PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
April 12, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Jim Burge. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Ken Elwood.

Mr. Cole moved to waive the reading of the March 8, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-SE-4. Inspection Committee Report for Michael Johnson, 813 N. 625 W., Westville, seeking a Special Exception to permit operation of a therapeutic riding center and boarding stable, to be located at 813 N. 625 E., in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Thompson stated the Inspection Committee Report was sent to all the Commission members for their review. He stated this was signed by Fred Siminski and Kevin Breitzke.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 06-SE-4 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 05-P-13. Petition of Floramo Partners, 1804 Garnet Court, New Lenox, Illinois seeking primary plat approval for Falling Waters Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 100 S., approximately ¼ mile East of Lake/Porter County Line Road in Porter Township. (To contain 10 lots on 8.09 acres. Property is zoned R-1. con’t from March 8, 2006 mtg.)

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Mike Capp concerning the waste water treatment plant.

Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Jack Clem our Code Enforcement officer did pay a visit to Falling Waters at the end of last week and did run into the manager and operator of the plant. He


stated Jack did get a tour of the plant and he did report to me that the plant is functioning.

Mr. Detert moved to repeal any action that we have against them at this time.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think what you are referring to is the moratorium.

Mr. Detert stated that is correct.

Mr. Cole seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read stated in others your motion is to remove the moratorium.

Mr. Breitzke stated no, there wasn’t a moratorium. He stated this is just for clarity.

Mr. Detert stated there was some confusion as to whether there was or wasn’t. He stated I am just trying to set the record straight that there not be one.

Mr. Read stated so your motion is to…

Mr. Detert stated to remove or repeal any action that may be pending against them.

Mrs. Marshall stated so we are going to rely entirely on Katherine Hess and the fact that Jack Clem went out there and looked at it.

Mr. Detert stated the only thing that is missing as I understand it is the telephone service and the plant is functioning.

Commissioner Harper stated the first place we have no action against them. He stated the other thing is they are going to have to come in at some point when they get their plant on or…

Mr. Thompson stated they still have an active primary plat case in front of the Plan Commission that the Commission has not ruled on.

Commissioner Harper stated so they will have to bring whatever evidence we would normally require before that gets acted on. He asked is that correct.


Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-P-13 until the April 26, 2006 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson stated I will contact the petitioner in this case and ask him to provide all evidence that the plant is in full operation and approved prior to coming to this Plan Commission for approval of this particular case.

Case 06-P-4. Petition of NISA Enterprises, LLC c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for The Harborage Subdivision to be located on the South side of CR 650 N. between CR 200 E. and CR 300 E. in Jackson Township. (To contain 12 lots on 20 acres. Property is zoned RR. Con’t from 3-8-06 mtg. Public hearing is closed.)

William Ferngren stated I have John Sturgill from McMann and Associates with me this evening. He stated this was heard by this Body on March 8 for the preliminary plat. He stated we have made some changes and provided some additional information as requested by the Commission members. He stated in particular, March 9, the day after our last hearing, I mailed to each of you the drainage easement that you specifically had asked for an individual copy of the Health Department report, which I have provided and a copy of the covenants. He stated you should have all received those. He stated in addition Mr. McClure, an associate from your attorney, Mr. Elwood’s office, provided some correspondence about the Aqua Land tower on the site really doesn’t affect the subdivision of the parcel but you had asked for some information about that. He stated again, this is a 20 acre site, south side of CR 650 N. and is zoned Rural Residential. He stated the project will consist of 12 single family residential sites, two open space parcels, approximately 2.6 acres is size. He stated the biggest change you will note on the drawing is that originally the open space was provided somewhere along the midpoint on the east side of the main drive through the subdivision. He stated we located it in that position and initially thought that it was centrally located. He stated however, after reviewing the plans and taking into account some of the comments of the Plan Commission members, specifically Mr. Read with respect to the septic fields on the lots, what was the most northern lot. He stated we have relocated all of our open space to the entrance area of our subdivision with the hope of providing a natural type of a setting as you enter the subdivision. He stated we think that provides a better buffer from CR 650 N. and eliminates the marginal soils that were located on the one site and provide all in all a better development. He stated one of the other issues that we discussed at length was the drainage. He stated in particular the drainage to the parcel to the east. He stated originally there was a pond located about 100 feet or so south of CR 650 N. that had a level spreader that discharged the water in an even manner across that eastern property line. He stated what we have done now is we picked up all of that drainage and routed it through a pipe along the eastern side of the property down to the drainage detention facility located at the southern most portion of the property. He stated at this point no water leaves this site anywhere except for the outlet point through the drainage easement that we have secured from the property owners to the south and to the east into what is kind of what is known as Smith Pond. He stated there is no longer any discharge of any storm water off of this site except from that specific location. He stated we went to the Development Review Committee on March 24 and they reviewed the plan and received very favorable comments and a favorable recommendation to the Commission.

John Sturgill stated there is one thing that I would like to add is one of the other comments that did come up at the last meeting the original project design the detention pond and the way the topography worked, the detention pond in the southern portion of the site was a little shorter and pulled back further to the east at this end. He stated there was about one and a half acre area that was going to essentially be under cover on the original design and essentially discharged by over land flow into Mr. Kalas’s property that lies to our immediate south. He stated Mr. Kalas’s daughter was here representing the Kalas family and questioned that.

Mr. Ferngren stated Ms. Kalas also asked about the regulated drain status of this and just to remind you this is a regulated drain and we were at the Drainage Board Monday and assessments were established to provide for maintenance of the regulated drain.

Mr. Detert stated I raised some questions on the covenants. He stated I still don’t think they meet the criteria that I suggested. He stated they did raise another question. He stated under Article 9, Transfer of Unapproved Lots. He stated it doesn’t spell out at what cost a developer can buy that back at. He stated is it his cost, the cost that somebody has been offered for or some cost that he comes up with that may be less than he sold it for. He stated I think it should be clarified as to what cost. He stated Four Seasons has the Rights of First Refusal and maybe that is what you want to do in here.

Mr. Ferngren stated we could do that.

Mr. Detert stated at the same price and conditions of the offer.

Mr. Ferngren stated we will clear that up.

Mr. Detert stated I don’t think that the part of attorney’s fees is still clear. He stated I think that if you put the language in there that somebody that has lawfully been taken a task can recover attorney fees.

Mrs. Marshall asked is this a part of a larger watershed.

Mr. Sturgill stated yes it is.

Mrs. Marshall asked does one of those sheets show the watershed.

Mr. Sturgill stated sheet 2 does.

Mrs. Marshall stated these people are going to be charged to run water into a regulated drain. She asked are those people also going to have to pay for any water that comes onto their property.

Mr. Breitzke stated let me make something clear. He stated the purpose of the regulated drain for the subdivision is for the maintenance of the detention facility and any drainage from the roads back to the pond. He stated so we have incorporated the pipe from the end of the road so the County Highway doesn’t have a burden. He stated then the pond itself for the structure and the outlet so we know that is going to be in working condition and maintained. He stated as they are restricting the flow out that is maintained. He stated should the berm blow out that is rebuilt. He stated that is the purpose of that. He stated there is not a regulated drain itself for a couple of miles from here, as it happens frequently in the county. He stated there has been areas where there isn’t a regulated drain right by it, however, if they are in the watershed of a regulated drain we do assess them. He stated so they get two assessments.

Mrs. Marshall stated if it is established that the watershed, which would include more than just this parcel, some of that water flows into that subdivision, so whatever they do the water within that property is going to be taken care of.

Mr. Breitzke stated should that happen, yes.

Commissioner Harper stated I don’t have a question and I really don’t think I have a problem with this. He stated I do feel that we should ask if there is anyone here since there were some major changes.

George Kalas stated there is a drain that comes out on CR 600 N. He stated it is about half way between CR 200 E. and CR 300 E. He stated now that water coming off has to go through there and our front property is there. He asked is that where that water is going to go? He stated my concern is water on my property and I am on the south side.

Mr. Sturgill stated the water that is flowing into and through this subdivision and is produced as part of the impervious surface that is going to be developed in this subdivision will be entirely captured in the detention pond. He stated from the detention pond it is discharging into the Smith pond. He stated the Smith pond currently has by our calculations twice available capacity of the detention basin that we currently have sized for a one hundred year storm in our site. He stated none of the storm water runoff will be discharged onto or through Mr. Kalas’ site. He stated currently the existing property does discharge water onto Mr. Kalas’ site. He stated we are truncating the water shed and essentially intercepting it by the development at this time with the storm system that we have.

