 |
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, November 14, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana. Those members present were Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Tim Cole. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Raymond Joseph Jr., Attorney Scott McClure and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Read moved to waive the reading of the October 24, 2007 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Old Business: Case 07-FP-15. Petition of David Riley, 39 S. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Riley Ridge Subdivision Phase C, to be located on the East side of CR 400 E. between Division Road and CR 100 S. in Morgan Township. (Property is zoned RR. To contain 5 lots on 14.50 acres.) Don Bengel stated I am here tonight with David Riley the owner and developer of Riley Ridge Subdivision. We are here for the secondary plat approval. It meets all of the requirements and we are asking for your approval. There will only be one new driveway to come out on CR 400 E. We made a change in Lot 10. On Lot 10 instead of going all the way up to 400 E. when it close to 400 E. it will turn south and share the existing drive with Mr. Riley’s residence. The reason we did that there is a lot of beautiful pine trees along CR 400 E. and this will allow us not to take our several pine trees in that area. Mr. Burns asked are you going to save all the pine trees that are out. Mr. Bengel stated we are going to save as many as we can. We are going to put that one drive in where Lot 8, 9 and 15 would use. That is the only place that drive can come out there. We are limiting that drive to a 30-foot easement within that 60-feet. So we will take out as few trees as possible.
Mr. Detert stated it looks to me like it is a little bit of a hodge-podge. There are roads that are almost driveways coming off of 400 E. and we are going use the road on the existing house and you’re going to put a big curve in it. I saw your notes and I saw the DAC meeting notes and it said that you did that because you didn’t want to cut down pine trees. Before your plan had a cul-de-sac on it and you could run emergency vehicles in there. That doesn’t exist now. I know what you did. You had to get the open space in here. To me, you need to provide for emergency vehicles running in there and turning around and this doesn’t do it. Mr. Bengel stated when you get to Lot 9 there will be a turnaround in that area. Mr. Hutson asked what is the plan for your walking easement. Is it a place that is just going to be mowed or is it an established path. Mr. Bengel stated I’d say that if they wanted to use it I assume that they would put some kind of a path in there. Right now it is an access to get to the open space and to the regulated drain. We also added a note after the last DAC meeting, Kevin requested that we make the driveway and that walking easement for the driveway on lot 10 and a walking easement that extends to that accessible to the Drainage Board. Mr. Breitzke stated a drainage access. Mr. Hutson asked is there a pond out there. Mr. Bengel stated yes the pond is down here and it was constructed in Phase B. Mr. Hutson asked is there any reason why Phase C isn’t connected to Phase B. Mr. Bengel stated if you look at the project it doesn’t lend itself to be connected. Mr. Hutson stated you said there is going to be a turn-around. Is this something where a bus could turn around or if there are families in there are they going to be picked up on CR 400 E. Mr. Bengel stated I don’t think the buses go into the subdivision. Mr. Detert asked what about fire trucks.
