 |
PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 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, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Robert Detert, Vice-President. Those members absent were Kevin Breitzke. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson, Raymond Joseph, Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Cole moved to waive the reading of the August 8, 2007 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Old Business: Case 00-P-16. Petition of David Riley, 39 S. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana to reinstate the primary plat of Riley Ridge Subdivision located on the East side of CR 400 E., approximately ¼ mile South of Division Road, between Division Road and CR 100 S. in Morgan Township. (Con’t from 8-8-07.) Don Bengel representing David Riley and Riley Ridge Subdivision. This is a third phase of a three phase subdivision. To the north is Morgan Estates and to the south is Creekwood Subdivision. This subdivision is east of Oak Breeze Estates Subdivision. The plat for Phase C did expire and they would like the primary plat extended. This section would require no public streets. There are four new lots and one existing lot. Lot 17 is where Mr. and Mrs. Riley now reside. Their request to the Plan Commission is to reinstate the primary plat so that they can begin the process of the secondary plat. Mr. Hutson asked did you do what the Board requested of you. Mr. Bengel stated we did send out the plats. Mr. Burns stated as I understand it he meets all the new open space requirements. Mr. Thompson stated the old plat did not require the open space but I see that they are putting in the open space here. Mr. Bengel stated yes we are. Mr. Burns asked what percent? Mr. Bengel stated I am not sure but I know it meets the percentage. I know it is a strange configuration but we don’t have 50-feet access on CR 400 E. We have access to all the lots and they can all reach the open space and to the regulated drain. Mr. Burns stated my next question is in regards to rear yard drainage. Mr. Bengel stated this whole thing slopes to the ditch. We can add easements wherever we need to. If you feel the need for us to add a rear easement we can do that. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Cole stated this is probably going to be the plat that is going to be presented to us if we do extend the primary. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Cole stated access to the lots; I guess the one lot will have its driveway on CR 400 E. and then the common driveway for the three lots on the north. He asked what about lot 10. Mr. Bengel stated Lot 10 has 96-feet of frontage between lots 15 and 17. Mr. Read stated I don’t get this reinstatement of primary. How long has it been…you said that there was an approval for the primary at some point in the past. Mr. Bengel stated the primary plat was approved. Mr. Read asked how long ago? Mr. Bengel stated the original approval was… Mr. Thompson stated November 8, 2000. Mr. Read stated it has been seven years since a public hearing. Mr. Read would like to see a staff report and he wanted to know how Mr. Bengel calculated the open space. Mr. Bengel stated the area that has the double-crossed hashed is the designated open space. There is a 75-foot drainage easement but we can make that available for people to use.
Mr. Bengel stated I believe it is between 10% and 15%. Mr. Read asked under this plan who owns the open space. Is it in joint ownership or does lot 10 own his open space and lot 9 owns his open space. Mr. Bengel stated yes that is how it is. It doesn’t make any difference who owns it because there is going to be access granted to the people in the subdivision to that open space. Mr. Read stated then I want to see something that clarifies on this drawing that the use of this open space is available to all of the people in this subdivision. Mr. Bengel stated that is fine. I will have a note on the plat and a note in the covenants. Mr. Read stated now in the matter of surface drainage. I can’t see from what you have here where the drainage goes and whether any of it spills off to the north or the south. That suggests to me that maybe you should have some contour lines on here. Mr. Bengel stated if we go back to DAC we can add whatever you like. Mr. Read stated I do want a ruling from our attorney as to the legality for what happens when there has been a long period of time and in this case seven years. Mr. Bengel stated the plat has been extended a couple of times in that period. Mr. Detert stated they are extended three years at a time and they let the last one expire. Attorney McClure stated the original primary plat expires in three years and then they got an extension till 2006. When you originally approve a primary plat it is good for three years. They came in and extended it for an additional three years. It expired sometime in 2006 and now they are here asking for it to be reinstated. Mr. Read asked under those circumstances there doesn’t have to be another public hearing.
