He stated that the pipeline is going through the middle of it. He stated that most of the storm drainage goes to the East, and there’s a large culvert across 450 and goes down and that’s where they would dump their detention pond water into.

Mr. Schelling stated that he would hate to see all those drives on arterial roads; that’s not good planning.

Mr. Thompson stated that his question would be, where is the imagination in this. He stated that his opinion on how to proceed on this would be, don’t.

Mr. Bengel stated that this is the land that they acquired and by necessity this is what the design is.

Mr. Thompson stated that he doesn’t think it’s by necessity.

Mr. Branham asked if the water lines exist now.

Mr. Bengel stated that he thinks they exist down on 450, but they would have to go on on 600 and 500.



Mr. Branham asked if there are plans on having the water company install fire hydrants along the rights-of-way.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Branham stated that they need to be marked. He stated that at some point when they are laying this out they need to talk to the Fire Department and agree with them where they want the hydrants and how far apart.

Mr. Thompson stated, I hate it, I absolutely hate it. He stated that it’s terrible.

Mr. Schelling stated that he agrees.

Mr. Bengel stated that the question it begs is is it legal or non-legal.

Mr. Thompson stated, oh, fine, ram it down our throats then – it’s legal, yes. He stated that the reason why we try to catch up and write codes is so that that way we don’t see garbage like this.

Mr. Schelling stated that he can’t disagree with anything that he said. He stated that there is really no planning, no road design. He stated that it’s a glorified selling off of frontage. He stated that they show a 60-foot access evidently to the interior. He asked what the plan is for the interior.

Mr. Bengel stated that when they acquire that they will come up with a plan.

Mr. Schelling stated that the 60-foot…any access has to have a radius. He stated that they are presenting a non-conforming situation right away that Lot 16 is supposed to be a radius and they show a corner.

Mr. Bengel stated that this is informal; they’re not down to those details yet.

Mr. Schelling stated that he hates all these drives coming out onto the collector type roads. He stated that that’s poor planning.

Mr. Clem asked what is in the center of this.

Mr. Andjelich stated that it’s farm ground.

Mr. Clem asked if he only bought up the outside.

Mr. Andjelich stated that he’s under contract, contingent.

Mr. Clem asked if he couldn’t get a contract for the center of it.



Mr. Andjelich stated that he can get into that whole discussion if he likes. He stated that he also came in for a zoning change and thought they were going to deny him, so he went with what was existing, went to the book, and followed the rules.

Mr. Clem stated that he just doesn’t think it’s a good plan.

Case 04-MS-38. Petition of Marty Good, 401 E. 300 S., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a minor subdivision, Morgan 2544-C-1, to be located on the North side of CR 300 S., between CR 325 E. and CR 500 E. To contain 4 lots on 4.77 acres. Zoned AG. (Sec.15-34N-5W)

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

Mr. Schelling asked if DAC is allowed to approve minor subdivisions.

Mr. Thompson stated that that’s something that he still doesn’t know.

Mr. Schelling stated that he had a guy come in his office with a minor sub on 600 W., Mr. Lungu, and he was told that he had to have a major subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated that it was approved by the then TAC, and then was appealed to the Plan Commission, who overturned TAC’s approval of the plan, so he did not have an active minor sub so he’s doing the whole process again. He stated, however, he has a question into the attorney on that. He stated that he told Mr. Bengel that it’s his opinion that this has to be forwarded to the Plan Commission.

Mr. Schelling stated that he doesn’t feel comfortable approving anything since they are no longer TAC.

Mr. Thompson stated that he’s going to be talking to Mr. Elwood about this. He stated that in this situation this was continued and it’s still a primary plat hearing and still an active application.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke joined the meeting.

Mr. Schelling stated that he doesn’t see how they can approve it.

Mr. Thompson stated that he’s talked briefly with the attorney who intended to come in this week, but he wasn’t able to make it yesterday, so they are rescheduling.

Mr. Schelling asked if site reviews have to be forwarded to the Plan Commission.

Mr. Thompson stated that that’s not official yet.


Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s not until the Commissioners sign that. He stated that we should just continue this for a legal opinion.

Mr. Bengel stated that this is one where they reduced 4 lots to 3 lots. He stated that he thinks the only concern was from the Health Department and the easement down to the ditch, and they showed a perimeter drain on that. He stated that on the final plat, since the owner owns all the ground, on the final plat they will dedicate that easement.

Ms. Cadwell asked, on the profile, is 89 the elevation of the water level?

Mr. Bengel stated that that was the bottom of the ditch at the time.

Ms. Cadwell asked if this is a regulated drain.

Mr. Bengel stated that Koselke Ditch is a regulated drain.

Ms. Cadwell asked if the developer is going to install a master tile.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Schelling asked what the water level was on that and what would the 100-year water elevation be.

Mr. Bengel stated that he can’t answer that question.

Mr. Schelling asked if that 100-year flood elevation will back up on that drain.

Mr. Bengel stated that this is up on 300. He stated that his best judgment is that it won’t be.

Mr. Schelling stated that it looks like they are only dropping a foot and a half.

Mr. Breitzke asked what the mark is at 91.5. He stated that he has the bottom at 89. He asked if that is the (inaudible) water level.