Mrs. Stevenson stated I have no questions. Mr. Bengel stated it is kind of difficult to do that because those lots have been sold. David Riley stated I am the owner of the property along with my wife, Rosemary Riley. When we originally started out there were six lots that were approved. Due to my fault, we missed the extension period. Otherwise, there would have been six lots there and there would have been a cul-de-sac. When we came back the new plan went down to four lots because of the soil conditions and we thought that we would give the people a little bit bigger lots and now it is a private road. This is Phase C and to go to Phase A there is a 30-foot culvert there that you can walk across. Mr. Read stated if they can reach Koselke drain they could walk around the 75-foot drain easement. Mr. Bengel stated no, that is not true. That is private property. The only person that has an easement to that is the Drainage Board. Mr. Read stated from the material that was sent to me I see that there are two ponds, an east pond area and a west pond area. Mr. Bengel stated yes on each side of the ditch. Mr. Read asked is lot 17 part of the subdivision also. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mr. Read stated the calculations that you have made here, as I understand it then, all of the capacity of the west pond is supposed to take care of this entire area. Is that correct? Mr. Bengel stated it will take care of everything on the west side of the ditch. Mr. Read stated as I look at the contour maps you have that existing house on lot 17 rather high and you have some slope to the north and to the east as well as, actually to the south
Mr. Bengel stated there are no problems caused now and you have more runoff from the bean field or cornfield than you will from a lawn seeded area. Mr. Riley stated that Smith-Koselke Ditch is just right next to both of those lots. That runs sloping towards the ditch and I am talking about lots 9, 10, 8, 15 and lot 17. Mr. Read stated I hope you are right and I hope he doesn’t run into surface water runoff. Mr. Riley stated there is also a retention pond right along lot 10 on the northeast side of this lot, which never has any water in it. Mr. Read asked is that part of the open space area? Mr. Riley stated yes. It is probably 50-feet wide and approximately 1000-feet long. Mr. Breitzke stated it is not part of the open space. It is exclusive of the open space. Mr. Read questioned the report from the Health Department dated 2005 concerning the type of soils. Mr. Bengel stated we worked with the Health Department and addressed those lots. The only lot we had problems with were lots 9 and 10 and that is why they are larger lots. Mr. Read asked what is the procedure for the erosion control plan? Mr. Bengel stated we submit a plan to the NRCS and they approve the plan. Mr. Read asked do you have a plan submitted? Mr. Bengel stated I think our plan for the whole subdivision was approved at the time we did Section A. Mrs. Marshall asked did you get additional road frontage that the county is now requiring. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mrs. Marshall asked does that extend to lot 18. Mr. Bengel stated lot 18 is in the other phase. Mrs. Marshall stated I am concerned about the 30-foot driveway easement and I know that the trees are beautiful and so forth. In my opinion nothing is forever. This access easement for lot 10 is that owned by lot 17. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated so lot 17 is paying the taxes on it. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mrs. Marshall stated they are going to give an easement to lot 10. Mr. Bengel stated yes. Mrs. Marshall asked are lot 15 and lot 9 also going to use that 30-foot driveway easement. Mr. Bengel stated no. Lot 8, 15 and 9 will use the driveway easement on lot 9. We have submitted a maintenance agreement for those lots. The driveway between lot 15 up to the rear line of lot 18 would be maintained by lots 8, 9 and 15. This little area on lot 17 would be maintained jointly by lot 17 and 15. Mrs. Marshall stated the 33-feet on each of the 30-foot driveway lot 15 is going to maintain it on one side and … Mr. Bengel stated the 33-feet is owned, let’s take the north side first. The 33-feet on either side of the driveway is owned by lot 9 and the only place that lot 8 and 9 can access that is one 40-foot opening. Otherwise, that will be grass and trees. The same for the south end. Commissioner Harper stated I thought we were supposed to get everything at final plat. I have a question on your erosion control. Where is your erosion control plan? Mr. Bengel stated I have a piece here where at least I believe it to be… Commissioner Harper stated let me give you a little update
Mr. Bengel stated there is no infrastructure to go in there. The only infrastructure would be driveways and houses. That is all taken care of at the building permit time. Every building permit has to show silt fence around the construction. Commissioner Harper stated so if you get a subdivision like this approved are you telling me that if you get this approved you don’t have to submit any plans. Mr. Bengel stated first of all when you construct a pond that is a big deal for erosion. That has all been constructed. Commissioner Harper stated I think you are wrong. I am going to ask Mike to take these plans and go to IDEM and asked them when we get these plans what should we be getting. I am not here to stop your subdivision and I am going to vote for it tonight. I think that IDEM has some requirements to have some plans in place and maybe they don’t but I want to know. If they do Bob I think that the Plan Commission members should see these plans. They should be a part of their packet so we see that and we understand their erosion control and how many phases there are going to be. Mr. Thompson stated I agree. Commissioner Harper stated we do have some people on this Plan Commission that understand these things. Mr. Read stated we passed a rule last month in which we stated what we wanted as backup material at secondary. One of the things that were included was the report from the Drainage Board. I don’t see anything here from the Drainage Board. Did the Drainage Board do anything about this originally?