Commissioner Harper asked Kevin are you convinced and satisfied with that plan.

Mr. Breitzke stated they can all be held accountable for the water on their site and they are relieving you of at least that.

Commissioner Harper stated we have a new drainage ordinance that provides that if any of this water was to come on you they would have to get an easement from you. He stated what they are telling you is that they designed it and our committee that reviews it is convinced that it is correct that none of that water is going to come on you, in fact probably less than what you get now. He asked is that correct.

Mr. Sturgill stated that is correct.

Mr. Read stated I haven’t had a chance to go through everything. He asked what happens if the property owner of Smith pond sells the property.

Mr. Fergren stated it is an easement that runs with the land. He stated under easement law we are required to identify a


benefited parcel and a burden parcel. He stated this subdivision is the benefited parcel. He stated the burdened parcel is the Smith property and the easement that we will have recorded provides that it runs with the land. He stated so the Smith parcel will be burdened by that easement in perpetuity.

Mr. Read asked what is your minimum lot size.

Mr. Ferngren stated they are all one acre or larger.

Mr. Read stated as far as the open space is concerned from the standpoint of accessibility to the people who live within the subdivision the original open space area was actually better from the planning standpoint because it was shorter distance. He stated the kids could go to the open space and throw their Frisbees around. He stated I understand why you moved it because of the soil conditions at the north end. He asked what is the percentage of open space now total.

Mr. Ferngren stated 2.59 acres and the percentage is 12.5%.

Mr. Read asked does that include the pond.

Mr. Ferngren stated it does not include the detention pond.

Mr. Read stated I have stated before the matter of septic tanks and wells. He asked what has the County Health Department said about this recently.

Mr. Ferngren stated they have approved the site and you should have a copy of this as well.

Mr. Read asked somebody explain the drain depth. He asked is that the bottom of the trench.

Mr. Sturgill stated no, that is actually below the bottom of the trench. He stated that is the perimeter drain that would be required around the outside of the absorption field.

Mr. Read stated some of these are flood dose and some of these are not. He stated a few of them are gravity.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Mr. Read stated I read in the paper recently where the County Health Board was going to take another look at some of these, what we might call exotic type of disposal fields. He asked have they contacted you about that or have they said anything about that.


Mr. Sturgill stated nobody has contacted us.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-P-4 for primary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Hutson - Abstain Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

New Business:

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.

Case 06-P-5. Petition of Centre Pointe Properties, LLC, Tim Chesna Managing Partner, 550 E. 100 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Turtle Run Subdivision to be located on the Southwest corner of CR 500 N. and CR 450 E. in Washington Township. (To contain 45 lots on 89.975 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Rich Hudson stated I am with Bonar Group. He stated we are the surveyors and engineers for the development. He stated with me tonight from our office is Dave Croft, Attorney Bill Ferngren from Hoeppner, Wagner and Evans, John McQestion from Soil Solutions and the managing partner for the LLC is Tim Chesna. He stated we are here tonight seeking primary plat approval for approximately a 90 acre parcel located in Washington Township. He stated this road here is CR 500 N. He stated the diagonal at the bottom here is CR 450 and CR 400 is up here. He stated there are several unique features and I am not sure if a pipeline running through your property is unique but it does affect our property and we are maintaining the pipeline in its present location as a green space, a 50 foot right-of-way, through the parcel. He stated the parcel generally slopes from the northwest corner both east and south. He stated we do have two easement outlets. He stated one is at the northeast corner of our property, which travels about 1600 to 1800 feet down to Hutton Ditch and one that leaves our southerly south and east corner and travels over land to an existing subdivision, Amber Woods. He stated the parcel will have three detention basins. He stated one in this location, one in this location and a larger one in this location here. He stated at our initial presentation before the DAC we did have 45 lots. He stated we did have several issues that we had to work with the Porter County Health Department to resolve the areas of the lots. He stated in doing that in complying with the County Health Departments standard we actually had to cut out two lots and make several other lots larger. He stated we will have individual wells and individual septic systems. He stated the minimum lot size will be 30,000 square feet. He stated all of our lots that have to comply with that minimum actually have greater than 30,000 square feet. He stated what I would like to tell you is that the lots that require a minimum of one acre of usable space are lots 9, 14, 17, 24, 31, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43. He stated those lots deviate because of the soils from the minimum requirement of the Porter County Health Department and will require a minimum of an acre. He stated open space required with our natural features, which are several very dense tree rows. He stated one major tree row in this location, which we are maintaining as open space. He stated another tree row is along the frontage of CR 500 N. and this open space parcel here is re-emerging woods. He stated in walking through it you can tell it has been logged but it is coming back with new growth. He stated that will be maintained as well as a strip along the west side and a strip along the easterly side of the subdivision. He stated those will all be maintained as open space. He stated that area that we are providing, acreage wise, is 21.19 acres or 23.5%. He stated keep in mind that we are required to provide 20%. He stated this is zoned RR, which requires us to have a minimum of 160 feet of frontage on the building line. He stated in areas where we have cul-de-sacs there are two of them. He stated along the curve here and along this cul-de-sac here we have provided a minimum of 60% along the right-of-way with the 160 feet than being shown along the building line, so that we do have that minimum. He stated gross density is .48 lots per acre and net density .73. He stated we are exceeding what the requirements are for the minimum 30,000 square foot lots and the one acre lots. He stated I spoke about drainage. He stated our roads will have rights-of-way. He stated the internal roads will have a 60-foot right-of-way and there will be side ditches not curb and gutter, which you typically see in a lot of subdivisions. He stated we are going to take advantage of creating our own side ditches that will allow sediment to be collected in them directed to the ponds. He stated the water that runs out will have the ability to be cleansed in the side ditches along the roads and will be collected in three detention basins. He stated all of you were provided the Health Departments report. He stated if you notice there are no specific comment notes on any of the lots that we are proposing in the development. He stated we are talking Washington Township schools. He stated the utilities will be Verizon, NIPSCO gas and REMC for the electric. He stated the side yard setbacks are 10% of the lot width minimum 8 feet. He stated the rear yard setback is 20 feet. He stated along the county road on the north and the east the rights-of-way are half of the 60-foot right-of-way. He stated we are providing that dedication. He stated we will have a total right-of-way dedication within the development of 10.03 acres. He stated there is drainage that does come onto our development in this location. He stated there is also drainage that comes into our development from this area. He stated that drainage will be allowed to continue through our development and reach its two destination points, one on the south and one on the north. He stated both end up in Hutton Ditch.

Tim Chupp, 528 N. 400 E. He stated I own some property right here. He stated it is a ten acre parcel. He stated I am definitely in favor of the development. He stated I don’t have a vested interest in it. He stated the only concern that I have is that any time when a development like this happens we all know that people always complain about water. He stated I do have a drainage easement which was asked to come through my property. He stated it comes across and feeds off an 80-acre parcel on this side. He stated I am here to protect others interest that in the future that this doesn’t take place whether I do something or someone else that this water will be able to continue to go.

Brad Stewart, 443 Amber Dr. He stated I would like to have clarification on the drainage and how it affects me.

Mr. Hudson stated I had addressed the drainage for Mr. Chupp coming across. He stated Mr. Chupp had constructed through his development within the last year a newly created swale that cuts caddy corner across his property. He stated that will continue to go through our property. He stated we are not going to impede that anyway, in fact, it will get into our drainage system and into our side swales and on into this pond. He stated this pond has an outlet that is designed to release at a two year storm event. He stated we are actually slowing down and allowing less water to release out of there in a developed state as we would from the undeveloped state. He stated that water will continue on through. He stated there is a water course that runs through this open space parcel. He stated it winds through the property. He stated it is overgrown and there is probably fallen trees and branches and things that will help to slow this water down even though we are slowing it down with our outlet so that by the time the water reaches this point here it would be in its natural state as it comes off of this farm field right now. He stated the water goes to this point now and we are going to continue it by impounding it and releasing it at a slower rate. He stated we are not going to clean this and we are not going to touch it. He stated it will be left in its natural state. He stated the debris that is in there will help the water to slow down and will help the sediment in the water to settle out. He stated as well as the gentleman directly to the west of this pond and Mr. Chupp that water will continue and be allowed to go through the property and on out. He stated the gentleman that lives down here in Amber Woods we are connecting in to the existing drainage system through an easement the way that the water goes today as the field is farmed. He stated the water is going to continue to go on this property and go through this property the way that it does today. He stated we are not changing anything and we are not increasing the volume of water that is coming through there. He stated this distance from our embankment down to our south property line is just a hair over 600 feet. He stated so we are going to have the natural ability of this creek this waterway here to continue to do what it does today. He stated we are not stopping anything that is coming onto us and we are draining off in the same situation and the same points that we have out there today. He stated I can’t speak of the internal workings of the system that is in Amber Woods other than that there are a series of side swales as we have. He stated there is a detention pond in this location and that exits across CR 450 E. and on its way to Hutton Ditch as we do up on the northeast corner of our property.