Mr. Bengel stated that they redesigned all the systems and kept the perimeter drain as high as they could.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks they requested that he push that up higher than it was before. He stated that he didn’t think that was the water level. He stated that he also needs a hold harmless agreement for putting this into the ditch.




Ms. Cadwell stated that her recommendation would be to keep those septic systems as shallow as possible, try to keep that outlet as high up on that ditch as possible.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they took out the one lot for septic conditions.

Mr. Bengel stated, two lots.

Mr. Breitzke asked if that is going to be a common drive.

Mr. Bengel stated, no.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they really prefer that.

Mr. Schelling stated that this is a collector road, and he thinks the drives should be grouped together and he doesn’t know how TAC can approve something when TAC doesn’t exist anymore.

Mr. Breitzke moved to continue Case 04-MS-38, subject to hold harmless agreement; recommend grouped drives; legal opinion. Mr. Schelling seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.

Case 04-MS-37. Petition of Marty Good Trustee, 401 E. 300 S., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a minor subdivision, Boone 1354-B-1, to be located on the East side of CR 200 W., between SR 8 and CR 750 S. To contain 4 lots on 4.6 acres. Zoned Ag. (Sec.15-34N-5W)

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

Mr. Bengel stated that they needed an outlet for their drain. He stated that they have a perimeter drain that serves Lots 2, 3, and 4 and then cuts over to the ditch and goes South to 8. He stated that these will all be shallow. He stated that on 2, 3 and 4 the drains all have to be 2 feet below the trench bottom.

Mr. Thompson asked if this goes all the way to the Phillips Ditch.

Mr. Bengel stated that this goes to a private ditch and then down to 8. He stated that the ditch works now, but he thinks there is a deal cooking between this owner and the adjacent owner to clean the ditch to help the adjacent owner out.

Ms. Cadwell asked if the number of 89.5 is the outlet to the water level.

Mr. Bengel stated that this one is 86.4. He stated that 89.5 is the end of the perimeter drain.

Ms. Cadwell asked if he just said the water level is at 86.





Mr. Bengel stated that there was no water in the ditch when he shot it.

Ms. Cadwell asked if this is a private ditch.

Mr. Bengel stated that it is.

Ms. Cadwell asked if there is an easement or anything around it.

Mr. Bengel stated that there will be an easement all the way down to 8.

Ms. Cadwell stated that what she is asking is if the ditch will have an easement around it, not just to the ditch.

Mr. Bengel stated that they will have an easement all the way to 8.

Ms. Cadwell stated that they would require that.

Mr. Schelling asked what ditch they are going to outlet into.

Mr. Nix stated that that ditch comes down South and then it loops around Mike Aylesworth’s and then it runs along Hwy 8.

Mr. Breitzke stated that Phillips is a half a mile East of here. He stated that that is a farm drain that we’re looking at. He stated that the thing is that they should have an easement created all the way down to 8, so if that gets obstructed they can work the whole thing out.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she would like to see a profile.

Mr. Schelling asked if a 10-foot easement is going to be sufficient cross-country like that. He stated that you won’t even be able to work in there if you have a piece of equipment.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they should have 20 to 30 feet, and he prefers 30 feet.

Mr. Bengel stated that the Health Department has been requiring anywhere between 10 to 15. He stated that they will make it 20 feet.

Ms. Cadwell stated that we don’t have a standard on it, but common sense dictates that it would be very difficult to get around.

Mr. Schelling stated that he feels that the drives should be grouped.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he agrees.




Mr. Schelling stated that on the easement for the subsurface drain, they said that that’s going to dump into a farm ditch. He stated that if that’s the case, there needs to be an easement from that to 8 or whatever.

Mr. Bengel stated that that’s what he said.

Ms. Cadwell asked if the developer is going to install a master tile.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Ms. Cadwell stated thank you.

Mr. Schelling moved to continue Case 04-MS-37, subject to easement all the way down to 8; profile of the drain and drain outlet; easement should be 20-30 feet wide; grouped drives. Mr. Clem seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.

Case 06-3-18. Petition of Applegarth Properties, LLC, 1510 Michigan Ave., LaPorte, seeking site review for a medical complex, to be located at 1861 S. Sturdy Rd., in Center Township. Zoned I-1. (Sec.30-30N-5W)

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

Mr. Thompson stated that this Case was continued for the following items: locating the well on the plans and that is still needed.

Mr. Bengel stated that he has been working on this since the last time this was heard. He stated that he thinks the main thing was drainage and how they are going to handle it. He stated that what they are proposing on the far West side, right now there is about 3.3 acres that drain South of where the green is on the plans, and that’s basically where the future buildings would go. He stated that after they finish they only have 1.17 acres draining that way, so they are asking to have that drainage, which the only improved part that would be draining that way would be part of the drive, a small part of the parking lot and probably half of the building. He stated that they propose to let that go undetained and then for everything else that can all be funneled into this pond. He stated that it seems to him that this is really the best place to put the pond, on the high ground, even though they have 34 acres of wetland. He stated that you got the sanitary sewer down there. He stated that he doesn’t think it’s a good design to put the pond down where the sewer is. He stated that he doesn’t think the manholes were under water last week, but they weren’t far from it. He stated that he thinks this goes a long way to alleviate any concerns about getting into the wetlands.