Mr. Read stated I am very reluctant to go that long without hearing from the public on this. Mr. Bengel stated this is the last subdivision in the area to be developed. When we had a public hearing everyone around it had already had a lot. Mr. Read stated as long as you are assuring us that you will come up with some of these things that we have asked for meeting current standards of the open space and surface drainage. Mrs. Marshall asked what percentage of this is for road dedication. Mr. Bengel stated 30-feet. At this time, Mr. Bengel explained to Mrs. Marshall the road dedication. Commissioner Harper stated the rear yard drainage has to be addressed. Mr. Detert stated what is before us is an extension and he has agreed to most of the considerations that you want. Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 00-P-16 until all the information is on the plat, which is rear yard drainage, the percentage of open space and contour lines on the plat. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 07-P-15. Petition of James D. Williams, 394 W. 300 S., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Windy Oaks Subdivision, Phase C, to be located on the North side of CR 250 S. between CR 675 W. and CR 600 W. in Porter Township. (To contain 2 lots on 3.88 acres. Property is zoned RR. Public hearing is closed.) Donald Bengel is here with Mr. Williams the developer of Windy Oaks Subdivision. They have dedicated 45-feet for road dedication. At this time, Mr. Bengel explained to Mrs. Marshall the road dedication of this plat. Mr. Bengel stated Mr. Harper was upset about water draining
Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mrs. Marshall stated I think that this building is a nonconforming building and I think that we have to accept it or perhaps it shouldn’t be subdivided. This is a concern of mine, that building. Mr. Read stated concerning the surface drainage on the northwest corner you still have between elevation 779 going down to 778 and drainage to the northwest. There is an easy way out on that and that is in your final to build up that corner… Mr. Bengel stated that corner drains onto us. Mr. Read stated it is going towards the open space area. Mr. Bengel stated yes and then it will go onto that drainage easement and follow through. Mr. Read asked who owns the open space. Mr. Bengel stated each lot will own its own open space. We can cover that with a statement that both of the lots will have the use of that open space and that will be on the drawing and in the covenants. Mr. Read asked how are you going to handle to make sure that the water goes to where it shows. Mr. Bengel stated we will create a swale in that easement. Mr. Read stated so in the final drawing you will re-contour this to create a swale and that the drainage will go the way that you are showing here. Mr. Bengel stated yes.
Mr. Bengel stated the owner of it can use it to put his cars in there or use it as his work shed. We will put in the covenants that it will not be a business. Mr. Read asked when will you return with these corrections. Mr. Bengel stated at final plat. Mr. Cole stated I have no questions. Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions. Mr. Burns stated I have a problem with the shed. To me this is not good planning. We are subdividing and causing a nonconforming issue. My opinion in a couple of years someone is going to go forward and will want a business in this building. I don’t think it should be torn down but I have a hard time subdividing and cause a nonconforming issue. Mr. Detert stated you need to put a note on the plat that you have. People tend to not look too closely at the covenants. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Commissioner Harper asked has everything been resolved at the Drainage Board. Mr. Bengel stated we went to the Board and they added these lots to their drainage assessments. Commissioner Harper stated that the note says that they are still having drainage problems especially in the northwest area. Mr. Read asked is there some legal matter…I would like to see Mr. Burns concerns addressed in a legal manner. Attorney McClure stated as the building currently sits is a nonconforming building. It doesn’t meet current ordinance because it is too big. The way I read the ordinance we are limited in what we can require of the petitioner. We are not altering it, we are not enlarging it, we are not moving it, and we are not doing any of those things. What we are doing is subdividing the property and we are not even changing the zoning. I think that we are without the ability to require the building to come down. We have requests and we have commitments from the petitioner to add language that in my mind is only mimicking or
Mr. Read moved to continue Case 07-P-15 to the September 12, 2007 meeting and to have the petitioner put the corrections and the added notes that the Commission have discussed. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call. Case 07-FP-10. Petition of Marty Rogness, 157 York Circle, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Rogness Subdivision, to be located at 624 W. 100 S. in Porter Township. (To contain 2 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.) Erin Taylor with Duneland Group representing Rogness Subdivision. This subdivision is located on the south side of CR 100 S. This subdivision consists of ten acres divided into two lots for single family homes. Primary plat approval was received on September 27, 2006. Approval was given contingent on changing the covenants and restrictions to specify the maintenance on the man made pond and also to include this on the recorded plat. There was also a contingency of a turnaround on Lot 2 for emergency vehicles. These contingencies have been addressed in the restrictive covenants as well as on the plat. Mr. Cole stated I have no questions. Mr. Read stated can you come back to me. Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions. Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions. Mr. Burns stated I have no questions. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Read asked where is the open space. Mr. Taylor stated the open space is shown in an easement on lot 1 and lot 2. Mr. Read asked do you have an open space note on this plat. Mr. Taylor stated there is a note on the bottom at the center of the page as well as note #9. Mr. Burns moved to approve secondary plat for Case 07-FP-10. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 07-FP-11. Petition of Barbara Sigle, 410 W. Coolspring Avenue, Michigan City, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Sigle’s Quest Subdivision to be located at 343 E. 1325 N. in Pine Township. (To contain 2 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.) Bill Rensberger from Davies Rensberger Landsurveying representing Sigle’s Quest Subdivision. This subdivision received primary plat approval one month ago. The main issue was to add more open space, which Mr. Miller agreed to. There is now 2.73 acres of open space on the ten acre parcel. Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions. Mr. Burns stated I have no questions. Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Cole stated I have no questions. Mr. Read stated I have no questions. Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions. Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions. Mr. Cole move to approve secondary plat for Case 07-FP-11. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. At this time, Mr. Burns requested that Don Plumb report on Falling Waters. Don Plumb, 784 Cirque Dr., reported on Falling Waters. The Homeowners meeting for last Thursday was canceled due to the
Mr. Plumb went on to report on the issues within the subdivision. Mr. Floramo expects to have caps on the retaining walls within 30 days. The home owners will vote as to whether or not they have the final lift put on the streets and all the curbs repaired. Mr. Floramo said that he would include a requirement that the contractor doing the installation would provide a two year maintenance bond. This would not cover concrete trucks damaging the curbs and things like that. The intent would be on individual sites to enforce the deposit that is already provided for in the covenants and collect the monies. If there is any damage to the streets or curbs during construction to go ahead and either have the contractor replace them or the home owners can replace them with their contractor’s money. This will be up to the home owners. The front gates are not working due to someone damaging them with their vehicle. The parts have been ordered and should be repaired shortly. Hydro seeding has been delayed because of the heavy rains. It has been rescheduled for the first or second week of September. Mr. Cole stated I went through there the other day and I noticed a lot of silt in the streets. One street lamp has still not been mounted on the north end. Mr. Plumb stated I think that is the one that Mr. Floramo said there was no power to yet. Commissioner Harper asked are the home owners going to elect a replacement to the Board? Mr. Plumb stated yes. There will be nominations this Fall. In the annual meeting in February there will be an election. There will be an interim and there still would be an election next year to confirm that.
Mr. Plumb stated we have not and I have not. Mrs. Marshall stated that this is important and they have not been filed. Three times and there were violations each of the times that were filed. The other thing is the drainage of the sewer plant into a ditch, which they have identified as a tributary of Deep River. I think that is going to be a question that IDEM is going to be questioning. Mr. Burns asked Mr. Thompson, we have asked for target dates from Mr. Floramo. Have you seen them yet? Mr. Thompson stated I haven’t seen them yet but I do have a note to call Mr. Floramo to get them. Mr. Burns stated we gave him two weeks and we haven’t heard from him yet. Maybe we should ask him to appear here again with that report. Mr. Detert stated maybe we should send a letter to him concerning this. I would suggest that if we don’t get that report to get mailed out for the next meeting, Bob ought to give him a call and tell him we want him here. Mr. Plumb stated I have a copy of a spread sheet that Mr. FLoramo gave to me. Mr. Detert stated that is the old one. New Business: At this time, Mr. Detert read the rules of conduct for a public hearing. Case 07-P-16. Petition of Gerhard K. King, 229 S. 600 W., Hebron, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Natures Trail Manor to be located at 229 S. 600 W. in Porter Township. (To contain 2 lots on 15 acres. Property is zoned RR.) Don Bengel representing Gerhard King the developer of Natures Trail Manor. There is a total of 15 acres on this site. Mr. King built a very nice house and has two ponds that will take care of all the drainage. He wants to keep his 10 acres as 10 acres and take the land between his house and CR 600 W. and develop two very nice exclusive lots. They have BZA approval for
No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke in opposition to this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Hutson asked lots A and B won’t be entering that existing drive. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Lot A will not access directly onto CR 600 W. except by the private road. There will be a maintenance agreement between Lots A, B and Mr. King for the maintenance of the drive. Mr. Hutson stated there was an issue with the fire department. Mr. Bengel stated there was an issue on how would the fire department get in there. There’s two thinks that you would do. You would put in a break away gate if the signal doesn’t open the gate. Mr. Detert asked did you talk to the fire department? Mr. Bengel stated we sent the plans to the fire department and we talked to one of the members of DAC, Jim Branham, and he felt that it was fine. Mr. Burns asked is your drainage easement the same as your open space. Mr. Bengel stated no. There is a 30-foot conservation open space easement and then on Lot B we put a 20-foot drainage easement to get any drainage that would come off of… Mr. Burns stated there is not one on Lot A. Mr. Bengel stated it wasn’t necessary. The water that gets down there will go into the easement.