Mike Cieply, 374 N. 450 E. He stated I don’t own any property in the area but I do go by there once in a while. He stated I just would like to know if there is any data to support that the swale and drainage ditches will be as affective as the drainage pipe. He asked is there any drainage to support that.

Mr. Hudson stated we are going to have all of our streets paved with side ditches. He stated there are a series of culverts that run through and direct the water from the low spots. He stated there is a low spot here and a low spot here and a low spot at the end of this cul-de-sac and the end of the next cul-de-sac. He stated we are using a series of culverts and swales. He stated the swales are sized appropriately to allow the flow through the development. He stated the advantage of side ditches or the swales is the ability to allow sediment to settle out as it goes through the grass. He stated in a concrete pipe that sediment is just pushed through until it gets to where it is going. He stated we have the ability to help clarify the runoff even before it gets to our detention basins. He stated from an engineering standpoint a series of swales, grass swales, not paved bottom swales, and pipes allow us to do a better job of cleaning what comes off of the roads. He stated our pipes will be sized appropriately as well as the grass waterways.

Mr. Stewart stated I guess it sounds like they don’t plan to have any impact on the drainage, although we do have regular water flow through there. He asked is there any recourse if there is increased drainage for us on that side of Amber Dr.



Mr. Hudson stated we are mandated by the County Storm Water Ordinance to reduce the runoff that comes off of our property and I think that we can show with our drainage calculations that one we are impounding the water and helping the water quality by allowing it to settle in our basins. He stated again we are not directing the water any differently and in fact we are directing less water because we are having a controlled outlet, which is less of a release than what is coming through there right now. He stated I am not going to tell you and I am not going to disagree and make any objections to the point that there is no drainage that comes and there may not be flooding there. He stated the flooding that is there now; hopefully with the reduction from the amount of water that we are mandated to allow come through there those floods should be less.

At this time, the public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper stated the first concern that I hear is someone to the north saying, “We want to make sure we can keep crop water from coming across this property that we have coming here now.” He asked am I correct.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Commissioner Harper stated if that land to the north is not developed at this time and if they come in to develop it they are going to have to conform to our storm water ordinance, which means the answer may be no and not as a result of this subdivision but just as a result of what our storm water ordinance says. He asked correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated a combination.

Commissioner Harper stated just so the guy understands. He stated this subdivision is going to have no affect one way or the other if you come in to divide that property. He stated if you come in to divide that property you have to conform to the storm water ordinance, which says you cannot put crop water on other property unless you have an easement.

Mr. Breitzke stated his concern was to make sure that the easements were still there and that he still had the ability to bypass. He stated that is their obligation with the storm water ordinance too.

Commissioner Harper stated this is going to an easement on that property. He asked what does our storm water ordinance say. He stated lets say that property was 100 feet wide and they buy an easement across that property. He asked what happens when they hit the next property.

Mr. Thompson asked are you talking about in this case hitting Amber Woods.

Commissioner Harper stated yes. He asked can they just hit it and that is it or are there some requirements.

Mr. Thompson stated when Amber Woods went through the Plan Commission there were easements placed in Amber Woods for the specific reason to be able to take care of that offsite water because everybody realized it was such a huge amount. He stated as a matter of fact, the original plans for Amber Woods was for curb and gutter in there but the Plan Commission made them change it because of the amount of water that came off site onto it and they felt that it would be better controlled if it was used by ditches. He stated there are easements in that manner through Amber Woods to handle the offsite water.

Commissioner Harper stated if there weren’t easements in Amber Woods do you get past our storm water ordinance now by buying an easement over the first piece of property. He stated I thought after it got through the first piece of property it had to have an easement or go into a regulated water way.

Mr. Thompson stated if Amber Woods did not have the easements my opinion is that they would have to have the easements going through there.

Commissioner Harper stated so in other words under our ordinance if there weren’t easements already in Amber Woods they would have to get them or they couldn’t do it.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Mr. Read asked what happens after it leaves Amber woods.

Mr. Thompson stated when it left Amber Woods go to the very corner of the map, there is a little pond that is in that area that releases that water into a defined channel.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is also a channel on the south side of the property that goes across the street.

Commissioner Harper asked just because you get through one piece of property with an easement doesn’t solve the whole problem with your drainage under the new ordinance. He asked am I right.

Mr. Breitzke stated that was our intent.

Commissioner Harper stated okay, I just wanted to ask that.

Commissioner Harper asked have you seen these easements. He asked do you check them out from Amber Woods to make sure that they are there and that these guys are going into these easements. He asked has this been checked out.

Mr. Thompson stated I have walked that subdivision a number of times.

Mr. Hudson stated the packet that you were given had a copy of the subdivision plat of Amber Woods.

Mr. Ferngren stated platted easements are part of the subdivision.

Mrs. Marshall stated there is a pipeline through there. She asked are you going to have a Property Owners Association that is going to maintain the pipeline easement.

Mr. Hudson stated there is a POA that will maintain all that green area that we talked about, all the open space.

Mrs. Marshall stated all the people that live there will have access to the green space that you show.

Mr. Hudson stated correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated the pond that you are proposing that field is being farmed at this time. She asked is that correct.

Mr. Hudson stated actually the whole parcel is being farmed at this time. He stated that pond is in fact being farmed and this pond is in the farm land and the next cul-de-sac, which is up about here, there is another pond at the end of it. He stated the whole parcel except for the steeper slopes are being farmed.

Mrs. Marshall asked is there going to be any farming to continue there after this subdivision is in.

Mr. Hudson stated no. He stated all of these lots will be residential lots.

Mrs. Marshall stated you said there is a wooded area.

Mr. Hudson stated this is a wooded area right here. He stated actually it is a re-emerging. He stated this area was logged. He stated this area will be left in the state that it is in today. He stated this is the water course that I spoke of and we don’t want to do anything to it because it slows down the water that goes through there and allows any sediment to…


Mrs. Marshall stated since the re-emerging woods is a part of the open space area is this going to be improved in any way so that the people that live there can enjoy that wooded area.

Mr. Hudson stated there are walking paths that have been created there probably more by the deer than anything.

Mrs. Marshall asked the roads in this subdivision, how big of an easement do you have in there.

Mr. Hudson stated 60 feet. He stated the road width itself is 26 feet of asphalt and 4 feet of stone shoulders.

Mrs. Marshall asked are they going to be developed according to road standards and dedicated to the county.

Mr. Hudson stated yes and they will all be public roads.

Mrs. Marshall stated the green area that is on the back of lots, are people there going to have access or is it going to become part of the lot.

Mr. Hudson stated the green areas that were shown on the plat are not part of any of the lots. He stated they are all separate spaces.

Mrs. Marshall asked who is going to maintain those.

Mr. Hudson stated the POA. He stated these are all separate parcels.

Mrs. Marshall stated lot 40 down there it has the required frontage as far as 60% but the building line will be down below that.

Mr. Hudson stated correct.

Mr. Hutson asked the swales that you have there, are they maintained by the POA.

Mr. Hudson stated the swale that comes through here yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated the swales along the side of the road in the subdivision…

Mr. Hudson stated those are part of the county road system. He stated they would be like the curb and gutters would be.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have seen where people don’t like those swales and they will fill them in.

Mr. Hudson stated I had a neighbor that did that.

Mrs. Marshall asked Mr. McQuestion can you address the soil in this subdivision.