Mr. Breitzke stated that we need the drawings to show us what he is proposing. He stated that it sounds good; he’d like to see it. He stated that it seems like the idea was to slow down the water as it was coming over the top of the hill a bit, and maybe get a little more creative on the parking lot.

Mr. Bengel stated that the whole parking lot…they spread the parking lots apart and they are taking all the water from these two down through a swale between the parking lots. He stated that the only part not picked up would be the far West end of Parking Lot B. He stated that everything else will go down into the swale and kept on the site into this proposed pond area.

Mr. Thompson asked how deep the pond is going to be.

Mr. Bengel stated, 2 to 3 feet.

Mr. Thompson asked what they are going to plant in there.

Mr. Bengel stated that he has a landscaper working on it. He stated that it’s going to be a dry pond.

Mr. Schelling asked how much of the impervious area they are going to be getting into the pond.

Mr. Bengel stated, all but about 60 feet of Parking Lot B and then the driveway from Sturdy up to where the entrance to the other two parking lots is.

Ms. Cadwell stated that they still need to locate the well on here.

Mr. Nix asked if that pond is wrapping around like more to the back side of this where that swale is.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Schelling stated that he really doesn’t like long ponds like that.

Mr. Bengel stated that the Plan Commission doesn’t like square ponds.

Mr. Schelling asked if he is going to have multiple outlets for the pond.

Mr. Bengel stated that if they go as long as they do, they will.

Mr. Cole stated that Dr. Applegarth indicated that he was going to be talking to an environmentalist about looking for the best way to develop the open areas of this property as well as enhance the areas surrounding his development part. He asked who he has talked with.




Mr. Bengel stated that he doesn’t know.

Mr. Cole stated that he would like to see the soil reports, as always.

Mr. Bengel stated that this is on City sewer.

Mr. Cole stated that he would like to know more about what the plans are, especially when we are talking about square, oblong, rectangular ponds. He stated that this area deserves something really nice.

Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to reiterate what Mr. Cole said and that he would like to see his landscaping plans.

Mr. Breitzke asked if there is no plan to take water down to this building. He stated that he said they are going to use a well, but they aren’t going to get Valparaiso water yet? He stated that there is a good possibility that some development will be proposed across the street in the near future. He stated, the sanitary sewer for the building itself, he might consider taking it out the East of the building and bring it back down so they are not putting a line under the detention pond, just in case, because there’s always a good possibility of infiltration into to line. He asked if they are going to put this robust kind of access in from the very beginning.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he has a real nice opportunity for a boulevard type landscaping. He stated that it would be nice to figure out some way to break up the parking lot a little bit more, but with the pond at the South end, his bigger concern was catching the runoff, the silt, the stuff off the cars before it gets down to that wetlands below him. He stated that he is going to suggest that they have multiple outlets and design it accordingly.

Mr. Schelling asked if they are going to clean up the right-of-way on 150 E.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes. He stated that there is not that much of a ditch down there South of the driveway.

Mr. Schelling stated that he thinks he mentioned last time that there should be some cleaning up of the North side, too. He stated that he also wanted the dimensions of the parking lots.

Mr. Breitzke moved to continue Case 06-3-18, subject to locating the well on the plans; showing the proposed pond on the drawing; landscaping plan; multiple outlets for the pond with erosion control; dimensions for the length of the parking lot. Mr. Schelling seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.




Case 06-3-19. Petition of SW Developers LLC, 2602 Beech St., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Tower Meadows, to be located at 531 N. 250 W., in Center Township. To contain 125 lots on 51.497 acres. Zoned R-1. (Sec.4-35N-6W)

Dave Croft and Bill Ferngren stated that they are representing the petitioners in this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated that he went through the checklist and made a list of some things that were not addressed: open space and he needs to take a look at the intensity bonus and use and calculations; use of lakes. He stated that he doesn’t even know if they are lakes. He asked, what are they? He asked what they are doing with that and those open space areas. He stated that he didn’t see the details. He stated that the plans need to be stamped. He stated, prior platted streets and lots within 300 feet, they should show a little more about Fox Burrow Run and how close they are to 250 W. that goes into Glenwood Hills, if they could show that. He stated that he didn’t see a cross-section of the streets.

Mr. Croft stated that there should be a note regarding it.

Mr. Thompson stated that they needed more details on the pond type and design and discharge design and maintenance of the pond. He stated that we need the Highway report, the drainage needs to be approved by the Highway engineer and Surveyor. He stated, from the storm water ordinance, along with the fact that he didn’t see much detail on the pond, he felt that the outlets needed detail. He stated that they needed the outlet detail.

Mr. Schelling stated that 250 W. is a collector road, so the right-of-way would be 80 feet, 40 for half.

Mr. Croft stated that this will be on sewer and water.

Ms. Cadwell stated that there are some existing buildings on there and they need to abandon the well and septics properly.

Mr. Croft stated that the existing homes will stay. He stated that there are some buildings along 550 N. that will come down.

Ms. Cadwell asked if they have located the septic to make sure that they are on their property.

Mr. Croft stated that they have been told the approximate area of where they are at, just North of the homes, within the property. He stated that the developer also owns those two homes.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she would like to see that on the drawing. She stated that on Page 4 they have Chicory misspelled.

Mr. Nix asked where the ponds go to.