Mr. Burns stated I thought the requirement was rear yard drainage on all lots. Mr. Bengel stated we don’t have a problem extending that cross. Mr. Burns asked Mr. Thompson when we say rear yard drainage I thought they had to have a system in place and not just an easement. I thought they had to have either piping with a drain or a ditch or a swale. Mr. Bengel stated there will be a swale in there. Mr. Thompson stated our code says that you have to have a 20-foot easement along the back of the property or the front of the property. The storm water manual talks about having some system either a pipe or a swale area to take it to a retention or pipe system. Mr. Burns asked do we see that at primary? Should we see something? Mr. Thompson stated yes. Mr. Burns stated you have an easement but you don’t have a system. Mr. Bengel stated we have a note on here that a swale to be constructed along CR 600 W. There will be a swale down the private road to direct the water down to the pond. Mr. Burns stated you should have one on the back of the lots. Mr. Bengel stated we do agree to that. Mrs. Stevenson stated I am concerned about the drainage also. Mr. Cole stated I have a concern about the ownership of the driveway and the agreement of maintenance with the land owners. I have a problem in that this entranceway is owned by the developer and that there is only an agreement and the maintenance of the driveway is shared by the three different property owners. Mr. Bengel stated those property owners will have an easement to use that. Mr. Cole stated I guess I will be seeing that in a legal description. Mr. Detert asked what would be your suggestion, that they all own it equal. Mr. Cole stated yes. Mr. Detert stated I think one of the problems you get into when you do something like that is that one of the people doesn’t want to pay for the maintenance. I’m not saying that it won’t work. Mr. Bengel stated that there is mechanism in the agreement that is somebody doesn’t they go see their friendly attorney. Mr. Cole asked Attorney McClure if this was okay. Attorney McClure stated the easement is there and he is going to have to have the maintenance agreement drawn up by an attorney. It is not on this. Mr. Cole stated we are talking about a three lot subdivision with no further subdivision in the future. Mr. Bengel stated yes, that is correct. Mr. Read stated I am troubled by this access here. It is all keyed to the wording of this driveway maintenance agreement. I think that we should see that at primary. Until I see what the wording is, I think that this entire area going to the west up until that dashed line that has the 60-feet over it should be in joint ownership for all three owners. Attorney McClure stated just for the Boards knowledge, one of the issues of having individual ownership is going to be once you own it there would still have to be some sort of agreement to maintain it but I believe you get closer to an issue of potentially having three different surfaces down that road. If it is owned by a single individual an easement that has been granted to Lots A and B in perpetuity allows A and B to have access to that road and then to have one single maintenance, I believe, keeps us closer to having one surface, one maintenance etc. Mr. Read stated we should see that at primary as far as I am concerned. Mr. Detert stated you can request that. Mr. Read stated I am requesting that. I am concerned about the open space. I want to see the all inclusive note at primary also. Mr. Read asked is that a man made pond? Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Burns asked what is required at primary? Attorney McClure stated our ordinance does not explicitly state that we would need the road maintenance agreement. That would be a request. The wording for the open space would be part of primary. I believe the easements that he is showing for the drainage would be required at primary. The drainage as a whole needs to be done at primary. At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning natural waterways. Attorney McClure stated the question ultimately is this. Is the current drainage to the east of the ponds naturally occurring water way etc. that would not require a written easement. If it is not, then we need an easement. Mr. Burns stated if it is shouldn’t it be regulated. They have a pond with control flow off. If you get two-inches an hour rain what is going to happen? Mr. King stated there are pond levelers in both ponds.