John McQuestion stated the soils are generally real sandy and well drained. He stated there are a few lots that did have some clay spots. He stated the soil types are Tracy, Lydick and Riddles. He stated Riddles is sort of a combination between clay and sand mixture. He stated Tracy is sandy and well drained. He stated the same with Lydick. He stated all, which I would consider some of the best soils in the State of Indiana for septic systems. He stated the soils that are down below, Washtenaw, is poorly drained type of soil and we are not putting any septic systems there.

Mrs. Marshall stated so you have some soils that are critical for septic development.

Mr. McQuestion stated I would say the critical soils for development with septic fields for building sites we’ve gotten out of the subdivision and put them in green space and that is this Washtenaw.

Mrs. Marshall asked so the lots that are platted none are going to require a special septic system to be installed.

Mr. McQuestion stated these will be all gravity flow conventional septic systems. He stated I think there is one that is flood dose.

Mr. Hudson stated that was on lot 9.

Mrs. Marshall asked will these houses have basements in them.

Mr. McQuestion stated I wouldn’t have a problem putting basements in any of them.

Mr. Hudson stated Mrs. Marshall, this big lot where the pond is that is a home site. He stated that is the one that you asked if it was going to be farmed.

Mrs. Marshall asked they are going to get the pond on their property.

Mr. Hudson stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated but the property owners are going to take care of the pond.

Mr. Hudson stated yes. He stated we have been before the County Drainage Board and asked the Board to establish a regulated drain without assessments at this time because we do have a POA. He stated they left it without assessments at the present time so that in the future if they had to because of something happening to the system they could come back in and take care of things if they had to. He stated the POA will maintain and it is set up specifically for that purpose.

Mr. Breitzke stated but bear in mind they need the POA also to handle the open space, the subdivision signage and some other issues.

Mr. Read stated on this surface water runoff to the south, what lot is the pond on.

Mr. Hudson stated it is lot 32.

Mr. Read asked who is the owner of that lot.

Mr. Hudson stated whoever buys it.

Mr. Read stated it hasn’t been sold yet.

Mr. Hudson stated nothing has been sold yet.

Mr. Read stated I am talking about the Amber Woods lot. He stated that little pond in the corner of Amber Woods. He stated what we are depending upon here is that the water that is running through Amber Woods some of which ends up in that pond. He asked what is the capacity of that pond. He asked how much water will it take.

Mr. Hudson stated the water that is in the subdivision for Amber Woods was designed, I assume, for that pond.

Mr. Read stated your pond is adding to it.

Mr. Hudson stated no. He stated we are releasing at a less rate and a lower rate than what naturally comes through there right now. He stated by the storm water ordinance we are required to do that.

Mr. Read stated so what you are saying is that your new subdivision here will not add to the water in that corner pond.

Mr. Hudson stated correct. He stated we are mandated by the storm water ordinance that was established to do that.



Mr. Breitzke asked Rich just for clarity. He asked are we talking about the pond on lot 11 or lot 1. He stated that swale comes through goes through the ditch system on Amber Drive.

Mr. Read stated I am talking about where his finger is.

Mr. Hudson stated but there is another pond here that catches the water from the subdivision.

Mr. Read stated but the last link in the chain is right there.

Mr. Hudson stated it is a pond.

Mr. Read stated every time we review these things somehow or another future subdivisions get lost in the equation somewhere along the line. He stated I am not real sure that when future subdivisions come in that this surface water is going to behave the way you think. He stated that is another question. He stated on the open space, normally as you know we don’t consider a perimeter as being meeting the intent of open space. He stated we have made exception in that, which it is a bike trail or a designated walking trail because the tendency is going to for the people who owns these lots that are backing up against a…what you show as green. He stated they are going to assume that this is their property. He stated now I have seen where they have put up fences to block it off. He stated you have to either make it very clear. He stated my suggestion is that you put a trail, at least a foot trail. He stated I would think that you should go back…there is a hole in that chain. He asked would you go back to the green one again. He stated right in the northeast corner of the woods there is no connection between that one to the right. He stated that will be to me a logical connection for people in that subdivision to get to the woods.

Mr. Hudson stated we don’t have an issue with putting in a similar access here to allow that continuation.

Mr. Hudson stated if you get approval I think you should do this.

Mrs. Marshall asked can you meet the frontage on that lot down there.

Mr. Hudson stated it would be an easement.

Mr. Read stated I consider this quite dense. He stated your 30,000 barely meets the minimum standards. He stated if the effluent doesn’t go the way the engineers think it is going to go


you are going to have problems. He stated now Mr. McQuestion you said that said will drain. He stated as I have said before, I have lived for 40 years in a sandy area and I still had septic tank problems. He stated so I have great reservations about lots that small. He stated there is no margin for error. He stated if you have one or two acres, which our Master Plan recommends two acres for rural areas like this, at least you would have some room for an error. He stated in addition to that and looking at the Porter County Health Department there are a number of lots with note no. 6.

Mr. Hudson stated if you look here this is the report that was given out and presented on that date and this one was revised both on the 5th and the 6th. He stated that is the one where we had to reduce the number of lots by 2 to remove all of those.

Mr. Read stated even without the notes my concern is about the lot sizes. He stated I don’t think in any circumstance could this be considered urban fringe. He stated it might be considered some scattered housing in some platted subdivisions around it. He stated some of which have houses, some of which don’t and some of which are just getting built. He stated I am concerned about the precedent that is being set for these small lots way out and no where near anything anywhere near a sewer or water connections. He stated this will be used by the next developer to do the same thing. He stated I am very glad that you are setting aside those woods. He stated but I sure wish that you had brought these up to one acre instead of these tiny lots that you have here.

Mr. Breitzke stated just for clarity the comprehensive master plan doesn’t refer to that as urban fringe. He stated it was a suburban development area.

Mr. Cole asked where is Turtle Run. He stated I guess I expect to see a stream called Turtle Run nearby.

Mr. Hudson stated there is none.

Mr. Cole stated so it is a made-up name for a non-existent stream. He stated my main concern is as Mr. Read pointed out it is on the dense side. He stated there’s less than an acre for each of the lots, 43 lots. He stated there will be 125 people living here including children. He stated 43 cars in and out and only one entrance. He stated I know it has been brought up in the past that the cul-de-sac overlooking Pond B. He stated if that were extended so that a second entrance were available on CR 450 E. it seems to me that this would relieve a little bit of the crowding and a little bit of the traffic within the subdivision and allow people to pick up passengers over in Amber Woods on their way to work. He stated I know that was addressed at DAC and I wanted to bring that out at this point. He stated the other concern I have and I know we have discussed this at length just a few minutes ago but the easement between Amber Woods and this subdivision, is that a recorded easement.

Mr. Hudson stated it is a signed easement today. He stated it will be recorded once we receive approval. He stated the other easement to the north here is a recorded easement.

Mrs. Marshall stated there is a pipeline that goes through there. She asked is that an easement or fee simple.

Mr. Hudson stated that is an easement.

Mrs. Marshall stated you got the report from the Highway Department about the roads in that area. She stated it says that this subdivision will certainly impact the county roads adversely and that the county road is impacted by the additional heavy equipment and so forth. She stated in the future you will be having garbage trucks etc. coming down that road. She stated the existing road is barely adequate for present traffic and he claims that you are going to add 450 vehicles.

Mr. Ferngren stated we have a road agreement in place with the County Highway Department and we have provided that to David Schelling already.

Mrs. Marshall stated this is a letter that doesn’t indicate that you have done anything about the road there.

Mr. Ferngren stated we have signed the road agreement and provided that to Mr. Schelling.

Mr. Read stated we should have those letters then.

Mr. Breitzke stated for the Plan Commission’s benefit maybe Mr. Thompson should explain something.

Mr. Thompson stated there is nothing in our documents as far as ordinances concerning the road agreements. He stated it is a contract between the developers and the Commissioners. He stated our past attorneys have always asked me to make sure that the road agreement part does not get into our ordinances.

Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t agree with that. She stated I think that if you are requiring somebody to come up with any…outside of what we are reviewing I think that it should be a part of or else you need to address impact fees.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is where we are at. He stated the next step would be impact fees and very, very expensive studies related to impact fees. He stated we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for road impact fee, for example, for a study.

Tim Chesna, Centre Point Properties. He stated I did sign a road agreement fee with Dave Schelling today. He stated it is $750, which calculates to $32,250 that will be funding to the county to maintain that road and fix that road and that would be forwarded to Mr. Harper’s office.