Mr. Croft stated that there are culverts that leave the site. He stated that the pond that they are proposing on the West end would outlet through that culvert and on the other side of the road, a copy of the wetlands inventory map, they show a wetlands area from the West side of the road from 250 and on the North side of 550, there is a wetlands area that these drain into. He stated that this culvert currently…this is Hampton Manor and they are constructing a pond here. He stated that they are currently outletting it on the ground here and it comes through this site. He stated that the pond will accept that water and detain it.

Mr. Nix asked if they build theirs are you guys going to have a swale through yours?

Mr. Croft stated that he has a small open space area that also has the…right in this area, that they are going to have a pipe to take that water and drain it into the pond. He stated that their lift station is also on that parcel. He stated that both of these ponds will be wet bottomed.

Mr. Branham stated that he doesn’t see a detail of where the fire hydrants are going to be. He stated that he would strongly suggest that Indiana American detail where the water lines will be and where the hydrants will be located and he might want to talk to Valpo fire department about this.

Mr. Thompson stated that at Fox Burrow Run there are some large cross pipes that go under that road near the entrance and he is wondering if that is going towards the easement that’s already within that subdivision, the storm water for that subdivision off 550 N. and he was wondering if he could check into that.

Mr. Croft stated that they can look into that and see where they are.

Mr. Breitzke stated that Chicory is a continuation of Fox Burrow. He stated that those pipes should be to the East and that water goes Northwesterly along the Northwest side of Glenwood Hills into a tributary of Salt Creek. He stated that there is a wetlands to the West, a big wetlands, that kind of bleeds off into Pepper Creek, which also ends up in Salt Creek. He stated that as you are going to the West we just want to make sure that they have that water path that exists. He stated that we are still looking for the blue lines on the USGS and the continuity for the water flow.

Mr. Thompson stated that they need the EPA release. He stated that they need to work more on the offsite water issues. He stated that he wants to see more details on the pond. He stated that he kind of would like to see a little more open area.

Mr. Breitzke asked what the parcel is South of Open Space A that’s kind of odd-shaped with an existing building on it.



Mr. Croft stated that it’s an existing residence.

Mr. Breitzke asked if that is going to continue to be an existing residence.

Mr. Schelling asked if that has anything to do with the subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren stated, no. He stated that those are the exceptions that Ms. Cadwell was talking about.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he would like to see those labeled as lots right away and dedicated as part of the subdivision etc. and just they are talking about one East of Open Space A, also. He stated that the open space itself, is there a dedication of right-of-way through the open space to the highway?

Mr. Croft stated, yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks they are okay as far as the outlets and stuff.

Mr. Thompson stated that he was looking at the proposed grading plan, and the back lots, 18-26, he didn’t see anything for that and he wasn’t sure how they were handling that.

Mr. Croft stated that the obvious way would be to take it West.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the street cross-section with utility locations, the soil profile they have. He asked if they have geotextile under it and if they will have it under all the pavement.

Mr. Croft stated that that was not their intent.

Mr. Schelling stated that the detail shows it and he accepted that detail.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he might want to review that. He stated that he has no problem with what he has, but prime goes between binder and the base, and tack would go between the binder and finish. He stated that he would suggest that there are areas that need geotextile under and might need under-drains.

Mr. Schelling stated that any hydric soils need them.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he hasn’t had a chance to go back through them and make sure that there are emergency overflows at all the sag locations.

Mr. Schelling stated that 250 W. is a collector road, so that would be an 80-foot total right-of-way. He stated that the water lines are to be on the South and West sides. He stated that he would



like to have a no-access easement surrounding the subdivision on the existing County roads, except for the road locations. He asked if they show the handicapped ramps at the sidewalks.

Mr. Croft stated that they do.

Mr. Schelling stated that that needs to be the truncated stamped colored concrete.

Mr. Croft stated that he knows Valpo has had a problem with using the stamped concrete. He stated that the domes flake off shortly after they’ve been stamped. He stated that Valpo’s standard, he believes, is to use a Nena casting that sets in there.

Mr. Schelling stated that he is a little disappointed. He stated that there are a couple of street offsets that are just exceeding the minimum. He stated that they have to be 150 feet, and he thinks they are at 160 or so. He stated that it meets the requirements, but if there is any way of them making it even farther apart, or lining them up, that would be appreciated.

Mr. Cole stated that he would ask that they have some imagination and respect for the open space. He stated that it’s not just the detention pond or a bunch of bushes and trees and grass to be mowed. He stated that it’s really meant to be bio-diversity.

Mr. Schelling asked if there are any visibility issues at the existing County road where it’s coming out.

Mr. Croft stated that he doesn’t think there is any issue at all along 250. He stated that at 550 N. they are lining up with Fox Burrow and Chicory.

Mr. Cole asked if Grandale Drive is stubbed into an empty field in there.

Mr. Croft stated, yes.

Mr. Cole asked if they are going to protect that empty field in some manner.

Mr. Croft stated that they are just going to put a T-turnaround and a guardrail.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she would like to make an appeal to get the two existing homes on sewer.

Mr. Clem stated that they should watch the erosion control.