Mr. Burns stated I would like to know if it is a natural water way or not. Someone has to answer that. Mr. Thompson stated that is simply by looking at whether or not there is a regulated drain or a free flowing stream defined by our open space. However, in our Storm Water manual it does talk about intermittent stream that is dry and will carry water during a storm event. We drafted it so it included wetlands, lakes and also ditches made for that. Do I know for sure that there is a water way, I don’t know. Commissioner Harper asked was this reviewed by DLZ? Mr. Thompson stated no it was not. Commissioner Harper asked is it required to be on a two lot subdivision. Mr. Thompson stated I have never gotten any directions from this Plan Commission as far as when do we submit things to DLZ.
Commissioner Harper moved to table Case 07-P-16 and remand this case back to the Development Advisory Committee and to have DLZ review this. Mr. Burns seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Thompson stated at what point do you want us to submit these subdivisions to DLZ. Commissioner Harper stated if DAC can’t tell us when the back yard drainage is done then they need to go to DLZ. Attorney McClure stated it is in there. It states, “No outline signs, break away on gate, 20-foot drainage easement on the north end of Lot A south of the conservation easement and maybe a swale.” This was brought up at DAC to the petitioner. It is the petitioners responsibility to put it on the plan and respond to DAC. Mr. Detert stated I don’t think that anything should come before us that hasn’t been reviewed by DAC in the final form. Attorney McClure stated if the petitioner is told at DAC that they need to put the easement on the north end of Lot A and it needs to be 20-feet and maybe include a swale and then they come here and it is not done this Boards responsibility is to continue it or deny it. Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Case 07-P-14. Petition of Maureen & Donald Harris, 416 E. 100 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Mace Subdivision to be located at 449 N. 400 E. in Washington Township. (To contain 2 lots on 3.03 acres. The property is zoned RR.) Eric Banschbach from Torringa Land Surveying is representing Maureen & Donald Harris and Thomas Mace. This is a two lot subdivision. There will be two building sites. The proposed lots have the required minimum frontage on the existing county road. Both lots will utilize a single access off of CR 400 E. There is a conservation easement to satisfy the open space, which is basically on the north side of lot 2 that also adjoins lot 1. Both sites will require mound systems. The Drainage Board reviewed this and no regulated drain is required. No one spoke in favor of this petition. Maureen Harris, 416 E. 100 N. Mrs. Harris is in favor of this petition. Alan Knierieman, 445 N. 400 E. His concern is about the septic system for the two houses. He is also concerned about the drainage for this plan and the driveway. People have used his driveway to get to this property. Also this property has been used as a race track for RTV’s and he is concerned about them using his driveway to get to this property. Lloyd McCormack, 465 N. 400 E. His concern is that this parcel has been used for a race track. He would also like to know if there is an ordinance on how many “KEEP OFF” signs you can have on your property and the distance. Alan Whitcomb, 470 N. 400 E. He is concerned about the drainage onto his property and how it is going to be controlled and the dirt track business that we suffered with for some months now. Mr. Banschbach stated Mr. Knierieman was concerned about concerned about his existing driveway which is shown to the south of this piece. The other existing driveway that is shown on our piece in the southwest corner was basically an area of gravel with an existing culvert presumably to grant access to the piece off of the county road. What is proposed and shown is the approved entrance off of the county road, which is your standard for the width and the depth off the right-of-way and then each individual driveways to each one of the lots are shown on the site plan too. Access to those two lots will not come from the existing driveway when the houses are built. That problem should be taken care of. They won’t be accessing off the existing drive. We do have preliminary approval for our septic system from the Health Department. The nuisance portion of it I suspect the owners of the property will probably be able to answer those concerns. Tom Mace, 3508 Evans Ave. I had no idea that someone was running dirt bikes there. We stopped it as soon as we found out about it. To my knowledge it hasn’t happened again. Mr. Detert stated I was just wondering if that is a problem I don’t know if we can force you to do what I am going to suggest but could you buy a couple of signs that says, “Private Drive No Construction Traffic” and put it up for the other drive. Mr. Mace stated yes. Mr. Detert stated you would have to have his permission to go onto his property.