Mrs. Marshall asked is that $750 a lot.

Mr. Chesna stated correct.

Mrs. Marshall stated on the other side of the coin is how much road can you build for $32,000.

Mr. Chesna stated other people use that road. He stated it is not just our people.

Mrs. Marshall stated absolutely. She stated it is not in bad shape because you are going to build there.

Mr. Burns stated basically I don’t have a problem with the development. He stated I do have some questions. He asked is the pipeline part of the green space.

Mr. Hudson stated yes because it is an easement.

Mr. Burns stated without the pipeline what percent would it be. He stated I don’t have any problems with open drainage on the side the side of the streets. He stated the only questions or concerns that I have is elevation of the driveways. He stated we have had problems in the past with home owners setting their own elevations causing a back up of flow. He asked is that going to be controlled by the surveyor or is it going to be designated on each property of the elevation of the culverts. He stated they have to have culverts for each driveway, correct?

Mr. Hudson stated if you look at sheet 7 of 21 in your packet that does set up elevation of all the homes. He stated the drainage culvert will be dictated by the depth of the swales that are profiled also in your packet.

Mr. Burns asked who is going to police that.

Mr. Breitzke stated the County Highway typically does.


Mr. Hudson stated the County Highway issues the driveway permit.

Mr. Burns stated it appears that you only have one lot that is not a gravity system. He asked is that correct.

Mr. Hudson stated they are all gravity except one is a flood dose.

Mr. Burns stated that tells me that it is pretty good soils. He asked how deep is that pipeline and is it a petroleum pipeline.

Mr. Hudson stated it is 4 feet to the top.

Mr. Burns asked how are you going to contact the home owners because there have been problems in the past in the area with home owners striking the pipes.

Mr. Hudson stated the pipeline is not within any of the lots. He stated the only construction around the pipeline will be the construction of the road.

Mr. Detert asked are the pipeline people happy with you crossing the pipeline.

Mr. Hudson stated they are the ones, when we talked about it, they gave the standard that we needed to comply with. He stated they actually asked us to raise it up over the roads.

Mr. Detert stated I have said this once before. He stated on drainage and that is probably the predominate issue of today. He stated I get a little concerned with the POA’s managing the drainage system without any provision in the covenants covering if they fail to keep that up. He stated I am feeling more and more like the county needs some kind of wordage in the covenants that says that they can come in and assess the property if the POA or developer does not take care of that.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is a regulated drain and so that avenue doesn’t exist.

Mr. Breitzke stated we wouldn’t have to go to a public hearing. He stated that is statutory, however, your point would apply more to that open space because we can’t burden our County Parks with any more expenses.

Mr. Detert stated that comment was not made…it was made for you but it was also made in general. He stated if we have a bunch of property owners that don’t obey the covenants the county doesn’t have the money to go in and correct all of these problems. He stated there has to be a vehicle by which the county can correct the drainage.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is why this is a regulated drain.

Mr. Detert asked are there any sidewalks.

Mr. Hudson stated no.

Mr. Detert stated but you are going to have some walking paths.

Mr. Hudson stated throughout the green area.

Mr. Detert asked what is the building setback on the homes to be built.

Mr. Hudson stated 40 feet.

Mr. Hutson asked is the forest that you have there a forested wetland.

Mr. McQuestion stated no it is not but it is probably just an old wood lot that was left out. He stated honestly, it was probably used by the previous owner as a dump. He stated there is a lot of trash back there.

Mr. Hutson asked the fee with the County Highway Department is that a one time fee.

Mr. Hudson stated yes. He stated it is a fee that is collected at the time when a driveway permit is issued.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-P-5 for primary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - No Breitzke - Yes

Case 06-P-6. Petition of Robert Klett, 747 N. Calumet Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Robert Klett Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 750 N. and CR 150 E. (Old SR 49) in Liberty Township. (To contain 2 lots on 5 acres. Property is zoned RR.)



Bill Rensberger stated I am a land surveyor here for Mr. Klett. He stated this is a two lot subdivision that we are requesting. He stated it lies just south on CR 750 N., which is here and Old State Road 49. He stated there is a church north of here and a gas station up on Rt. 6 about ½ mile north of that. He stated right now the conditions are that Mr. Klett lives in an existing house right here and there is a shallow pond here, which is kind of a nice pond. He stated there is a pipe here that flows to the north. He stated it is a small pipe so the water gets backed up in heavy rains and fills the pond up two or three feet deep. He stated Robert is proposing a new house over here. He stated he wants to sell his house here and build a new one here. He stated this is a light brush area. He stated we had soil borings taken there and there are three borings. He stated it would be a gravity system to service that new house. He stated there will be a perimeter drain around it. He stated we do have 20% open space, one acre, which will include the pond and a portion of south of the pond. He stated the waster shed running through the property is right through here and everything kind of flows to the north.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated I have no issues.

Mr. Detert stated I have no comments.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no comments.

Mr. Cole stated I have nothing.

Mr. Read asked what is the percentage of open space including the pond.

Mr. Rensberger stated it is 20%.

Mr. Read asked have any arrangements been made for the ownership and maintenance of that open space.

Mr. Rensberger stated up here there is “no easement” and restrictions for the open space. He stated the lot owner of lot 2 will own it and maintain it.

Mr. Read stated I don’t know and I am going to have to call upon our legal here to…our open space ordinance as I recall does not provide for an individual lot owner owning the open space.

Attorney Elwood stated I think that is correct.

Mr. Rensberger stated I just read this by TAC for us to put this on there. He stated it was the best way I understood it. He stated maybe I am wrong.

Mr. Read stated you have a number of options. He stated one is a POA. He stated another one is to get it in the hands of one of the park systems, which I assume this is too far away for that and too small. He stated the other is to make arrangements with a non-profit organization that is dedicated to keeping and maintaining open space. He stated you could even form your own 501 C-3 to do that. He stated the point is the property owners would be required to put in enough money, an assessment, to maintain the area. He stated I think you are absolved from any type of property tax there. He stated I don’t think an area like that would be subject to property tax. He stated for clean up in case somebody dumps something, you are not required to put in a playground if you don’t want to. He stated you can just leave it in its natural state. He stated there is still some money that would have to be set aside to take care of these little details.

Attorney Elwood stated Mr. Read you are generally correct. He stated in Section 17.108.100 indicates that it has to be shared, undivided interest by all property owners in the subdivision. He stated it would have to be owned by lot 1 as well.

Mr. Rensberger stated it is owned by lot 1 and lot 2. He stated here is lot 1 but it will be maintained by lot 2. He stated I don’t think the developer will have a problem with submitting a bond to maintain it.

Attorney Elwood stated I don’t think there is a concern with assigning the maintenance to one or the other property owner. He stated that in fact is probably more beneficial than having a Home Owners Association but it has to be held as a shared undivided interest of both parcels.

Mr. Breitzke stated our interest is in the shared rights to the open space for the two properties so one doesn’t exclude the other.

Mr. Rensberger asked what do you want me to do. He stated do you want me to put something on the plat saying both property owners have a right to enjoy this area.

Attorney Elwood stated whatever that legal description is it has to be owned by both of them.



Mr. Read stated and available for use by both of them. He stated they are both obligated to put in whatever money is necessary to maintain it.

Attorney Elwood stated I think it meets our ordinance to say lot 2 will be responsible for the maintenance of it. He stated it is the ownership primarily that we are concerned with.

Mr. Rensberger stated I will put something on the plat saying, “To be owned and enjoyed by both parcel owners.” He stated and then something on the plat saying, “Lot 2 will be responsible of the maintenance of it.” He stated unless I talk to Robert and he wants lot 1 to be responsible also and then it will be joint maintenance of it.

Mr. Breitzke stated you can work this out at final plat if you get approved tonight.

Mr. Read stated the only other thing I had is that you said that some water drains…how does that fit into our ordinance as far as getting approval or agreement with adjacent property owners.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is a pre-existing condition and it is not an outlet.

Mr. Read asked what happens to the water.

Mr. Rensberger stated there is a small ravine to the north and then where it goes after it gets to SR 6 I am not sure.

Mr. Read asked do you know where the nearest regulated ditch is.