Mr. Breitzke moved to continue Case 06-3-19, subject to details for the lakes; prior platted streets and show Fox Burrow Run and 300 M.; cross-section of streets; pond design; discharge design, more details on the ponds; Highway report; outlets need storm water detail; erosion control detail; 80-foot right-of-way or 250 W.; show location of existing septics; spell Chicory correctly; show where to place fire hydrants; EPA release; a little more open area; label the existing residences etc. and adjacent parcels; street cross-section with utility locations; prime between stone and binder; emergency overflow at all sag locations; water lines on South and West sides; no-access easement surrounding the subdivision on the County roads; casting on handicapped ramps; try to get more area on the street offsets; try to get existing homes on sewer. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.

Case 06-2-14. Petition of DBL Development, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Augustine, to be located on the East side of CR 325 E., the South side of CR 400 N. and the West side of CR 400 E., in Washington Township. To contain 70 lots on 127.35 acres. Zoned RR. (Sec.16-35N-5W)

Jason Hanaway stated that he is representing and accompanied by one of the petitioners in this matter, Larry Bucher.

At this time, Mr. Thompson left the meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this was continued subject to the following items: Health Department letter and that is still needed; soil scientist’s statement if he feels the soils aren’t hydric or not 1 percent slope, and that is still needed; investigate extension of the water services.

Mr. Hanaway stated that in the meeting two weeks ago they had mentioned that the cost to extend would be more than what…

Mr. Breitzke asked if he had any numbers for the Committee.

Mr. Bucher stated that the water main goes to the end of the school, goes to Powdertech. He stated that they were told that to have water they would have to extend the main all the way from the beginning of Powdertech, all the way through to the end of their property, and then Charles McIntyre would want it to be a loop, in case there’s ever a leak. He stated that also along 400 E. it would extend again to the end of their property. He stated that it would cost $55 a foot for main and $45 for everything internal. He stated that therefore they would be looking at around $700,000, and it’s not cost effective. He stated that they mentioned about hydrants, the insurance people said that because of the proximity to the fire station, it’s right across 2, and that it would be of no advantage.





Mr. Breitzke stated that Mr. McIntyre is an employee of the Valparaiso water company and he does the planning and the estimates. He stated that they were to renumber the lots in the Southwest corner, and they have done that; rework the curves or ask for a Variance, and they have reworked all but three of them and they will be requesting a Variance on those three; 40-foot right-of-way dedicated on 400 E. and a 50-foot right-of-way dedicated on 400 N., and they have that; signed and stamped drainage calculations, and they have those; 75-foot tapers on each entry, and they have that; outlet and pond design details, and they have those; more elevations on rear-yard drainage and details.

Mr. Hanaway stated that he’s added some additional flow arrows and some grade to the back.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they were to show all roads within 300 feet and to label them, and that has been done; 100-year flood elevation for Hutton Ditch and that’s been provided, but we will need more information on that; may need DNR permit for construction in a floodway, and DNR has been contacted; USGS drawing showing water coming in and going out of the subdivision, and they have that; try to keep the ditch crossing at less than 20 feet, and that’s the span of the bridge, and they are still working on the design.

Mr. Hanaway stated that right now the preliminary number is a Conspan bridge that’s 7 feet for the rise, for the span, but he’s looking at doing something different so they can shorten that up. He stated that the bridge designer doesn’t feel that the Conspan would be the best option there, so he’s looking at doing more of a steel truss.

Mr. Schelling stated that we can talk about that later, but we want to minimize our maintenance.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they needed a 10-foot clear zone from the back of curb, and they need to add a note.

At this time, Ms. Cadwell left the meeting.

Mr. Clem stated that the temporary exit pads need to be 100 feet, rather than 50 feet.

At this time, Mr. Thompson rejoined the meeting.

At this time, Ms. Cadwell rejoined the meeting.

Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Hanaway talked to him and he was out with Mr. Bucher on the site and it was concerning the ditch that’s running through. He stated that they were driving through it and there was no running water. He stated that he was a little hung up on whether or not he could call it a natural feature. He stated that he did see water at the two ends underneath the bridge and under the culverts under SR, but he didn’t see anything in the middle.



Mr. Schelling stated that if nothing else, he would bet that on the USGS it shows it as an intermittent stream.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s a regulated drain. He stated that the question is percentage of open space because this is a natural feature or not, and really it’s a farm ditch that was created out in the middle of the country, so he would be inclined to agree with him.

Mr. Bucher stated that they feel like they meet not only the spirit of the ordinance, but the letter of it, based on pictures he takes of the stream every week with no water in it.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s not just the water – it’s the wildlife, the flora, that kind of thing and he doesn’t think there is a lot of that evident there.

Mr. Thompson stated that he’s encouraging them to put a trail through there.

Mr. Hanaway stated that that is the intent, to run along the rear lots on the East side of the ditch with a path.

Mr. Breitzke stated that at Drainage Board they really prefer not to have a lot of trees planted along that stretch, or, if they are, that they are back away from the waterway. He stated that there is the tendency of them to break off, fall in, and clutter the ditch.

Mr. Bucher stated that the landscape plan does not call for any trees in the 75-foot band that would be on both sides of the ditch. He stated that it’s prairie grass with wildflower plantings, with a mulch walking path that would define the back of the lots, because we’ve seen other designs where people don’t define the back of the lots, and then they’re selling these lots that defeat the spirit of the open space ordinance. He stated that that doesn’t set it aside and people wouldn’t feel comfortable to walk and enjoy the open space, so they are going to define it with a trail that would prohibit the people from mowing through it and it will attach at both ends. He stated that people from neighboring subdivisions will be able to access it.