Mr. McCormack stated I would like to know for my property how many “no trespassing” signs can you put up. Where do you put them and how much spacing? Attorney McClure stated I don’t believe that there is. I don’t believe that we have an ordinance that deals with trespassing signs, private property signs that are on your property. That would be up to you the individual property owner where you would want them etc. The public hearing was then closed. Commissioner Harper asked do we have water draining off of this property onto someone else’s property? A culvert under a road is not what our ordinance…it depends on what is on the other side of the road. We cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that a culvert under the road is a defined waterway going onto someone’s lawn on the other side of the road. Mr. Thompson stated I have asked the engineers on these smaller subdivisions like one, two or three lots, do you want this to go to DLZ. This particular one said no. I leave it to the engineers to handle those drainage comments. Commissioner Harper stated if this doesn’t meet the requirements of our ordinance and it doesn’t sound like they do, they are going to need to come back. There is no sense to rehash this all night. Mr. Burns stated I agree because we have the same issue as the last time. There is a rear yard drainage easement but no system. Mr. Banschbach stated there are drainage arrows on there and it is basically illustrated on the individual site plans as well. Mr. Burns asked is it a 12-inch drop and where does it head, west, north. How deep is it? Is it a ditch? Is it a pipe?
Mr. Banschbach stated it would just be swaled and I don’t have individual profiles if that is what you are asking. Commissioner Harper moved to table Case 07-P-14 and have this reviewed by DLZ. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Read asked Mr. Bancshbach to clarify who owns which driveway on the plat. Case 07-P-12. Petition of Dean Bucher, 179 Buckskin Lane, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Pleasant Subdivision, Part Two to be located on the East side of CR 150 E. approximately ½ mile South of CR 600 S. in Pleasant Township. (To contain 1 lot on 0.78 acres. Property is zoned R-1.) Dean Bucher, 179 Buckskin Lane, Valparaiso. Randy Peterson the engineer and surveyor with McMahon Associates, representing Mr. Bucher who desires to create a one lot subdivision. Mr. Bucher has owned this property for a number of years and has done two subdivisions in the past. Mr. Bucher did a minor subdivision that is directly to the south of this property and a major subdivision that is on the east side of the property not shown on this plat. We did complete the one single change that DAC required and that was a typographical error in the Deed of Dedication. They referred to a 30-foot right-of-way instead of a 40-foot right-of-way. We have been before the Drainage Board we were requested a non-regulated non-assessed approval and this was granted. No one spoke in favor of this petition. No one spoke against this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated I don’t see the rear yard drainage easement. Mr. Bucher stated the property actually drains to the northwest corner and Randy has created a swale here to hold our water onsite. Mr. Burns asked is there an easement and a system. Mr. Peterson asked who would benefit from an easement. Mr. Burns stated the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Burns stated in case you need to put a system in and that is in the ordinance. The ordinance states that you have to have a rear yard drainage system. Mr. Peterson stated there is no drainage at this site. It just puddles up at the northwest corner. We created a swale to hold the water and infiltrate it and it was designed according to the ordinance. DLZ did not review this. Mr. Hutson stated I have no comments. Commissioner Harper stated I have no comments. Mrs. Marshall stated I have no comments. I do think that it is good use of this piece of property and it meets the zoning. Mr. Read asked who owns the land to the north. Mr. Peterson stated the easement goes to the north property line but the water does not flow off of the lot. Mr. Read stated you have an arrow that shows it that way. Mr. Peterson stated this is sandy soil and it will infiltrate into the ground. That is the point of the swale, to retain the water and allow it to infiltrate into the soil and actually return into the water table. Mr. Bucher stated I have built nine homes out there and I have lived in three of them. We have gotten huge monsoons like we did a week ago tonight and there is a swale along Baums Bridge Road and I have never seen water in it. Mr. Read asked what do you have on the drawing that says that. Mr. Peterson stated the soils table that is on the drawing. Mr. Read asked with one house is he obligated to set aside open space.
Attorney McClure stated I believe we have open space. Attorney McClure asked where is it.
Attorney McClure stated to answer your question all residential development has open space requirements. Mr. Peterson stated there is a 10-foot conservation and open space easement. Mr. Bucher stated that was my idea. I went out there today and counted trees that I planted on the 16-acres. 801 trees I have planted since 1995. Some of them are 30-feet tall. We had two choices here. We could have put it on the back of lot 1 to the east and made it that much bigger, which made zero sense, or we could put a conservation easement 10-feet wide to take in this overall row of trees here, which nobody could cut down those trees yet you can’t go out there and walk but visually it would be much more with the spirit of the open space ordinance then it would to put in another 70-foot of grass on the back of this lot. We could do that but is that really the intent of the open space. At this time, there was a discussion on the intent of the open space. Mr. Read asked is the area to the east going to be subdivided in the future.
Mr. Bucher stated no. My original plan was maybe to put in two lots back there where I have my ball field. I approached the neighbors with what I was doing and one of the neighbors said that he wants to buy it so nobody ever builds back there. Mr. Hutson asked do you plan on putting a fill in there so you can grow some grass there. Mr. Bucher stated the only fill that we would do is that the house would be built out of the ground probably 42-inches and we would probably build up against the house another 24 and then grade that off to maybe out 25-feet.
Mr. Bucher stated I was willing to do that and I would be willing to do that. I don’t see where it how that benefits lot 1 owner having ownership of 10 x 500+ feet as compared to just protecting those trees by putting in a conservation easement and each one of these neighbors could take care of what is behind their house. Mr. Burns stated it is more of a legal issue. I guess we need to ask Council because our open space ordinance, I thought, was part of that piece of property being developed. Attorney McClure stated generally that is correct. Mr. Burns stated so we would have to make exception for this because this 10-feet… Attorney McClure stated it is also a matter of access. Obviously, if we have open space off site with no access it doesn’t meet the ordinance. This is adjoining with access, correct? Mr. Bucher stated yes. At this time, there was a small discussion on the open space. Mr. Detert asked would he be willing to put a commitment. Mr. Peterson stated he has no reason to. Why would he do that? Commissioner Harper stated we are caught by not following our ordinance, which is a problem. I understand that you have a common sense solution. I think Mr. Burns came up with a good suggestion to just make it part of that lot. Mr. Bucher stated I don’t have a problem with that.
Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions.
Mr. Burns asked did our engineers have a comment on that? Mr. Thompson stated issues raised were direction of the water flow in the swale, need the condition on the highway ditch and predicted flow, open space easement might need to be wider, change the language in the deed of dedication to read the East 40 feet. They did discuss the flow of water in the swale. Mr. Burns stated there was a comment made about the type of soil and it will absorb most of that water. I would like to hear a comment from one of our engineers. Mr. Thompson stated I would have to go back and check the minutes. Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Breitzke was the one making most of those comments. Mr. Burns stated we need that information. Mr. Peterson stated with respects to the absorption the soils information table lists three soil types all of which are sandy loams, all of which their depths go down to 60-inches. I don’t know how much better absorption you can get. Mr. Read moved to table Case 07-P-12 till the revisions have been made which address the concerns that this Commission has raised and for DLZ review. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Mr. Thompson stated the DNR is putting on a Seminar about low impact type developments. Please give consideration on this. At this time, Mr. Thompson informed the Commission members of the large stack of RFQ’s that were in front of them and setting up times for interviews. Mr. Thompson asked do you want this as a staff policy that anything that comes in no matter how many lots be reviewed by DLZ. Commissioner Harper moved that on any further subdivisions 1) that there is a DLZ review; 2) if staff sees that back yard drainage or any obvious qualifications under our ordinance are not met that these subdivisions are not put on our schedule; 3) if developers are arguing with staff that there should be an exception then the only thing that should be put on the agenda is for us to decide whether this subdivision should be put on the agenda at a later date because of the exception; 4) if the
Mr. Thompson stated by our code they are allowed to ask for a waiver of procedure. Attorney McClure stated they can ask. Mr. Thompson asked if they really want to ask do I allow them to go forward. Commissioner Harper stated no, not under my motion. Under my motion, if you feel there is a compelling reason for us to have a waiver you put it on our agenda for us to decide whether we are going to consider at a further meeting a waiver. At this time, the Commission had a discussion on a fee for a waiver. It was decided for Mr. Thompson to review this. Attorney McClure stated I would like to point out one thing. This Board has to remember that they have the power to look at the one we looked at tonight. DAC said you have to put this easement on here. We get here and it is not on here. We can make a motion and continue it. We don’t have to hear the whole case. At this time, Mr. Cole brought up the fact that the Commission passed a contingency for the Michigan City School system to go ahead with their development of a school contingent upon approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Thompson stated the Commissioners did talk about that and the fact that they made a mistake as far as the location and platting it out properly. The wetland was located a small section of it in the area where the soccer field was. They agreed not to build the soccer field on that until they had Army Corps approval for that particular wetland. Mr. Cole stated the whole site is jurisdictional wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife have called me twice and said that it had already been decided by the Army Corps of Engineers that that
Mr. Read stated the other thing is that they haven’t even applied for the permit. Mr. Thompson stated we can stop the building permit on that. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
August 22, 2007