Mr. Breitzke stated not off the top of my head but it would take a lot of water to fill up that…

Commissioner Harper stated don’t we have an ordinance that did not apply to whether there is going to be more water or less water. He stated what it applied to is whether there where certain conditions that existed that the water went into a regulated drain or an established waterway and that is the way I understood it.

Mr. Breitzke stated or a natural water course.

Commissioner Harper stated if we put the word in there “natural water course” it seems to me that we have written


nothing. He stated if you say a natural water course if you have drainage across anybody’s land you can all it a natural water course. He asked is that right. He stated if I have a hundred acre cornfield and there is a hundred acre next to me and some of my water is going on that cornfield you can call that a natural water course. He asked is that correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated no. He stated you are talking surface water now, surface water runoff, which is another issue.

Commissioner Harper asked why can he put any water on the land to the north without an easement.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think there are already established rights for the water to go that way.

Commissioner Harper stated that is not at all what I understood we were doing. He asked can’t you argue that on almost any piece of property.

Mr. Breitzke stated no you can’t.

Commissioner Harper stated if I have a cornfield and some of my water goes from that cornfield onto the next cornfield that is an established flow. He stated I thought we were getting rid of that problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are talking surface water. He stated surface water runoff must be collected.

Commissioner Harper asked does he have any surface water runoff going to the next property.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is going into the pond before it leaves the property.

Commissioner Harper stated I understand that. He stated we are not…

Mr. Breitzke stated we have not eliminated the flow of water otherwise we would dehydrate a lot of sections of this county and that is not desirable either. He stated in order to preserve and protect our wetlands…

Commissioner Harper stated this is sure different than what was explained to me. He stated I don’t know if everybody else understood it that way. He stated I understood it that if they’re going to put water across somebody else’s property it had to either be in a defined waterway or an easement.


Mr. Breitzke stated you are missing the defined waterway that he just presented. He stated it goes through the tube into the ravine on the other side and on its way.

Mr. Read stated but somebody owns that ravine on the other side.

Commissioner Harper stated I just don’t get that.

Mr. Breitzke stated the water has always gone that way and that is where it is at.

Mrs. Marshall stated it hasn’t always gone that way. She stated they put in a pipe in there.

Mr. Breitzke stated they put a road in there too, Liz. He stated it went that way before they put the road in.

Commissioner Harper stated if the definition is the water has always gone that way, as far as I am concerned we should tear up that storm water ordinance that we wrote.

Mr. Breitzke stated it does not say that. He stated you are taking the surface water runoff that is not going into a channel and redefining the ordinance now. He stated the ordinance itself requires an outlet that you can see that requires the blue line on the USGS, the channel.

Mr. Read stated there are blue lines on the USGS maps all over even though the property is privately owned.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is indicative of the water going that way. He asked now do you stop people from using it. He stated let’s say if there is a road there for 30 years and it is not a public road, you still have rights of entry.

Commissioner Harper stated let me ask Mr. Burns and Mr. Detert. He asked is that the way you guys understood that ordinance.

Mr. Burns stated that is the way I understood it.

Mr. Read stated my suggestion is why don’t you contact the guy to the north and see what he says.

Mr. Breitzke stated actually he did. He stated he had to for the hearing tonight.

Commissioner Harper stated but he is saying why don’t you contact him to see if you can put more water on his property.

Mr. Read stated that is the way I read the ordinance. He stated if water goes across another private person’s property that is not a defined river or a regulated ditch then they have to have permission of that person to put any amount of water.

Mr. Rensberger stated I can do that.

Commissioner Harper stated we have had two pretty good hearings here tonight. He stated two subdivisions that went through pretty well and do you know what I was noticing about them is that they all had easements and they had gone to the people around them for the water before they got here. He stated I think solves some problems that we might have had with those hearings and things that went on.

Mr. Breitzke stated they also didn’t have outlets. He stated yes I do agree with you and they had to get those things worked out.

Mr. Rensberger stated this is kind of a defined waterway though. He stated the pond here goes to that pipe then to the ravine.

Mr. Read stated the guy to the north can when he develops his property if it is not a regulated ditch he can fill in that ravine.

Mr. Breitzke stated no he cannot. He stated there are laws that protect the upstream property owners. He stated those obstructions on mutual grades and those could fall under that category must not be obstructed.

Mr. Rensberger stated I think we have a bigger argument here than this. He stated maybe for this one me or my client go to the property owner to the north and get a letter saying yes that it is okay. He stated even though that won’t resolve the issue that you guys are seeing here but I think we won’t have a problem with the neighbors saying it is okay for the water to run where it naturally runs down.

Mr. Read moved to continue Case 06-P-6 until the developer has the opportunity to talk to the property owners that would receive the water off of the developer’s property. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mrs. Marshall stated in the staff notes it says, “Staff did not tell the surveyor that a buffer will need to be included


around the wetlands as per the open space ordinance.” She asked where you notified of that.

Mr. Thompson stated I did include that in the staff report and I apologize because I did not get with Mr. Rensberger and I do need to do that.

Mrs. Marshall stated so he hasn’t been notified here.

Mr. Thompson stated I had not told him about that. He stated there is a certain distance from around the pond that they must include the buffer and everything with the conservation easement. He stated I think that is an easy correction but I do need to get with him on that.

Mrs. Marshall stated I do to but I don’t see it and that is why I am asking.

Mr. Thompson stated I will get with him.

Mr. Rensberger stated they might have told my engineer that was attending the TAC meeting and it didn’t get to me.

Motion carried on the following voice vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Breitzke - No

Case 06-P-7. Petition of Bella Real Estate, LLC, 284 Turnburry Ct., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Bella Vista Subdivision to be located on the East side of CR 500 W. between Division Road and CR 100 N. in Union Township. (To contain 11 lots on 28.81 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and with me tonight is Terry Radtke from Radtke and Associates and Kim and Tim Brust who are the owners of Bella Real Estate LLC. He stated we are here for the primary plat for Bella Vista Subdivision. He stated we were at the DRC a couple of separate times and as recently as last week and were forwarded to you with a favorable recommendation. He stated the property consists of approximately 28.8 acres on the east side of CR 500 W. He stated it is zoned RR, Rural Residential under your ordinance. He stated the present use of the property is agricultural with some tree farming located at the furthest east 10± acres. He stated the adjoining uses of the property are agricultural uses and residential uses. He stated TalTree Arboretum is an adjoiner of the property and all of the adjoining property is zoned RR. He stated this subdivision will consist of 11 single family residential lots. He stated most are over two acres in size. He stated there are two that are just under two acres and that would be lots 1 and 11 that are closest to the entrance way. He stated those are 1.71 acres and 1.81 acres respectively. He stated these are large lots located in this rural residential zone. He stated well and septic individual for each site. He stated the Health Department has reviewed this and Soil Solutions did the soil borings and prepared those by backhoe rather than just single boring pits, which provided more accurate representation for soils and the Health Department has issued their letter indicating that the soils are in fact fine. He stated there is a minor subdivision that exists on the property located at the northern end, which we will be vacating as part of this preceding and that is all part of the record before this Body. He stated State Law permits me to do so through this proceeding or simply by recording a declaration provided that no lots are sold and there is no roadway or utility improvements installed, neither of which exists. He stated we have worked with Mr. Thompson providing all that information and I wanted to bring that to your attention as well. He stated as far as open space, 10% is required and we exceed that. He stated on to drainage, we look at three different ponds. He stated the first pond and the smallest pond between lots 9 and 10 that water begins there and flows under the road to a culvert and then onto the pond that is located on the north side of the property, which is our open space area as well, to be heavily landscaped and improved providing a very nice recreational area for all the residents in the subdivision. He stated the drainage then moves on to the east through rear yard swales and then on to what is shown as the largest pond and the further east depicted on your drawing. He stated that pond in not however in the subdivision. He stated it is an accepted parcel that the Brusts are retaining as ownership. He stated however the drainage does enter into that pond and it outlets from that pond through a defined channel and works its way into TalTree Arboretum at that location. He stated there is a single entrance to the subdivision. He stated it is a divided entrance. He stated Mr. Schelling was more than satisfied with that. He stated the roads will be public streets and dedicated to the public. He stated there is one crescent in the center that will be landscaped and to provide a natural buffer between the lots across the street from each other. He stated we have provided one letter previously from TalTree and Bob Thompson has that where TalTree has indicated in writing that they do in fact support the subdivision and I have another that we just received today. He stated I would have given it to you earlier but we didn’t get this until today. He stated this is from the Turner family who was the previously owner of this site. He stated they still own the property in the area and when you read this you will see that they support the subdivision and the time and effort that the Brust’s have put forth to create a quality project that everyone can be proud of. He stated to give you a little bit of an idea what the open space landscaping would look like. He stated for this area in here they hired a landscape architect to design the landscaping throughout the subdivision and have extensively landscaped this area providing for a walking trail in this area and some turf grass that is mowed. He stated these other areas in this lighter tan color is prairie grass a natural grass and then there is extensive other plantings. He stated one of the items that the Brust’s insisted on is that they have a year round color throughout and not just season type of color.