Mr. Branham stated that he would like to thank them for their research into getting water. He stated that he didn’t know how expensive it would be. He stated that he is surprised at what the insurance company had to say about the water. He stated that fire departments depend on water supplies and regardless of how close you are to the station, having water that close by to the hydrant makes a big difference sometimes.

Mr. Nix stated that this property about 12 or 13 years ago he went out there to do some surveying, and the one concern is on the plan at one time at Highway 2 right there they had like 8-foot tubes and they had about two of them. He stated that downstream from that,



before it gets to 450, she plugged up right there, and then it blew out on Samuelson’s property, then it backed all the way out, then it covered lots just before the bridge, Lots 36, 37, 38. 39 and then it jumped up onto 49 over there, and that was water probably this deep in the lots. He asked, when you do this ditch, are you going to do any reconstruction of this ditch itself, because some of those lots are half Washtenau soils on some of them. He stated that he knows when that flashes, it will cover those lots up.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that goes back to our discussion on the 100-year flood. He stated that he thinks we had an episode where things got plugged up down there and it really got backed up.

Mr. Nix stated that when he was out there there were some ravines to the West of there coming up, adjacent, cutting across depositing silt. He stated that when he went out there he could only drive about 50 feet from that ditch and the rest of it, he put waders on. He stated that it wasn’t dry then. He stated that when this thing gets there and backs up it goes back to those tubes, fills all the way to the top of the berm near the school, then all of a sudden will eventually back down. He stated that those tubes never went to the highway before. He stated that they always turned on a catty-corner and went along the tube and then crossed under. He stated that they changed those two big tubes there probably in the early ‘80s. he stated that they will have one pond that will cut some of that water that comes from the West and comes down all the way from the road.

Mr. Hanaway stated that the runoff that comes from 325 E. kind of comes into our property and goes through those (inaudible) there, and there’s a defined drainage easement that goes through that property and then comes back into our property and will end up going into the street sewer system.

Mr. Nix stated that maybe the one pond will help cut that off.

Ms. Cadwell stated that she somewhat agrees with Mr. Nix, but more along the aspect of the septic systems. She stated that she did just get a map showing their newly mapped hydric areas. She stated that they will have to have that signed by the soil scientist and they do not consider hydric soils to be useable acreage. She stated there are more conditions to the rule than just if it has 1 percent slope. She stated that in this case it also can’t outlet into a closed depression, so between Lots 27 and 26 that hydric soil would not be considered useable, so she really needs to have an acre for both Lot 27 and Lot 26. She stated that he might have it for 27, but she’s not sure about 26. She stated that it also might impact 23 and 24.

Mr. Hanaway stated that Lots 26 and 27 they have outlet drain in the front for those. He stated that it goes into the storm sewer system.





Ms. Cadwell stated that it has to do with the original topography, not how they are going to amend it. She stated that they are looking at just the soils and she realizes that they have an outlet, but this is a historically closed depression.

Mr. Hanaway stated that there should be an acre on both those lots.

Ms. Cadwell stated that they have 1.3 acres, but did they subtract out the hydric soils.

Mr. Hanaway stated, yes.

Ms. Cadwell stated that they have the total acreage at 1.4, and then the useable at 1.33…the hydric soil is higher than .07 acres. She asked if he is sure the useable is accurate.

Mr. Hanaway stated, yes.

Ms. Cadwell stated that Lot 7, 8, and 9…anywhere the hydric soil impacts the lot they will need to subtract that out.

Mr. Schelling asked if we need a drainage easement along the back yards.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s what they were asking for when they went through the checklist.

Mr. Schelling stated that on the West line of Lot 15 that probably should line up with the West lot line of 21 if there is going to be an easement needed in that area, it might need to go all the way to the road both North and South of that location. He stated that he doesn’t know how necessary it would be for those two lots to line up on that West line, but that might be an issue.

Mr. Breitzke moved to continue Case 06-2-14, subject to Health Department letter; soil scientist’s letter regarding new map; more information on the flood elevation of the Hutton Ditch (may need DNR permit to work in a floodway); note regarding 10-foot clear zone from back of curb; temporary construction drive should be 100 feet; need acreage for Lots 26 and 27 and check on Lots 23 and 24; West line of Lot 15 should line up with the West lot line of 21; rear-yard drainage easement; handicapped ramp details; rebars in curbs; Variances on curves; sign schedule on the plat. Ms. Cadwell seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.

Case 06-3-17. Petition of 100 North Properties, c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Sagamore, to be located on the North side of CR 100 N. and North of CR 325 W. and the East side of CR 350 W., in Union Township. To contain 200 lots on 165 acres. Zoned R-1. (Sec.29-35N-6W)



Bill Ferngren stated that he and Jim Hipskind are representing and accompanied by the petitioner in this matter, Rich Carlson.

Mr. Thompson stated that this case was continued subject to the following items: inlet spacing.

Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s ribbon curb.

Mr. Thompson stated that they needed a waiver for the water on the wrong side of the road, and they have that; letter from the sewer utility about willingness and capacity to serve, and a letter from Ted Fitzgerald is forthcoming but not there today; Variance or conservation waiver on the road standards.