Mr. Read stated I appreciate this. I want to see up to date letters and positions from the County Health Department. Things have changed now. Maybe the water table is different now. The contours may not have changed but maybe the water table has. I want to see what they recommend. I want to see if they are recommending a mound system or not. Then on the matter of storm water I was thinking that with all of these houses here this has not had any kind of independent review by DLZ. Again, we are talking old business but this is the type of thing in which I think a DLZ or an independent review should be done. Commissioner Harper stated I would like to glance at that Drainage Board review. Mr. Bengel stated Kevin isn’t it true that the Drainage Board doesn’t approve drainage plans. They basically decide whether or not they want a regulated drain. Mr. Breitzke stated not as such. The regulated drain for the long term maintenance is the primary business of the Drainage Board. About a year and a half ago new statute took place directing the Drainage Board to do what we habitually do is where the water goes in and out of the subdivision. You requested to just have that in writing but that is a statute that was just put in affect last year. This was originally heard in 1997. It was accepted as a regulated drain for maintenance for the ponds for the pipe that is in the road right-of-way to make sure those can be maintained. Commissioner Harper asked is the Drainage Board now following that statute. Mr. Breitzke stated they always have but we will verbalize. I have worked up some statements for the attorney so we will have a formal document or declaration for the new subdivisions. Commissioner Harper stated so the Drainage Board is going to do the calculations. Mr. Breitzke stated not the calculations. The issue on the statute wasn’t the calculations. It was the fact that where water came in it still is coming in at the same place where it went out it is still going out at the same place, unless the Board approves changes in either manner.
Commissioner Harper asked do we get the covenants. Mr. Breitzke stated you referred to covenants and restrictions. Are you going to have covenants and restrictions? Mr. Bengel stated they will be basically the same covenants as in Phase A and B. Commissioner Harper stated at some point we are going to have to draw a line in the sand and say we need a copy of the covenants. At this time, there was a short discussion concerning the water table and the soil in this subdivision. There was a discussion concerning some of the silt fences in the subdivision being down and soil in the street. Commissioner Harper moved to approve Case 07-FP-15 for secondary plat. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Harper asked I thought we discussed about the power of the developer has over the builder and we were going to put something in to take care of that. Attorney McClure stated the answer is no. I don’t believe we have addressed that with Ground Rules. Commissioner Harper moved to contact Ground Rules and tell them that we want to have them tell us what would be the best type of ordinance to enter or how we can have a good working ordinance in affect that puts on the responsibility of silt fences, junk, clean up and so forth on the developer to a certain point at least in the subdivision. Also, that staff not try to rework that question and to get it to Ground Rules. Mr. Detert seconded the motion. Mr. Breitzke stated maybe what we are looking for is an addendum to the existing ordinance that will give additional substance. Could we add to that motion that no dumpsters are to be in the streets? Motion reads as follows: Commissioner Harper moved to contact Ground Rules to amend our Unified Development Ordinance where our developers will be responsible for the subdivision concerning such issues as erosion, construction debris, junk and no dumpsters in the street. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Harper asked is it true on what the previous petitioner just told us that because they are having this type of subdivision that they don’t have to file a Rule 5 with Soil and Water. Mr. Breitzke stated anytime they disturb more than a tenth of an acre in my opinion, by our ordinance they should have an erosion control plan. The Rule 5 is based on one acre and naturally with this many houses, if they had two or three houses it might be arguable, but when they have this many houses, yes Rule 5 was applied for with the original primary plat. Commissioner Harper stated are you telling me that in our ordinance when we passed this erosion control ordinance we don’t require them to give us their erosion control plan. Mr. Thompson stated that is not true. They have to. That is one of the things with the submittal for a subdivision, Ray and I go through these submittals and look at them. One of the things on our check list is that they must submit an erosion control plan. Attorney McClure stated also, when the individual home owners come in for a building permit there is also an additional erosion sediment control sketch plan required for the building permit. Right now you have a packet with a check list that you have to have completed before the department puts you on the agenda. This Board has voiced its concern over items not on that list. That list is being updated and all those things will be required to get on the agenda. Commissioner Harper stated if the list is going to be out at the next meeting I think everyone should get a copy a few days before.
At this time, the Plan Commission calendar for 2008 was distributed. Mr. Detert moved to accept the 2008 Plan Commission calendar. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. At this time, there was a discussion concerning the Drainage Board. Mr. Thompson stated the RFP’s for the corridor study were sent out to the four consultants. They have until Monday to submit those to the Auditor’s Office. I will get those out to all of the members so you can start reviewing the RFP’s. We will wait until the December meeting to get direction on how you want to do this. Mr. Thompson stated also there was a mistake in Chapter 10 of the UDO and it was not caught while reviewing it. I spoke with Attorney McClure on this and he said to let the Plan Commission know that we are going to have to come forward with an amendment on this immediately. It is in Subdivision Control, General, Chapter 10, page 10-113. So, this may come before you at our December meeting. Mr. Detert stated I try to go out at least once a week to look at things and I just wanted to report on some of the things. My last trip through the Highlands it looked like a whole bunch of the silt fences were down. I forgot to look at the drainage ditch by Graham’s property but my recollection was it didn’t look like anything has been cleaned up in that. It do look like the drainage that they had going to the drainage pond at the east end had been corrected and the water was flowing properly but I wasn’t there during a rain so I couldn’t see it. Also, on Falling Waters, I spoke with Don Plumb and he said he didn’t have anything really to report but he was disappointed that the gates are still not operating. He did feel that they have a plan of action that they would be operating shortly. My trips through there have indicated that since we last had the developer there that nothing much has been done beyond what we talked about and there are some things that could be done. It didn’t look like any caps on the walls had been placed or any action had been taken on those. I realize that we are getting into winter weather but there is no reason why somebody couldn’t be attacking that problem. Mr. Breitzke stated I had a talk with him and I suggested that he just pour them in place and he said he had a consultant checking into it. I said go ahead and just do it and form it and
Mr. Thompson stated I heard from his engineering wanting to submit a plat. I notified the engineer they better straighten out what is going on is previous stages before they consider coming in front of this Board. Mr. Breitzke stated Highway did get a call for inspection yesterday and Al told me that nothing has been done so I checked that out tonight and nothing has been done. Mr. Thompson stated they also asked for us to take over the roads and the Highway Engineering contacted me and I wrote them and told them that I would not sign off on that because they have not come back before the Plan Commission to discuss the issues. I will not sign off on that. Mr. Detert stated the turnarounds are terrible because of the high level of where some of the houses are built. You couldn’t turn much more around in them than a car let alone any kind of heavy equipment. I really think that we need to take a look at allowing these “T” turnarounds. Mr. Detert stated the other subdivision I looked at was Country Estates where the log cabin type houses are. It is not real kept and it is pretty trashy in there. The guys not keeping the place up. He has a couple of semis in there. He has a house trailer. I made a mistake when I said nothing has been changed since we last looked at it and but there was one thing changed. One of the trailers has been removed. Mr. Detert stated there is a homeowners meeting for Falling Waters tomorrow night at Boone Grove High School. Mr. Breitzke stated at Autumn Oaks we did complete the storm sewer at the north end of Gray. Concrete was being delivered tonight for the sidewalk where we had to break the sidewalk. Tomorrow it should be seeded and straw. At this time, Mr. Breitzke recognized Mr. J.F. Schrader to speak. Mr. Schrader stated I have one question. It looks to me
that your Storm Water Management Ordinance conflicts with your State drainage laws because you are not following the watershed when you drain. At this time, there was a discussion concerning this. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
November 14, 2007