Mr. Radtke stated in the last review meeting we have changed the grade on the street slightly between the pond and CR 500 and also lowered the swales on the sides of the roads to get a better depth of the swales so that we don’t encounter water problems with the base of the road.

Alex Jachimowicz, 53 N. 500 W. He stated I live on the north side of the subdivision and we have had farm field there for years. He stated when heavy rains do come in we do get an abundance of water. He stated we are at the low end of where the subdivision is at on CR 500 and we do get a lot of water there. He stated I have a 19-inch culvert pipe that runs through my property to a ditch, which goes into Mr. Gate’s property. He stated my question is if they are building that area up will that cause more water flow. He stated I see that they built a berm there and will that cause more to go north because I am on the low end.

John Hall, 481 W. Division. He stated this will be a very nice subdivision and I am in favor of it.

Mr. Radtke stated the concern that the gentleman had is this area right in here. He stated there is a swale ditch on the north side of the property. He stated so from this point where pond 2 is it will all drain into pond 3 and then discharge here. He stated the concern that he has is that there is a small area right in here on lot 2 and some on lot 3 and what we are proposing to do is lower this ditch to be able to put fill in this low area here and then have this ditch come from all this same direction. He stated there will be no water entering onto his property. He stated he is actually north here and the ponds along the road we are actually diverting that so there will be less water headed north along CR 500. He stated right now everything flows from Division Road all the way north to the creek that you mentioned.


Theresa Jachimowicz, 53 N. 500 W. She stated my problem is that right now the street on CR 500 W. has flooded before in front of the homes. She stated it comes from our neighbors across the street, which has sloped property that comes down. She stated there is nothing but empty farm field between us and their land. She asked will we get a lot of water from this.

Mr. Ferngren stated that shouldn’t happen. He stated this is designed according to the storm water ordinance and all of the water that comes to the site stays on the site until it is released through the proper channel at that third pond. He stated the flooding that is occurring on the street is not the result of coming from this site at all. He stated we are in fact picking up that water from the west side of the parcels.

Mr. Radtke stated the area just to the south is where it contributes a lot of water to that ditch and we are actually picking up about 300 feet of neighbors property by 1000 feet long that has actually been going to that pond.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated you mentioned you are going to lower the ditch and lower the pond.

Mr. Radtke stated actually just lower the ditch and not the pond.

Mr. Burns asked what affect will that have on the pond.

Mr. Radtke stated basically their concern was is that if something would happen to the pond the water would go into that swale. He stated there is an 18-inch pipe right there. He stated what I did is changed the grade of the swale to the east lowered that so that if the pipe would get plugged up the swale water would then go down on the south side of the swale and it would still be under the base of the roadway.

Mr. Burns stated so by lowering the ditch it does not affect the capacity of the pond.

Mr. Detert stated I guess there are little side spots on the ponds. He asked is that to catch sediment.

Mr. Radtke stated those are the floor base that is required under your new ordinance.

Mr. Detert asked how are you going to clean them out.



Mr. Ferngren stated initially through construction it will happen then and ongoing there will be a Property Owners Association.

Mr. Radtke stated the whole idea is to catch the sediment and it is easy to control to get it clean.

Mr. Detert asked do you have some provision for the county to pick up if they don’t clean it.

Mr. Thompson stated yes there is. He stated I just looked through the storm water ordinance when it was brought up the last time and just to mention to everybody that there are provisions that are very much similar to the unsafe building ordinance. He stated if for some reason this system doesn’t operate and it is under the control of the Property Owners Association the county can come in and do the corrective action and then turn in assessed I guess essentially the work done onto the people who are supposed to be maintaining it.

Mr. Hutson stated I have a little question on your large pond. He asked is that an “L” shaped drain or what do you have at the top of that pond.

Mr. Radtke stated there is a pipe with a controlled discharge.

Mr. Cole stated I am curious about the drainage into TalTree. He stated TalTree obviously has no problem with this. He stated I know that they have a long lake a reclaimed wetland down east northeast of this property. He asked is that where it normally drains to.

Mr. Radtke stated currently the proposed is going in the direction it flows now. He stated everything from Division flows north to TalTree and heads east and goes through the ten acre lake there and is immediately at the east end of our property.

Mr. Cole stated the types of soils indicate that it could be a fairly high water table. He stated it pretty much concludes putting in finished basements in this area. He asked is that the way I am reading this.

Mr. Ferngren stated we don’t think it would preclude finished basements.

Mr. Read stated I wanted to say that I am pleased to see that this is not another cookie-cutter. He stated whoever is responsible for laying out the outlines of the ponds and the lots


and the roadway I am glad to see that. He stated on the open space your 10%, does it include the ponds.

Mr. Radtke stated it does not include the ponds.

Mr. Read asked is your open space around the pond.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Read asked do you have space around the other pond.

Mr. Ferngren stated there is a drainage and maintenance easement around that pond. He stated this pond is actually part of lots 9 and 10.

Mr. Brust stated under the ordinance if your pond is one acre or greater and it meets certain requirements for depth you can include that in your calculations for open space and it does meet that.

Mr. Read stated I am pleased to see that we are talking roughly two acres. He stated but you do have a problem here too in that your seasonal water table is nine, ten, twelve inches something like that. He stated seasonal water table as they measure it doesn’t include how high the water might go after a heavy rain. He stated so I think you have a water table problem. He asked how are you going to handle the septic situation.

Mr. Ferngren stated the Health Department has reviewed the report that was prepared by Mr. McQestion and has issued a letter indicating the soil types are conducive to the non-exotic types of…

Mr. Read stated conventional systems. He stated what about when your water table is nine inches below the surface of the ground.

Mr. Radtke stated three lots are going to have mound systems on them and one lot with gravity out pull and the others will have flood dose.

Mr. Read asked was that included in the material that I have.

Mr. Radtke stated that is the report from the County Health Department.

Mrs. Marshall stated traffic goes pretty fast on CR 500 W. She asked is this going to have an accel and decel lane to get into this property.

Mr. Ferngren stated there are tapers provided on the plans to allow access in and out of the subdivision and it is a divided entrance way that Mr. Schelling has approved.

Mrs. Marshall stated in this development review Mr. Breitzke asked if you had obtained easements from people, drainage easement, and Mr. Brust said that they talked to them. She stated they didn’t go so far to say that they gave an easement. She stated it says that they just showed them what they were proposing for drainage and they just indicated that it was okay with them. She stated it goes on to say that they didn’t specifically ask for an easement. She stated Mr. Breitzke goes on to say that he would like them to ask for an easement. She stated in what area is that. She stated I think you are calling this the A Pond, the B Pond and the C Pond.

Mr. Ferngren stated the outlet from the C Pond is what you are referring to. He stated that this the one Kevin was asking about the easement. He stated Harvey Nix from the NRCS designed these ponds and he has provided confirmation to the DRC that this is in fact a defined channel where this leads Pond C.

Mrs. Marshall stated since there is a conservancy district at Lake Eliza is there any possibility that they could work with the conservancy district at Lake Eliza.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is always a possibility. He stated it is more of a cost feasibility standpoint. He stated I am not sure where they are with capacity because they signed on with Prairie Landing. He stated I would think that they enlarged the plant enough but that is something that the petitioner would have to check into with the conservancy district.

Mr. Radtke stated there is a capacity issue.

Mrs. Marshall stated this larger of the two front ponds is there any drainage off of that pond and is this a retention where there is no outlet off of that pond.

Mr. Radtke stated there is going to be water in it all of the time and we are discharging it to the back north of our swale line.