Mr. Ferngren stated that nothing has changed with the right-of-way layout and they want to proceed with the plans as shown.

Mr. Schelling asked if they have done anything with the extension of 149 in this location.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they are going to petition to have that thoroughfare plan vacated and they need to figure out that process.

Mr. Schelling stated that goes right through the center of the subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated that they needed more specificity on lot grading, and they have that; Drainage Board review, and they have done that; Highway report, and we have that; protect tile as it crosses the entrance.

Mr. Carlson stated that there is an existing culvert under the driveway that goes to the home right now and it’s pretty close to where they will have the piping for their own storm system.

Mr. Thompson stated that they are to abandon the existing well and septic safely, and they will do that; talk to the Union fire chief about hydrant requirements, and they still need that; extend the right-of-way dedication on 350 W. to the Section line.

Mr. Hipskind stated that it does not go to the Section line.

Mr. Thompson stated that they needed a 24-inch ribbon curb with two #4 rebars, and they still need that.

Mr. Schelling stated that this is going to be a publicly maintained road.

Mr. Thompson stated that 12-foot lanes were recommended.

Mr. Schelling stated that they do not show that yet, and he has backing from the fire chief on that.



Mr. Thompson stated that they needed certified drainage calculations and plan sheets, and they have that; details on the T-turnaround, and those are shown; 10-foot clear zone from the edge of pavement and roads should comply with ASHTO requirements.

Mr. Carlson stated that they are still requesting to have street trees planted in the parkway between curb edge and sidewalk.

Mr. Thompson stated that they needed a 25-foot internal radius and 50-foot radius on outside of cul-de-sac for turnaround of emergency vehicles.

Mr. Carlson stated that at the last meeting they were given a layout by Union Township Fire Chief Beach on what he would like to see on the one cul-de-sac that they have and that there would be no problem.

Mr. Schelling asked if that is shown on the plan.

Mr. Carlson stated that the one they were given at the last meeting is the one they will be doing.

Mr. Thompson stated that they were to show how the drives will be handed on 100.

Mr. Carlson stated that they have shared driveways and that’s shown on the plans.

Mr. Thompson stated that they were to have an address extension of 149, and that still needs to be done; note regarding flood plain, and that is okay; emergency overflows at sag inlets, and there are no sag inlets.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he was going to suggest that we talk to Chief Beach first to see if he had any questions or comments.

Mr. Beach stated that his biggest concern is the road width.

Mr. Schelling stated that our desire would be for a 25-foot-wide road, but he’s willing to go with a 24-foot. He stated that they want a 22 foot. He stated that 24 seems like a good compromise to him.

Mr. Breitzke asked if this is a Variance. He stated that it sure seems like one to him.

Mr. Schelling stated that it doesn’t comply with the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated that anything less than 26 is a Variance.

Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s a waiver from the subdivision control ordinance.




Mr. Schelling stated that this is not the subdivision control ordinance. He stated that this is 90-3, general details and specifications for roads and streets.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they think state law would permit the Plan Commission to decide waivers from the subdivision control ordinance, which incorporates the design standards.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he’s only concerned in reflection of the Alexa case where he argued the difference between waiver and Variance.

Mr. Ferngren stated that if you look at state law, which specifically says…

Mr. Thompson stated that he doesn’t disagree with him on what state law says, but the question it comes down to is (inaudible). He stated that if our local code refers to Variances from standards and stuff then we’ve got no choice, in his opinion, to send them to the BZA on that. He stated that he needs to talk to the attorney on that though.

Mr. Breitzke stated that Judge Alexa created case law and that’s what we’re dealing with on that.

Mr. Thompson stated that he doesn’t disagree, and the law does allow the Plan Commission to do waivers. He stated that he just has to make sure.

Mr. Schelling stated that on the ribbon curb the 18-inch is going to have more of a tendency of wavering. He stated that if it was 24-foot he feels it would be a lot more stable. He stated that he has to consider what this is going to be an issue for 20 years from now for the County. He stated that if the County is going to be maintaining that 20 years from now, he doesn’t want to accept anything that is going to be, in his way of thinking, marginal or an issue for maintenance.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they are confident that it’s not.

Mr. Schelling asked if they are willing to maintain it then.

Mr. Ferngren stated that the road design is adequate and provides the necessary traffic flow, parking on one side. He stated that there’s any number of engineering societies that support that and including that the road widths that are proposed are more than adequate or emergency access vehicles to get in and out. He stated that this isn’t a highway.

Mr. Schelling stated that some of the grades are approaching 6 percent, so if you are going down a hill there are times when it’s going to be icy. He stated that you are going to be going down a hill and there are going to be curves…lots of luck.



Mr. Ferngren stated that there is a whole laundry list of agencies that support this design for residential streets.

Mr. Schelling asked if emergency access people support it, too.

Mr. Carlson stated, sure. He stated that they actually have more moving lane area with their design and parking on one side than conventional design and parking on two sides.

Mr. Schelling asked who enforces the parking.

Mr. Carlson stated that they can’t design around assuming that people are going to break the law.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the problem he is having is that they are citing the American Society of Civil Engineers, and they make recommendations based on certain situations and circumstances. He stated that the nation varies greatly from one end to the other and there are general guidelines out there. He stated that we have to deal with ice and snow, storage of snow and those kind of issues and that concerns them greatly. He stated that we have a little bit different firefighting type of situation. He stated that some of the equipment has outriggers. He stated that we also need a stable (inaudible) if you do need that type of equipment to stretch out. He stated that you need enough room to bypass equipment.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they discussed fire equipment and whether this is sufficient road with for that.

Mr. Carlson stated that with their layout and parking on one side they will have 17 feet of moving lane.

Mr. Breitzke asked who enforces the parking. He asked if the community will take responsibility for some of that.

Mr. Carlson stated that that’s like saying, who’s going to enforce your speed limit signs; don’t put them up because they’re going to speed anyway. He stated that you can’t plan around assuming people are going to break the law.

Mr. Breitzke stated that we do enforce speed limit signs.

Mr. Clem asked what they are going to do during construction when they are parking on both sides.

Mr. Carlson stated that they won’t allow parking on both sides. He stated that during construction they are in charge of enforcing that, the developer.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he can accept that somebody is going to take charge.





Mr. Clem asked if this is the same philosophy he had in Autumn Oaks because they parked on both sides there.

Mr. Carlson stated that they had full-width conventional roads there.

Mr. Branham stated that the road widths concern him. He stated that with the larger houses they are building these days there is a requirement to have larger pieces of emergency equipment, including aerial ladders and those types of pieces of equipment with outriggers. He stated that the road widths bother him.

Mr. Thompson asked chief Beach if they would really try to get an aerial in here.

Chief Beach stated that they would if it would be feasible.

Mr. Thompson asked if they would dispatch both firehouses.

Chief Beach stated that they would.

Mr. Thompson asked what height houses they are going to have.

Mr. Carlson stated that they are going to be your typical two story.

Mr. Thompson asked what the tallest grade they foresee going from grade up to the first of the roofline.

Mr. Carlson stated that the foundation height is set at 2 feet above curb and that’s shown on the plan.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks the responders are going to be sending out the aerial trucks just because it’s safer for their people.

Mr. Carlson stated that if you look at the road width they are 22 feet and they are proposing 18-inch ribbon curb and that’s 25 feet of surface area.

Mr. Thompson asked how far out the outriggers go.

Mr. Beach stated, 12 feet.

Mr. Breitzke asked, isn’t it 8, 4 and 4?

Mr. Thompson stated that they are looking at about 16 feet.

Mr. Schelling stated that the bottom line is that he’s opposed to the 22-foot-wide road and the 50-foot right-of-way. He stated that the turnaround is not going to work on a 50-foot right-of-way. He



stated that he thinks we talked about additional easements to accommodate that and asked if that is shown on the plans. He stated that he’s talking about the stubbed roads.

Mr. Carlson stated that they will extend the pavement of the T out to the full 60-foot right-of-way and then guardrail.

Mr. Breitzke asked if this is going to be a gated community or if these are going to be public streets.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they are.

Mr. Breitzke asked if the county is going to be responsible for the streets.

Mr. Schelling stated that that’s what they are telling him and that’s why he’s concerned about the road width and the ribbon curb.

Mr. Clem stated that he would like to have a 100-foot construction entrance. He stated that he would like to see silt fencing put up before construction even starts.

Mr. Schelling asked if they attempted to get that Verizon Variance for the water line. He stated that they still need a Variance.

Mr. Cole stated that the road widths are a concern and not good planning. He stated that he’s curious about the crossing of the wetlands up in the North side of 3, 11 and 13. He stated that he just wants to know if it’s going to look nice, if it’s just a culvert under the road.

Mr. Carlson stated that it’s going to be culverts, but where the silts come out they will put guardrail around the silts to create a bridge effect on the crossing.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they have provided an alternate layout that has more traditional County types of standards and increases the density from 200 to 295 lots and reduces the open space from 60 percent down to 44 percent.

Mr. Cole stated that the road that goes into Rudzinski’s property is just stubbed off and he asked if that is going to be encouraged to be developed.

Mr. Carlson stated that he doesn’t know, but those connector roads are required.

Mr. Schelling stated that on those lots fronting 100 N. he doesn’t see any no-access easement to group those drives.

Mr. Ferngren stated that they can provide a detail that would show that.


Mr. Schelling stated that they say they are providing additional width for the turnaround, but he doesn’t see that and that would have to be by easement also. He asked if that was shown on the plans.

Mr. Hipskind stated that it’s on the construction plans.

Mr. Schelling stated that we commented a little bit about the right-of-way going to the center of the County road on the West side. He asked if that is shown on the plans.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s been dedicated already.

Mr. Schelling stated that he feels very strongly about the road width and the rights-of-way. He stated that he thinks it’s an issue for public health and safety.

Mr. Breitzke moved to continue Case 06-3-17, subject to letter from the utility about willingness and capacity to serve; variances on road standards; talk with the fire chief about hydrant locations; 24-inch ribbon curb with two #4 rebars; recommend 12-foot lanes; details on T-turnaround; 10-foot clear zone and ASHTO requirements; address extension of 149; 100-foot construction pads; no-access easement on the road fronting 100 N. to group the drives; additional width for turnarounds – show on the plat. Mr. Schelling seconded the motion, which carried on a 7-0 voice vote.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:27 a.m.