Mrs. Marshall asked it is then going to go down to…

Mr. Radtke stated to Pond C.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the old philosophies was to have no outlet. He stated we require an emergency overflow as well as


an outlet that is another foot lower. He stated the outlet itself is above the 100 year or at the 100 year detention level so there is storage on a normal water level. He stated that is what we required them to do in this case.

Mrs. Marshall asked Mr. Jachimowicz do you live in the house that is immediately north of where they had the circus equipment in that building.

Mr. Jachimowicz stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated you have water that comes off of this subdivision that goes down that road.

Mr. Jachimowicz stated it does come down since we are down slope in that area.

Mrs. Marshall stated on the north side of that existing house there is a parcel that is kind of marked off and is that under some ownership. She stated they have a drive in there already. She stated it is between you and the big house.

Mrs. Jachimowicz stated that is 2.45 acres or something like that and it has been sitting like that and someone just purchased it.

Mrs. Marshall stated I was just trying to identify which was your house.

Mrs. Jachimowicz stated we are the tan house.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Radtke will you bring that drawing up in front. He asked is there any problem with basements on these lots.

Mr. Radtke stated one thing is that I set building grades on a high level. He stated they are definitely going to have perimeter drains by the basements so that they won’t have water problems. He stated if they are properly done they won’t have problems.

Commissioner Harper asked is this where the drains starts right here.

Mr. Radtke stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked where does this water go.

Mr. Radtke stated right now it naturally goes in right here in this low parcel.

Commissioner Harper asked what about this area in here.

Mr. Radtke stated this area here to here goes down the road but then we cut off all this drainage goes down here.

Commissioner Harper stated so you have an area that goes down the road.

Mr. Radtke stated right.

Commissioner Harper asked to where does it go.

Mr. Radtke stated to the ditch on CR 500 W.

Commissioner Harper stated then some of this goes to where.

Mr. Radtke stated right here.

Commissioner Harper stated where does this go across their land.

Mr. Radtke stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated it will continue to do so.

Mr. Radtke stated right.

Commissioner Harper stated you are telling us that the rest of the water on this property is going to end up in this pond eventually.

Mr. Radtke stated correct.

Commissioner Harper stated when it leaves this pond where does it go.

Mr. Radtke stated it is going to discharge into this defined channel that Harvey Nix indicated and discovered when he did his design work on the ponds.

Commissioner Harper stated how do we as a group…was Harvey Nix hired to work on this project.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated how do we as a group make a determination that this is a defined waterway that meets our ordinance. He stated they are telling us that one of their paid people that was paid to do the ponds tells them that. He asked


don’t they have to get an easement from that guy even if this is a little part of this drainage over there according to our storm water drainage.

Mr. Breitzke stated first I believe that they should get an easement from the guy to the north. He stated there is a tube that is a little bit further north and I think that the tube is maybe 18-inches.

Commissioner Harper stated so you are telling us that you think they should get an easement.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think that they should get an easement or extend to the east if they could work out something. He stated I think that is doable.

Commissioner Harper asked who should they get the easement.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am talking about the eastern most pond.

Commissioner Harper stated what about here.

Mr. Thompson stated I think they were showing you the wrong drainage plan.

Mr. Breitzke stated we asked them to do rear yard drainage throughout that they didn’t have initially. He stated I should also say that I requested that they lower that roadside ditch to the east in order to make sure that it didn’t saturate a road base.

Commissioner Harper stated what about this guy here. He stated he is saying that water is coming off here going north.

Mr. Breitzke stated they should still intercept the water from that lot when they build the lot. He stated more than half of the lot will go back out to the street. He stated another part of it will go probably to that roadside ditch and around. He stated I would just suggest putting in a swale back there to intercept it.

Commissioner Harper stated shouldn’t we continue this for a couple of weeks and let them come back and take care of these things.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think that they could do this at final plat.

Mr. Thompson stated there is a drainage way at that corner.

Mr. Ferngren stated Mr. Brust owns all of this property as well. He stated what we could do; the drainage forever has gone this like this. He stated we are proposing that it continue to do that like it always has through what we believe to be a defined channel. He stated we could simply take this right to here and directly into TalTree’s property but that would change the historical drainage patterns of this area.

Commissioner Harper stated I believe what he is saying is that he feels in his opinion if you go that way you need to get an easement. He stated I think that is what he is saying.

Mr. Ferngren stated we would have to get an easement from who.

Mr. Breitzke stated from the people to the north.

Mr. Read stated if he goes north and then around he has to get approval from the property owner to the north at the east end or go directly east.

Mr. Breitzke stated my concern being there is an existing crossing and if that gets block off or something happens there it is somewhat interrupted. He stated I understand it would be better for TalTree if it went all the way around. He stated it just helps slow it down even more. He stated I think you can accomplish this by grades and it is not going to be difficult to run it east.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 06-P-7 to the April 26 meeting in order for the petitioner to address those issues. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read stated we talked about the northeast corner now let’s go back to the northwest corner, which is your property. He stated as I understand a portion of that first lot does drain towards his property.

Mr. Ferngren stated any portion of that lot would drain to a county right-of-way and the rest will all be picked up in this area and taken towards that rear eastern pond.

Mr. Read stated even though our contour lines show a slope to the north you are going to re-contour such that the water will not cross this mans property. He asked is that correct.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.


Mr. Read asked does that satisfy you.

The neighbor answered yes.

Mr. Read asked what happens to the water from the sump pumps.

Mr. Ferngren stated it goes into the swale back to the yard line.

Mrs. Marshall stated on lots 1 and 11 you are not going to allow a driveway onto CR 500 W.

Mr. Ferngren stated it will be on the subdivision road.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to suggest that Mr. Detert meet with our attorney and come up with a wording for this covenant and then we have it printed up and have it available at the Plan Commission so they pass it out to these people who are coming in on these subdivision and so they understand this covenant on attorney fees. He stated maybe Mr. Cole and Mr. Read could meet with the attorney and discuss some possible wording on these strips that are ending up as open space. He asked do we have something in the ordinance regarding the county coming in and doing assessments if the open space area isn’t taken care of by the POA.

Mr. Breitzke stated we do have that.

Commissioner Harper stated okay then that is covered. He stated the last thing is that Mr. Burns was talking about the height of the driveways and the drainage and so forth. He stated I thought we had addressed that in our new storm water ordinance or one of our ordinances.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have a 6% maximum on driveways and we also have the requirement that the first floor has to be…

Commissioner Harper stated why don’t we ask Mr. Burns to look at it and tell us whether he thinks it needs to be at least make some suggestions to us…I am just saying that at the end of each meeting let’s try to clean up…He stated I would like to have the attorney to make a presentation next time so I understand what our drainage ordinance provides. He stated number one, one of the examples we saw tonight is when it goes across one piece of land but what about when it hits the next piece of land. He stated the first piece of land might now be a very wide piece of


land. He stated if we get an easement from one property owner and it is going to spill over to the next property owner are we covered there. He stated number two, how do we define a defined water way and how do we decide what a…

Mr. Breitzke stated it is beyond us to…

Commissioner Harper stated I just want the attorney to make a little explanation to us according to our ordinance what a defined water way is.

Mr. Thompson stated we do have public hearing dates set and we are going to on Tuesday, May 9 at 6:30 we are going to hold a public hearing in these chambers to cover chapters 1 thru 4. He stated on Thursday, May 11 at 6:30 here in these chambers we will discuss chapters 5 thru 8 and on Friday, May 12 at 6:30 here again in these chambers we will be discussing the remaining chapters 9 thru 12. He stated I have contacted one of the newspapers to put in a story about it and we are also putting in a legal public notification in the newspapers as required. He stated one of the items that we will be putting in it is that we will be accepting written comments to all of these chapters up until Thursday, May 18.

Mr. Thompson stated one of the things I would like to ask permission for is that I have approached the Council about this idea and they told me to go ahead with it. He stated I would like to hire one or two college interns this summer to give me assistance as far as working on the UDO and also with any cases or any types of situation that comes in the office. He stated I am going to be extremely busy because once we decide that these are the districts that we want within the UDO I have to hit that map and I have to hit it hard. He stated I am talking the zoning map.

Commissioner Harper moved to hire two college interns for summer work. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.


Mr. Breitzke stated the other thing that Bob did bring up is that we need to develop or re-develop our construction details to start giving the developers a little bit more consistency.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner