Get Adobe Flash player

The White County Area Plan Commission met Monday, July 10, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

 

Members attending were: Jay Clawson, Gary Barbour, Ray Butz, Charles Anderson, Ron Pollock, Don Ward and Rick Raderstorf. Also attending were Attorney Altman and Director Weaver. 

Visitors Attending were: Paul Couts of C & S Engineering, Michael Lewellen, Jeff and Carol Hardebeck, Lowell Farney, Charles and Steve Klopfenstein, Nathan Virkler, Don Ward, Jeff Ward and Steve Graves.

 

 

The meeting was called to order by President Charles Anderson and roll call was taken.

No minutes were available to approve

 

****

 

#714 Michael A. & Marcia K. Lewellen; Requesting to rezone from A-1 to B-2 on approximately 1.141 Acres. The property is located on the West edge of Burnettsville at 310 W. 2nd Street.

 

President Anderson asked, is there anybody here to represent this request? Would you want to state your name for the record.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I’m passing out the ballots; I’m the attorney for the Area Plan Commission, I also happen to be the attorney for Mr. Lewellen and I’m excusing myself from consideration of attorney in this matter.

 

President Anderson stated, this is basically to bring him up to zoning standards.

 

Director Weaver stated, he is currently using the property for his business. He rezoned part of the property in 1998, then went ahead and started using this piece of property as well. We sent out a letter to him and he is now trying to bring it into compliance.

 

President Anderson asked, anybody here with any questions about their request? Do the Commissioners have any questions about this request? If not let’s go ahead and vote.

 

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the City of Monticello for their action.

 

President Anderson stated, this will be forwarded with a positive recommendation and you should be at that meeting also. 

****

 

#715 Lowell D. Farney; Requesting to rezone from B-2 to R-1 on .67 of an acre. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott at 621 S. Range Street.

 

President Anderson asked, is their anybody here representing this request? 

Lowell Farney was representing the request.

 

President Anderson asked, do we have anyone in the audience with any questions about that request at all? Do the Commissioners have any questions about this request?

 

Jay Clawson asked, yes, I do. By us rezoning this property, is this by any chance going to take the business property to the North out of compliance with setbacks or anything like that?

 

Lowell Farney stated, it shouldn’t because, there is….

 

Director Weaver stated, that should be a side setback, therefore we need a minimum of 8 feet.

 

Lowell Farney stated, there’s more than that on the side of the business.

 

Jay Clawson stated, that’s fine. There are no buildings that are going to be out of compliance between the two?

 

Lowell Farney stated, no.

 

Jay Clawson stated, okay, that’s it.

 

Director Weaver stated, this is just bringing that home existing into compliance.

 

Jay Clawson stated, okay, but, we can’t really act on something that brings another property out of compliance.

 

Director Weaver stated, right, that’s something I hadn’t even thought about.

 

Jay Clawson stated, okay.

 

President Anderson stated, if there are no other questions, then we will go ahead and vote.

 

Attorney Altman stated, under previous ordinances this would not have been in compliance on this at all.

 

Ron Pollock asked, did you say we can’t vote on this?

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

 

Ron Pollock stated, I thought you said he was in violation.

 

Jay Clawson stated, no, he isn’t in violation.

 

Director Weaver stated, not a violation.

 

Jay Clawson stated, is not.

 

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to the Town of Wolcott for their action. 

Attorney Altman stated, you need to check with the Clerk Treasurer there, to see exactly when that will come up for their consideration.

 

****

 

#716 Jeff A. & Carol B. Hardebeck; Requesting to rezone from B-2 to A-1 on 0.11 of an acre. The property is located on the West edge of Wolcott, on the North side of U.S. Highway 24.

 

President Anderson asked, is there anybody here representing this request?

 

Terry Smith stated, I represent the Hardebeck’s and also G.T.E. Wireless. What the purpose of this is, we have to rezone the property from B-2 to A-1 in an effort to get a special exception to put up a tower. We have made an application with the Board of Zoning Appeals also, which is on the agenda for Thursday. The first step is an effort to rezone to the A-1 because you can only get the special exception in certain categories and currently this property is zoned B-2.

 

President Thompson asked, does anybody here have any questions about that request?

 

Terry Smith stated, wireless mobile 280’, is that correct?

 

An audience member stated, 285’.

 

Jay Clawson asked, mono-pole or self-supporting tower?

 

An audience member stated, self-supporting.

 

Jay Clawson asked, is this going to be set far enough from the road that if anything should ever happen it won’t fall across the road?

 

An audience member stated, according to engineering and Don with Magtech can verify this, but according to engineering they don’t just fall, they collapse on themselves. We then are far enough back from the highway that if it falls, it would accommodate for the distance of the setback on the highway.

 

Don Ward asked, are you going to try to protect it in anyway? Guard rail it or….

 

An audience member stated, it will be chain link fenced.

 

Don Ward asked, what about the curve? That curve has been known for…

 

Terry Smith stated, it’s not on the curve, Don.

 

Director Weaver stated, Jay, I do have a book that they have submitted with information about this if you have looked at it.

 

Jay Clawson stated, okay, well let's try to go through B.Z.A…

 

Director Weaver stated, well we have had to sensor B.Z.A. as well, so if you want to look at this we just got these today.

 

President Anderson asked, any other questions? If not let's go ahead and vote.

 

With no further discussion the Board voted.

 

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to County Commissioners for their action.


Attorney Altman asked, that’s next Monday, Director Weaver, at 8:30?

 

Director Weaver stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman stated, right here same place, if you are interested, I would suggest that you be here, they have the final say. 

****

 

#717 Charles & Steven Klopfenstein; Requesting to rezone from B-2 to I-1 on parts of lots #706 and #707 in W.W. Raub’s 2nd Addition. The property is located in the Town of Chalmers on the Southwest corner of State Road 43 and East Street.

 

President Anderson asked, do we have someone here representing them?

 

Charles Klopfenstein was representing the request.

 

President Anderson asked, does anybody here have any questions in the audience about this request at all? Do the Commissioners have any questions about this request?

 

Director Weaver stated, we did receive a letter in the mail this morning from a neighbor stating that she had, it’s Garnett Hughes. She is not opposing the request as long as they, she states, as long as they follow all the rules between properties.

 

President Anderson stated, which they will have to do anyway.

 

Charles Klopfenstein stated, okay.

 

President Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any questions?

 

Attorney Altman stated, you might want to check the easements to make sure that there might be an easement there, before you proceed.

 

Charles Klopfenstein stated, okay. 

President Anderson asked, you have to go through the State anyway, don’t you?

 

Charles Klopfenstein stated, yes, the State has already approved it.

 

Director Weaver stated, they already have their State Permit.

 

President Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any other questions? If not let’s vote. 

With no further discussion the Board voted.

 

The results of the vote were as follows: 7 affirmative and 0 negative. This will be presented to Town of Chalmers for their action. 

Attorney Altman stated, we forward that to them and you need to check…

 

President Anderson stated, they have the final say on that.

 

Charles Klopfenstein stated, yes, we already met with them.

 

Director Weaver stated, this will go back to them.

 

Charles Klopfenstein stated, yes, I understand that.

 

****

 

#248 Nichols Farms Inc.; Requesting approval of a 39 lot subdivision to be known as Deer Run Estates on 26.560 Acres. The property is located in Union Township on the East side of C.R. 300 E., approximately ¼ of a mile North of C.R. 225 N.

 

President Anderson asked, is there anyone here representing this request?

 

Director Weaver stated, no, that is tabled.

 

President Anderson stated, #248 is tabled.

 

****

 

#249 Fred Boessel; Requesting approval of a 4 lot subdivision to be known as Boessel Subdivision on 2.45 Acres. The property is located in Monon Township on the Southwest corner of Monon Road and Bedford Bay Court, also known as 6464 N. Bedford Bay Court. Tabled until August 14, 2000.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that is tabled also.

 

President Thompson stated, that is tabled also.

 

Jay Clawson asked, how many times can he table?

 

Director Weaver stated, the Ordinance doesn’t have a regulation on it.

 

****

 

#250 Nathan D. Virkler; Requesting approval of a 2 lot subdivision to be known as Kingdom Subdivision on 0.33 of an acre. The property is located in the Town of Wolcott on the Northwest corner of Range Street and Blake Street.

 

President Anderson asked, do we have anybody here representing them?

 

Attorney Altman stated, one second, in answer to your question I think that even though it isn’t in the Subdivision Ordinance, I think that the Board could quite frankly vote to eliminate something from our minutes because of that. I’m not telling you we should tonight but, I’m saying you might think about this and come up with a response because, while nobody is here and we’re not inconveniencing anybody here this evening. We’ve had several times when we’ve had, people would have had questions or objections and have come from a long distance and this goes on and on. It’s like wearing them out, and then they get a vote, so your point is well taken. I think, maybe either we amend the ordinance or maybe, quite frankly somebody we should make motion, one of these days to permanently take something off the agenda. 

 

Director Weaver stated, well, let me fill the Board in first, Mr. Nichols is working on his drainage permit.

 

Attorney Altman stated, well, I didn’t mean Mr. Nichols.

 

Director Weaver stated, I know, and the Boessel Subdivision was going to be heard tonight except they had conflict, they had already scheduled a vacation. They are working on these, they aren’t things that are just sitting there, there is work being done, its just not seaming like it at this time.

 

Jay Clawson asked, should, instead of those just being perpetually put on the agenda take them off until there ready to act on them again?

 

Director Weaver asked, if we take them off though are we going to forget about them? If they remain on the agenda over and over, they aren’t going to be forgotten about, they’re not going to lay there dormant for 2-3 years.

 

Ron Pollock asked, why would they have to be taken off?

 

Director Weaver stated, well, that’s something we need to decide.

 

Ron Pollock stated, these people, Boessel or whatever it is, I just checked with them the other day and they said, we’re not going to do anything with this.

 

Director Weaver stated, they had a new plan brought into the office just a week ago, a new layout for the subdivision.

 

Don Ward stated, if they’re going to do that, then I think they should note a certain time so that we advertise shows that it’s in.

 

Director Weaver stated, they only get advertised one time.

 

Don Ward stated, well, then before that they need to know.

 

Director Weaver stated, but, that’s with the original meeting.

 

Don Ward stated, or if it’s not acted on and they’re not here, then they go back through the whole process again, pay that fee again and it won’t take long for them to wake up.

 

Director Weaver stated, I think we need to amend the ordinance.

 

Don Ward stated, I agree with Jerry, use that as a way that to beat down anybody that’s supposed to.

 

Diann Weaver stated, I don’t have a problem with that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, on this particular one, that doesn’t fit the bill, we’ve had them.

 

Don Ward stated, yes, we have had them where it looks like they were intentionally doing that.

 

Director Weaver stated, that’s right, I agree.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I think that’s the best time to make a discussion of this, when we don’t have the horses that strike before us.

 

Rick Raderstorf asked, could we give them, like a postponement and give them a deadline as to when they want back on that and notify you in so many days to get back on it?

 

Director Weaver stated, they would have to do it by our cut off date.

 

Attorney Altman stated, maybe what Director could do is, write them a letter and tell them that although, apparently, this meeting is moving forward with plans, that maybe before they go on the agenda next month that they have everything before us. So that they are truly ready, rather than just automatically going on. The Board’s pleasure, now what do you think?

 

Don Ward stated, well, I think we ought to limit it to two times, can’t delay it more than two times. After that, they go back through the process and pay the fee again.

 

Director Weaver stated, but, you’re not going to be able to do that with these two because, they have not been forewarned.

 

Don Ward stated, well, that’s fine. We’re talking about future.

 

Director Weaver stated, that will take an amendment to do.

 

Rick Raderstorf stated, or give them the right to postpone it and they will have to notify you by a certain deadline.

 

Don Ward stated, so it’s in the paper when it’s not going to be and really the sign should be changed, because, a lot of people will go by the sign.

 

Director Weaver stated, subdivisions aren’t even required to post a sign.

 

Don Ward stated, this one does have a sign.

 

Director Weaver stated, yes, some of them do.

 

Don Ward stated, that’s right because, it’s not a rezoning.

 

President Anderson stated, okay, we’re moving right along back to number 250 here. I think we have Mr. Virkler here representing this request. Does anybody in the audience have any questions?

 

Steve Graves stated, I do, I live on the property North of this property, he’s requesting to do something with. I haven’t had a chance to view what he had planned.

 

Attorney Altman asked, would you like to look at the plans?

 

Steve Graves stated, yes, I would like to. I have lot #2 just North of this property. This lot #1 already presently has a home on it.

 

Attorney Altman stated, no, no, no. This would be, oh, I see what you mean. The lot #1 of North End Addition has a home on it and it does show this on this plat.

 

Steve Graves stated, correct.

 

President Anderson asked, would you like to give him any information on what he’s planning on doing on the other lot or, you don’t have to?

 

Nathan Virkler stated, we are going to sell it, and build a house on it. Sell it to a local contractor.

 

Steve Graves stated, in the 70’s that property, they tried to build before and the Commissioners, at that point said it wasn’t a suitable lot to be built on.

 

President Anderson asked, do you know why they said that?

 

Steve Graves stated, well for one reason, after that piece of property laid 18” below grade of Blake Street, which is to the South of that road or South of that piece of property. To the West of that is the City Park. To build a home there, I believe they would have to bring it above road grade, which would force the water to the properties adjacent to it, which one would be myself.

 

Director Weaver stated, we do have a letter from the Drainage Board saying that they did not have to address drainage on this subdivision.

 

Steve Graves stated, your building code would also cause for it to be a certain height above road grade, the house itself would be very wet.

 

Don Ward stated, no, not totally. You can build houses below road grade.

 

Steve Graves stated, I can see where they had suitable pumps and what not. I guess that’s my concern that I’m going to be wearing their water.

 

President Anderson asked, did you see water standing there all the time?

 

Steve Graves stated, yes, that water, that ground is wet, the people that’s living there now, the rental people have had a hard time keeping it mowed because, its wet.

 

Director Weaver asked, Rick, do you know why this was given a waiver through the Drainage Board?

 

Rick Raderstorf stated, yes, it was given it because, of the Town has their wire and stuff over there, sewer and storm water.

 

Steve Graves stated, well yes, they have storm water that lies right on the Highway on Range Street. The city sewage does have a dump station on the West side of it, they have that easement through the park.

 

Attorney Altman asked, are the lots served by city water and sewer?

 

Nathan Virkler stated, yes.

 

Jay Clawson asked, does it come down Blake Street or is there an easement through lot #2 to get to the highway? How are the sewers?

 

Nathan Virkler stated, I have no clue.

 

Jay Clawson stated well, its kind of important, I mean if they have it out, have sewers in the street, that’s not a problem because, you can get that but if your going to subdivide this and it has to come from U.S. 24 you’re not going to leave some kind of easement through lot #2 to get sewer and water lines from there. That’s something that should have been on your plat, is how your getting your utility easements or where there coming from because, that’s important to us for determining how to do that.

 

Don Ward asked, can’t they use Blake Street?

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, that’s what I mean, if they’ve already got them on Blake Street then that’s not an issue. As to the only utilities, they have are right here on U.S. 24, however, they’re not going to let them tear up Blake Street to get down there. I doubt if the city is going to let them do that, do you?

 

Don Ward stated, who knows.

 

Steve Graves stated, the residence on that faces Range now.

 

Jay Clawson stated, right.

 

Steve Graves stated, there is already a home on the property East of you, subdivided his lot.

 

Jay Clawson stated, right, he’s taken the back half of it off.

 

Steve Graves stated, the drop lines come through on the West side of the park. There are other homes there tied in on Blake. Exactly where the sewage ties in at, I’m not aware of.

 

Don Ward asked, these houses face…

 

Steve Graves stated, this one faces the North and this one faces the East. There is no access road outward. They are showing an alley here, which is nonexistent, Blake Street does not continue through, the Wolcott house, that’s it.

 

Don Ward asked, that’s it?

 

Jay Clawson asked, but, over here on this side of the street its already been subdivided the same way. Right?

 

Steve Graves stated, if you notice though, everything on the North side of Blake Street, there all single dwelling homes which all the lots are all the same size 60’ by 240’. I realize that the Drainage Commission and the Town of Wolcott is going to be aware of this too but, there is definitely a water problem coming off of Blake Street coming off of the park, the park itself floods. My concern, is the other homes on this property is going to force the water more on me, right now we’re both enduring it. That house will be built in a hole, which I understand, that you build homes in the ground.

 

Don Ward stated, well yes, but, you have to have a way to get rid of the water.

 

Steve Graves asked, are they going to push it onto the park?

 

Don Ward stated, that’s not legal either.

 

Steve Graves asked, are they going to push it onto me?

 

Don Ward stated, no, it really needs to come to the street.

 

Steve Graves stated, and by this lot already being subdivided that’s going to put it down to 60’ by 120’. Can they get their setbacks off of there.

 

Attorney Altman stated, it’s not subdivided.

 

Steve Graves stated, well, that’s what he’s wanting to do.

 

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I just want you to know it hasn’t been done.

 

Steve Graves stated, right, I guess what I’m saying is, I’m opposed to that happening. I like the idea of a single dwelling, I believe there would be a water problem not just for him but for myself too. The people to the South of Lake Street should not be affected because, there up at a higher grade. We could sit at this table and take a vote without somebody looking at it, how do they know?  

 

Director Weaver asked, should we refer this back to the Drainage Board?

 

Don Ward stated, it would be good idea.

 

Jay Clawson stated, we have rear setbacks, aren’t 15’. What are they?

 

Director Weaver stated, the setbacks, they have had a variance done on this property, Don, there has been a variance granted on this property for the setbacks. That was done in March of 1999.

 

President Anderson asked, so that would still apply to the new lot?

 

Steve Graves asked, so the variance would be applied to something without knowing the size of the home or anything would be built on it?

 

Jay Clawson stated, he can build a smaller house, he cannot build a house any bigger than what this on lot #1 here. He can not build a home any bigger than the lot.

 

Steve Graves stated, when he applied for that variance, what they have done is changed the standard setbacks.

 

Jay Clawson stated, he cannot build any closer than 15’ from that property line, which would be your back door.

 

Steve Graves stated, right, which would be mine, yes, I understand that.

 

Jay Clawson stated, which would be his back yard.

 

Steve Graves stated, yes, I understand it.

 

Attorney Altman stated, clearly, this can be referred back to the Drainage Board to have an answer the drainage there.

 

Jay Clawson stated, I’d like to see that.

 

Don Ward stated, I would too.

 

Jay Clawson stated, there is a question on it, I’d like to make sure there isn’t. I’d like to know what the elevation area.

 

President Anderson asked, would you also like to know exactly where tie into?

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes, and I would like to know where he’s getting his utilities.

 

President Anderson asked, it’s your responsibility to try to get that put on the plat?

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, he’s going to have to come back and get a final plat. I want to see where your getting it, I mean if their are already out here in the street, you can get it from there. I’d like to know where they’re coming from, before this can be passed. If you have that easement through here, it has to be recorded on this before you can go anyway, am I right?

 

President Anderson asked, do I have a motion to send this back to the Drainage Board?

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

 

Don Ward stated, so moved.

 

Attorney Altman stated, also, in addition to that, are these easements for the sewage and that sort of thing need to be shown on the plat before we can consider it also.

 

Jay Clawson stated, right.

 

President Anderson stated, it would have to be on both of them.

 

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else while he is here while we are asking?

 

Don Ward stated, Blake Street is right here.

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, if the city already has utilities running through here, that is no problem. But, if the City’s not willing to run utilities up Blake Street….

 

Don Ward stated, they probably are.

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes, for one house I seriously doubt if there going….

 

Gary Barbour stated, there is a house there, it needs to be shown as the side.

 

Jay Clawson stated, there are utilities and also electric utilities, where he’s going to get his power.

 

Gary Barbour stated, there is electric.

 

Jay Clawson asked, is there? I’m not that familiar with Wolcott.

 

Attorney Altman stated, then it should to be shown on the plat.

 

Jay Clawson stated, I agree.

 

Steve Graves asked, so, if this wasn’t contested then you were going to take a vote tonight?

 

Attorney Altman stated, obviously, those issues….

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, before we could do the final plat we would probably make sure he had his easements shown where his utilities because all utilities are supposed to be on every subdivision. But as far as, a lot of times on bigger subdivisions they do a survey and it shows the lines, contour lines on there.

 

Steve Graves stated, I’m not real familiar with this, he’s calling this a subdivision. A single dwelling is called a subdivision?

 

Jay Clawson stated, well when you split into two different….

 

Steve Graves stated, okay, well, I don’t know.

 

Attorney Altman stated, he’s got one parcel of ground, he’s making two.

 

Steve Graves stated, there are several suitable areas to build in, in Wolcott.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that isn’t the issue.

 

Steve Graves stated, right, I understand that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the issue is what were doing with this particular one.

 

Steve Graves stated, this particular one, I understand that. If I don’t ask you the question, I won’t know how that become a Kingdom Subdivision.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that’s how.

 

Steve Graves stated, okay, I wouldn’t known that, if I didn’t ask it.

 

Attorney Altman asked, do you understand what we mean?

 

Nathan Virkler stated, I’m not sure what an easement is.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the easement is a document that shows that certain piece of ground is available and dedicated for the sewer to put a line over the top. It just says that, you can’t build on it, you can’t build on it is what it really amounts to and that’s something that you need to talk to your surveyor about. Make sure that it is shown on there and then the drainage that’s what you need to go back to the Drainage Board and check on that. That needs to be shown on your plat as to where it’s going to drain to.

 

Nathan Virkler stated, alright, thanks.

 

Steve Graves asked, I just have one more question. When he has this taken care of and he has this information will I be notified again?

 

Attorney Altman stated, it will come back next meeting and if you want to be heard, you need to be here.

 

Director Weaver stated, you can call the office.

 

Steve Graves stated, I was going to say, you know, not told again when this is going to take place, how do I know that he has not taken care of what needs to be done before the next meeting?

 

Attorney Altman stated, we don’t know either. That’s why we come.

 

Steve Graves stated, I know, I mean I understand this just like you’ve tabled something two or three times. I don’t want to make the trip unnecessarily. You know my paperwork said 7:30 meeting and it’s already started at 8:30 you know.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I understand that.

 

Steve Graves stated, my time is just like everybody else’s.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I agree and that’s exactly why we had the conversation so that we would be, unless you call Director Weaver and find out differently, it will be heard at our next meeting in August.

 

Director Weaver stated, we meet the second Monday of each month.

 

Attorney Altman stated, just so that you know.

 

Director Weaver stated, feel free to call the office the day of the meeting and we will let you know if it’s going to be heard or not.

 

Steve Graves asked, what is the chance of changing the hours here at the courthouse?

 

Director Weaver stated, actually, Angie tried to get all of those notices changed before she mailed them out but, evidentially she must have missed one. She did make an attempt to get that time changed.

 

Steve Graves stated, okay, thank you for your time.

 

Attorney Altman stated, Thank you.

 

With no further discussion this request was tabled and the meeting continued.

 

****

 

#00-2 Donald L. Ward; Requesting approval of detailed plans of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Northbrooke Condominiums on 9.012 acres. The property is located in the City of Monticello, West of North Main Street, next to James Carter open ditch.

 

President Anderson asked, who wants to represent this? Do the Commissioners have any questions for these gentlemen?

 

Attorney Altman stated, on the primary approval here on a plat, it’s at least partially very similar to a subdivision end of our ordinance. We just don’t have a lot of Planned Unit Developments, at least to help clear the air on some of this, you need to look at this much like it says that it has to comply with primary and secondary plats in the Subdivision Ordinance. There is much more to this than that and they’ll talk to you about that but, this is what your looking at and at least remember to look at their plat because, that’s what we’re actually doing presenting here and the preliminary plat is number 3 of 7. I think, they are actually doing part of it right now, at this time.

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes, just the first phase.

 

Attorney Altman asked, but, this shows the whole thing and then the first stage of somewhat, do you have maps that show that specifically?

 

Jeff Ward stated, I believe there is a phase line on that.

 

Jay Clawson stated, you know, I’ve really never asked you this question but, I mean its your decision in the end but, why not just make the streets a little wider and let the city take care of all your snow plowing, trash pick up, this and that, seeing how they paying city taxes and stuff. Is it a space problem?

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes, fundamentally, that is what it is. I don’t know what an easier answer to give you is, other than yes. It is a spacing problem. Our street width is wide enough. Bob Braaksma is happy with it.

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes, I’ve talked to Bob, I just thought that I would ask you the question.

 

Jeff Ward stated, if we had a few more acres we’d probably do just that.

 

Jay Clawson stated, in the long run it would be a lot cheaper for the people that own the community.

 

Jeff Ward stated, true.

 

President Anderson asked, so we are still going to stick with the 30’ entrance, 30’ easement?

 

Don Ward stated, no way to get that other 10’.

 

Director Weaver asked, do you have that letter from the Surveyor’s Office on the approval? Have you gotten anything from them?

 

Jeff Ward stated, no, other than I was up to talk to Jennifer and she said it was approved.

 

Rick Raderstorf stated, yes, it was.

 

Director Weaver asked, but, nothing in writing as of yet because, I know we didn’t have anything in the file.

 

Attorney Altman stated, Jeff talk to us about why the streets are smaller here. Even the street part and the internal streets here, 30’ versus 50’ and that sort of thing so that we can hear more about what your doing and what is the reason. As I talked to you last week about the requirements, our purpose, and that sort of thing, so that we can have something more than just here it is. I know that you have a lot more than just here it is. You’ve got reasons why you want this approved. I think that we need more record, is really what I’m trying to say.  

 

Paul Couts stated, if I could, I’ll jump in, I’m from C-N-S engineering.

 

Attorney Altman stated, sure.

 

Paul Couts stated, I think that what we’re talking about is a different kind of market their looking for, different kind of concept. I think a lot of the typical Midwestern development is the normal subdivision with a platted lot, where you get a piece of land and a house with a yard around it. What were looking for here is a maintenance free type of facility. A private community, where I could live there and all I have to worry about is what is on the inside of my house. I don’t have to cut any grass, I don’t have to shovel any snow, I don’t even have to maintain the exterior of my building. These are what we call single-family attached units, we bring two units together and we have a Homeowners Association that is formed that takes care of that maintenance. So its really geared more for the older person who doesn’t want to mess with the yard anymore, doesn’t want to be responsible for that part of the house maintenance. The idea is this, because it is a private community we’ve taken it and taken the streets down to really be private drives. Two lanes of traffic in and out and we’ve provided off street parking, they have little parking spaces now, as well as each unit. Well have a double garage, and room for two guest parking in front of the garage, so we feel like the parking is taking care of. We’re not going to allow any parking on the drives themselves.

So I guess, what it really boils down to is that we’re trying to sell the customer a piece of just the building itself. So you can’t have a subdivision, typical, that you would do where you come in and say here is a lot, here is a house and you buy your piece of land and its hooked right next to a public road. What we’re going to do is just really sell you a piece of a building. Your going to have your building unit, is going to be in common with the guy next door. The thing is you have another stand that their also is flexibility built into this, that’s why it’s a Planned Unit Development. In that, although you have a buildings kind of shown dashed lines those are not the exact buildings. There are covenants and restrictions that outline minimum square footages, and then on the plat itself, there are minimum building lines showing in which you have to put the building itself into there. No building can be closer than 12’ foundation to foundation and once one building starts to get in the block and we call these blocks in here, your going to start having situations where to dictate now, we’ve drawn where we think are representative guides. We’ve also limited inside the block how many buildings there can be and how many units. We also have the provisions that if you want to make one of these a large single family, you may. So, there is an added flexibility that if you really want to build a large single family you may do that, as opposed to two units attached single-family situation. There is a density maximum allotment there is going to be no more than 50 units, no more than 25 buildings and there is going to be no more than the number of buildings shown within the different block because, on the plat itself you’ll see, it will tell you, call these blocks and that’s what we meant inside the different blocks, you have a density limitation put on it. So it’s a different type of animal. A different type of concept that we’re trying to market here and it’s, well maybe in a few more years, I’ll be ready for it. I don’t exactly like getting up and shoveling snow in the middle of winter right now that well and so I guess what I’ll tell you, that in Lafayette this type of thing is really selling well and I think Jeff has got an eye on a market here that will work well in Monticello also. I guess there is a special kind of situation that we’re trying to go for and a Planned Unit Development is the vehicle, we think, works for it. We don’t see anything else that will make it work that way.

 

President Anderson stated, I don’t see any problem with your plan on it but, my only concern about the whole thing is that 30’ going into the Planned Development itself. Why can’t we have 50’ there or at least 40’?

 

Paul Couts asked, being on the accessing itself?

 

President Anderson stated, our zoning calls for 50’ right-of-way.

 

Paul Couts stated, well, I understand that’s for a right-of-way, a street right-of-way. What your going to get in here is your going to get inside of these setbacks are also equivalent easement so if you look at it like first when we come in we have 30’ and 35’ in there you have…

 

President Anderson stated, inside the unit, you’ve got enough space inside the unit. What I’m thinking at the end of the unit you’ve only got a 30 foot right-of-way.

 

Jay Clawson stated, Northbrook Drive

 

Director Weaver stated, Northbrook Drive is what you are referring to.

 

Paul Couts stated, and you are correct, we have talked about this and I’m not up to speed, I’m going to have to apologize because, I’m not. We’ve talked about already putting in a 40’ opening for the drive, right turn, a left and 15’ in and it adds up to about 40’. The easement, in fact we we’re just getting ready to prepare the easement description for, Jeff and I talked to Joe about this and it should be wider than 30’ out there. So, I’m on error on that.

 

President Anderson stated, I mean the whole lane coming back into where it opens back up into your Planned Development. You’ve got 30’ right-of-way all the way in. It’s not just, even you show on here that the street you are extending a little bit.

 

Paul Couts stated, I don’t know if we need to go much wider than that, we might have to go 40’, it depends upon what utilities we put into that easement and what is there. Mainly, what this is right here is, the accessing easement itself. If we have to put other private utilities there, we haven’t got any other kind of drawings back from private utilities to know where they want to put their lines. What we do many times is when we get into construction plans, we will actually give them separate easements to handle to where they want to work. I don’t know where they want to come in to the site because, we haven’t gotten any feedback from them so I apologize for that. What we normally do is, and this is kind of one of those little backward deals we’re trying to put as much information on these plans what we can. We’ve got the sanitary sewer, the water main, the streets, the storm drainage all designed and the next actually goes to the private utilities. I don’t know where they are going to want to go.

My feeling was that we get through this process, get approval from you guys as far as the layout. Then what we would probably do is handle those easements as needed on individual basis and actually record and write them up separately. I don’t know where they are going to go and we may have to take it and do something about, see that little crooked lot line, we may have to come around that crooked lot line or come around the South side of the white house to come in some way. I don’t know how they want to back feed their utilities, or how they want to feed them through there so I need to talk to the electric company, the Telephone Company, and cable TV, I assume too. So, I need to talk to those people to find out where they’re at but, I haven’t done that yet because, its out of sequence for what we normally do in Tippecanoe County.

 

President Anderson stated, but, that 30’ wouldn’t really meet our zoning too.

 

Paul Couts stated, but, it’s not meant to be a street, it’s a private easement.

 

President Anderson stated, yes, but, still it’s an access to where somebody’s going to live.

 

Paul Couts stated, but, I guess what I’m trying to explain to you is 2-12’ lanes...

 

President Anderson stated, we hear that all the time and when we got areas around here that over the years have had to small streets going to it and we get into problems with that and everybody…

 

Paul Couts asked, well, I understand but, if I go out here on Sixth Street how many cars does that carry a day, bunches of cars. What is that pavement width out there?

 

Don Ward stated, 20’.

 

Paul Couts stated, that’s right, it’s right around 20’. We’re talking about going even wider than that for our little development, which is not going to carry anywhere near, the amount of traffic you have there. Thirty feet, in my opinion, is more than wide enough. An interstate highway has 12’ lanes on it, we’re at 22’. In my opinion, I think that is more than adequate as far as width, as far as getting a street in there.

 

Don Ward stated, well your wide, right-of-ways are so you can drain your pavement. You need, the drainage determines the right-of-way width as well as pavement width.

 

Paul Couts stated, well, we’re talking in this case, we’re talking about being our streets and channeling the water down the street itself like which you would in a private parking project versus having streets crowned.

 

Don Ward asked, in which you’re going to run the water down the middle or the street?

 

Paul Couts stated, yes, and then we’ll pick it up there. So that is what we’re trying to do is make the space savings and keep it together. It’s just a little different animal that we’re looking at.

 

Don Ward asked, what about sidewalks, do you intend to have a sidewalk?

 

Pal Couts stated, we’ve got internal sidewalks and we really don’t show them on there, we haven’t talked about whether we want to put, it depends on what you do with Main Street a little bit, I don’t have…..

 

Jeff Ward stated, fundamentally, our conversation that was the beast, was what was going to happen. If they are not going to run a sidewalk down Main Street in the near distant future there is no sense in running one no where.

 

Don Ward stated, they are not going to, I don’t think.

 

Jay Clawson stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman stated, they said they were. 

 

Jay Clawson stated, new plans called for sidewalks all the way on the West side, all the way to Ricky Road.

 

Jeff Ward stated, and if those show up then it makes sense to run the sidewalks down.

 

Paul Couts stated, I don’t think there is any problem that’s what we’ve talked about if they put it in, we’re going to run the sidewalk down. It makes sense.

 

Director Weaver asked, do your plans show the internal sidewalks?

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes.

 

Don Ward stated, you need more right-of-way if your going to run sidewalks up.

 

Paul Couts stated, the sidewalks are going right next to the street.

 

Don Ward asked, are you going to put a curb in? Just put the curb in as usual?

 

Jay Clawson stated, that’s a cross section, 5’ sidewalks, curve.

 

Don Ward stated, one side is probably all you need.

 

Paul Couts stated, the sidewalk is on the South side of the private drive. That’s what Diann was asking about.

 

Ron Pollock asked, on Main Street?

 

Paul Couts asked, no, he said that it was over on the West side, isn’t that what you said Jay?

 

Jeff Ward stated, that’s the South.

 

Paul Couts stated, on Main Street it’s over on the West side.

 

A Board member stated, yes.

 

Paul Couts stated, yes, and then our sidewalk shows coming down on what would eventually be the North side on the entrance drive.

 

Jay Clawson stated, I thought they showed a sidewalk there.

 

Paul Couts stated, we could do the same thing we have done internally, we could just bring it on around and bring it on out.

 

Rick Raderstorf asked, does that entrance only going to even in the future feed here?

 

Paul Couts stated, we have talked about that, if this goes well, Jeff and I have talked about developing this further to the North, taking the land that is immediately North and possibly doing something there. If that happens, we will probably widen that up and bring another road or something in here at this point and then widen this up and make that work a little bit better.

 

Ron Pollock asked, is this your property to the North?

 

Paul Couts stated, not right here.

 

Director Weaver stated, its part of the platted subdivision, correct Jeff?

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes, oh I’m sorry, this particular one is not, this is.

 

Ron Pollock asked, this right here?

 

Paul Couts stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman asked, I guess I looked at the subdivision requirements compared to this plat and see things that aren’t on this that are required, I gave Jeff a list of them last week and I know you may not have had a chance to get them done but, we have several things that aren’t on it. Is there another one proposed to bring to us or is this what we’re looking at?

 

Paul Couts asked, as far as the final plat?

 

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

 

Paul Couts stated, I have reworked some restricted covenants and it answers some of the questions in the restricted covenants that….

 

Attorney Altman asked, can I see the restricted covenants that were re-worked?

 

Paul Couts stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman stated, our plat calls for the street names to be on there and there has got to be a notice on there that……

 

Paul Couts stated, now the street names are on there.

 

Jay Clawson stated, Condo Court is there, Condo Drive, and North drive.

 

Paul Couts stated, now, I’m not saying we have everything. Just go through your list because, I haven’t heard this.

 

Attorney Altman stated, it says that there has to be a notice on there that all undisturbed lands will be stabilized.

 

Paul Couts stated, we put those in the covenants.

 

Attorney Altman stated, okay, maybe I’m beating a horse to death, I haven’t seen these and would like to look at them, I guess.

 

Paul Couts stated, sure.

 

Jeff Ward stated, well, they came to us this morning because, it was late Friday when we got them to us.

 

Attorney Altman asked, and it talks about the easements, drainage easements on there. Is that in here?

 

Jeff Ward stated, we are on the docket for the 17th. I believe to finalize those easements.

 

Attorney Altman asked, and that’s to finalize them and the variance on that?

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes.

 

Attorney Altman asked, to get the variance for the drainage? What they have is, they’re trying to get a variance on the drainage easement for the Carter Ditch.

 

Jeff Ward stated, to answer your question Jerry, I believe every item we’ve talked about both Thursday and Friday has been addressed.

 

President Anderson asked, are there any other questions?

 

Attorney Altman asked, one thing you mentioned and I think you were talking about the whole unit, the thirty buildings and fifty units…

 

Paul Couts stated, twenty-five.

 

President Anderson stated, twenty-five.

 

Attorney Altman asked, twenty-five, okay for the first phase one, how many buildings and how many units?

 

Paul Couts stated, there should be a table on there.

 

Attorney Altman stated, there probably is, I just don’t see it.

 

Jeff Ward stated, maximum eleven.

 

Director Weaver stated, Paul, I find that on the setback preliminary plat, on page 3, the preliminary plat, the maximum number of buildings and the maximum number of units.

 

Don Ward stated, That’s down on the bottom on page two, I just read it.

 

Paul Couts stated, I took the blocks in there, to answer your question Jerry, I know I worked up a table because what we did essentially is go back and say, you got your phase line. count your buildings and there are six in what we call block D. There is supposed to be a maximum of 6 buildings and 12 units. In block A, there are supposed to be 2 buildings and 4 units. That is the way it is supposed to be on there and I’m not sure where it is because, we had all kinds of information. We were trying to put in different places so I apologize for that. I don’t see that information. That was the intent, was to look at the phase line, like for instance, block B is supposed to be like 3 buildings and 6 units, is what their intentions are.

 

Attorney Altman stated, okay, so that again, what I was concerned about is the fact that is open area and yet I understand the flexibility that your talking about. We have to finish talking about in this development. I guess so, I’m making the record as I understand it like in block D phase 1 you have 6 buildings max and max of 12 units, right?

 

Paul Couts stated, that is correct.

 

Attorney Altman asked, and then in A, I think you said 2 or 3 and a max of 4. Again, just to make the record so that we can get something done tonight. I want to do something about it. Block B is 3 and a max 6. Then we got a little thing in there…

 

Paul Couts stated, that’s just the one.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that’s a loner.

 

Paul Couts stated, a loner and 2 units.

 

Attorney Altman stated, a longer and two units, okay, I just was handed a copy of the restricted covenants for this plat Planned Unit Development and I’ll tell you, I don’t think, I have time to look it over very sufficiently right now. I believe that, let me go down my list of what I asked them to do and then I’m sure they’ve done it. I would recommend to the Board that if they would consider approving this, that the use of conditionally upon the fact that I review the restrictive covenants and that they have sufficiently addressed each and every of them and satisfied the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, if that sounds all right to the Board. Now, I didn’t get rid of every issue here guys, so don’t get me wrong. Obviously, just again, the drainage approval was a concern we had because we knew there was a need of a variance. They wanted to have a variance on the distance on the crown to the ponds provided that no changes would be allowed. This is a lot like Mr. Jordan did in his subdivision where he said, no variances. They are willing to do this and I propose this. Number 3...

 

Paul Couts asked, do you want us to respond to this?

 

Attorney Altman stated, no, I’m just saying there is language in here, Mr. Coats. I’m just going to review that and make sure we’ve pounded out that its all done but, I don’t think we’re going to do that tonight. It’s 9:30 now.

 

Paul Couts stated, okay, that’s fine.

 

President Anderson stated, you go through that and we can come to an agreement on passing this, we would have primary approval of this Planned Subdivision, then it would be contingent upon on his own restrictions

 

Attorney Altman stated, on density, the square footage and what have you. I think what I had shared with him is, we’ve had deals where people lumped everything together and then later on they come in and say, oh gee I’ve put it all over here, approve another variance of some sort. That’s why the variance thing and that’s why I was talking about the units and what made the D and this little guy up here by court D, that’s how they are controlling as I understand that. Talking to the Board, I’m talking for them but, as that’s how their controlling the density and allocating it among their acreage by that way. I presume we don’t have Tipton County in there anymore. The issue about what is a family, and Jeff, as I understood you, just went to our ordinance and put that in right?

 

Jeff Ward stated, right.

 

Attorney Altman asked, what is our ordinance definition of what a family is?

 

Paul Couts stated, with some little minor modification.

 

Attorney Altman stated, okay, I hope so. The estimate on improvements that’s here right now, street names, you’ve got. The notice and just one of our requirements in the subdivision says that this plat must have on it, the words notice all disturbed lands will be stabilized and I’m sure we’ll have that. Dedication language since this is private roads in here, there will be at least enough dedication such that all police, ambulance, health services, fire and safety units will be able to service all buildings. Obviously, the drainage of the easements on there streets, utilities also electric, TV, sewer and water and the restrictions on the plat and that’s what we have here and that will be added, right gentlemen? Anything Jeff, we talked about? 

 

Jeff Ward stated, everything you mentioned you have in your hands.

 

Attorney Altman stated, okay, well, I’m willing to believe that but, I want to read it and come back to you assuming that its done and then we’ve got that out of the way. Does that sound reasonable to the applicants? To the Board?

 

President Anderson asked, any other questions about this?

 

Paul Couts asked, so will we be voting on the primary approval?

 

Attorney Altman stated, its secondary actually. Which is the equivalent of final and I guess, there is a primary vote, right Director Weaver? I don’t know, I’m asking you.

 

Director Weaver stated, it’s not defined in the ordinance.

 

President Anderson asked, in the ordinance what does it say about private drives?

 

Director Weaver stated, all right-of-ways are addressed as public right of ways 50’.

 

President Anderson stated, we have people bringing in subdivisions, they try to say well, this is going to be a private drive back there and they give us 25’ or 30’. I realize it doesn’t take that much space for people to drive up and down. The drainage is going to be in the middle of the street but, still in the ordinance that we have on this says 50’on the right-of-ways. Do any of the other Commissioners have any questions?

 

Paul Couts stated, the only response I would have, I think in this situation its going to be just a little bit different in, that you have a Homeowners Association that your going to be responsible for that.

 

President Anderson stated, I understand that but, then the next guy comes in with a 30’ drive and says hey, you don’t want to do this and you did this last week...

 

Paul Couts stated, I understand, and that’s part of the Planned Unit Development process and all I’m saying in this case is there is at least an organization, a collective organization that is collecting money and monitoring this and looking after. Its not like I live down one end of the street and now suddenly, I want my little private drive maintained by the city. This is something that is structured properly and it’s still a key situation. You have to have some people to jump in there in the Homeowners Association and watch it, take care of it. You can’t have all 50 of these people in here just going to sleep and forgetting about it. You have to have some leadership and somebody that’s responsible. A Homeowners Association can work well if you have some people that do well with it, it can also be a bad situation and I’m being very frank with you. I think if it’s done properly, it can work well and the understanding is that we put these as private drives and they can not be. If you want me to we’ll go further and start a statement like what we do in Tippecanoe County. We’ve put on there right on the plat that these roads have shown on these private drives will not be accepted by a governmental jurisdiction.

 

President Anderson asked, what do they allow you down there sir?

 

Attorney Altman stated, I think we should do that.

 

Jeff Ward stated, we have language already in here that says that.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I certainly would want that.

 

Paul Couts stated, yes, that works well because, then there is no question. There’s a recorded document, it’s there and when people come back in and ask, well, this is the way it is this is the way it was designed. It’s not designed to be a public street. That is a statement that we put on there, it’s very easy to do. And that’s part of the plat when it’s recorded and it’s easy to whip out and say this is the way it is.

 

President Anderson asked, in Planned Developments in Lafayette, what’s the width on streets?

 

Paul Couts stated, they go down to one, and in the City of West Lafayette, Camelback is the name of it, it went down to 16’ wide, 16’, 18’. It just depends on how many units are on and the maximum width in the whole thing. Main Street was 20’ wide, and it works well.

 

Attorney Altman asked, how many units were in there?

 

Paul Couts stated, there is quite a few. I don’t know the exact number but, I think it is more than what is in this one here.

 

Attorney Altman asked, Camelback?

 

Paul Couts stated, yes, Camelback’s over between Northwestern Avenue, its like your going across Western Avenue and you take Yeager Road, the little cut through right there, just North of Lindbergh, it’s off to your right. They’ve now put a gated entrance over on Northwestern Avenue because they were getting to many people who were cutting through. That’s a Planned Development.

 

Attorney Altman asked, this would not be gated?

 

Paul Couts stated, no.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that surprised me, I figured you would.

 

Paul Couts stated, there were pros and cons and we would rather make the commitment at this point. I think we want to see what happened with it. If it gets big enough, and we put entrances out both directions it may be advisable.

 

Jay Clawson asked, your Homeowners Association could decide they want to do that at any time, right?

 

Paul Couts stated, absolutely, that’s the advantage of a private drive too.

 

President Anderson asked, do the Commissioners have any other questions?

 

Attorney Altman stated, I guess to answer your question, you don’t have to approve it with 30’ in there. You don’t as a member when you vote, Board does it as a body has to. That’s part of a Planned Unit Development concept. That’s what you look at. To look at your question, it’s a valid question and I put this to Jeff last week. I put it back on their shoulders. They have to give us a basis to approve what they want us to approve and yet such that it doesn’t get the Subdivision Ordinance as an example. In other words, there has to be some valid reasons why this shouldn’t be every place. Your question about this here is a little more of a refining question but, it’s the same thought, 30’, is it really enough and the next guy or lady that comes and says I got 30’. Is that enough? You don’t have to buy it, is what I’m trying to say. That is what your vote is.

 

Jay Clawson stated, a lot of time when your looking at regular subdivisions to, you need the extra widths because, of the design factor but, if they have a 30’ easement somewhere else that they are bringing all the utilities through. They don’t need to be, maybe they don’t want all, with it being a Planned Development, they don’t want all their utilities coming down there street. That’s the whole reason that its 50’. You don’t ever have a 50’ road. You need places to set and put your trucks up, to put your electric in, your gas and all your other things. If they’re going to offer us a separate utilities easements somewhere else, I mean if they find this 20’ that they want for an easements is going to be by that street they can amend it, come back, and say they want it.

 

Jeff Ward stated, to speak to that, we are, our own neighbor all around the whole thing. If utility comes from Sixth Street, if the electricity was to come from Sixth Street since we are our own neighbor we obviously, will grant ourselves that easement to do that.

 

Paul Couts stated, I don’t have the private utility information. If I had it, I know for sure where we would be going with it. I could tell you a little bit more. We will add on to that 30’ what ever we need to for the private utilities and put it where they want it.

 

President Anderson asked, so you’ll have the space to do that?

 

Paul Couts stated, oh yes, and that’s all their land. They make a valid point that they can give…

 

President Anderson asked, but, that goes into those platted lots doesn’t it?

 

Jeff Ward stated, no, it still doesn’t go into that.

 

Paul Couts stated, I guess what I’m saying is, this is really kind of like the 30’ accessing two 12’ lanes and if they want to bring their telephone in something like this and serve it. They want to put more in like this and come this other way. Their willing to work with the private utility companies and grant what other easements we need. I just don’t know where they’re at right now is part of the problem. What were looking at, that 30’ is adequate for the street itself.

 

Jay Clawson stated, the streets are only 20’ wide and they allow parking on both sides.

 

Don Ward stated, there is going to be parking over here, but, if they plow the snow, thinking about sidewalks.

 

Director Weaver stated, my understanding from the ordinance is, this is approval tonight it doesn’t come back to this Board. It’s done with this Board, and we are going to give it approval without knowing where these easements are going.

 

Paul Couts stated, well, if you could put all the conditions you want on it as long as we can bring something back in that has those…

 

Director Weaver stated, but, then your putting the responsibility on the Director to make sure these easements are adequate.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the Board has to approve it.

 

Paul Couts stated, but, we have covered all of that, you don’t cover the private easements, the street you dedicate it.

 

Director Weaver stated, but, it is going to make a difference on this entry easement. Does the Board want to grant approval?

 

President Anderson stated, but, it would stay the same size.

 

Director Weaver stated, but he’s saying if the easements do go on there, they may widen them.

Is the Board comfortable giving approval?

 

President Anderson stated, but it’s just going to add an extra…

 

Director Weaver stated, but, that’s my point though is the Board comfortable granting an approval contingent on not knowing weather that easement is going to go beside that road or elsewhere.

 

President Anderson asked, what have we got going on down here? Does anyone have any questions about this?

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, we’re like you, like the 30’ road….

 

Don Ward stated, it just doesn’t seem wide enough to plow snow or have sidewalks or have drainage.

 

Jeff Ward asked, your talking about just the entrance road?

 

Don Ward stated, yes.

 

Gary Barbour stated, the one that sticks in my mind is where the guy had a 30’ easement into his property past his garage and wanted to put a lot in for his son out back. We wouldn’t let him over 30’. This is going in a lot further then what that is to a whole lot more houses in there. I guess I have a real problem, we didn’t let that one individual and I have a real problem with this. 

 

Jeff Ward stated, I guess, thinking out loud here. Fundamentally, we’re looking at 100 cars a day.

 

Don Ward stated, well, that’s quite a bit.

 

Director Weaver stated, but like Jerry said, they turned down a subdivision that was for one lot that did not meet the 50’. That was only one lot, and it was turned down.

 

Gary Barbour stated, and they were at 30’ and it was going to be a single family dwelling that was two cars a day going in and out of that driveway.

 

Paul Couts stated, your talking about public right-of way, I guess what we’re trying to say is, if we have to proceed and go bigger then I don’t see any problem with it.

 

Gary Barbour stated, well, one of the main things that came up with this particular subdivision was getting fire trucks in and out of there. What is the traffic going to be like, trying to get a fire truck in there with the 30’? If you end up with a really big fire back in this development here everybody is trying to get out with the fire trucks coming in. I know we’re talking worse case scenario here also.

 

Paul Couts stated, yes but, even if we got to 2-12’ lanes, which is what is on the interstate, you’ve got a 12’ lane in, a 12’ lane out and you’ve got Sixth Street, which is only 20’ wide and you get fire trucks and people by that all the time. I guess, I think if you want to go 40’ I don’t have any problem going 40’. I still question why would you need any bigger for the pavement because, 2-12’ lanes is the max lane going 60, 70 mile an hour.

 

Don Ward stated, we’re not saying you need any bigger pavement, just more right-of-ways.

 

Paul Couts stated, okay, but what are you going to put in the right-of-ways? We have the storm drainage taken care of. The private utilities they come in and out by their own separate easements and we’ve put them someplace else. We don’t know where they are going to go. What else do you need to go in there? Is 40’ better, is that what you’d like to have?

 

Don Ward stated, well, I think 40’ is better, definitely. The wider the better, but what we’re trying to figure is the absolute minimum and weather or not 30’ is the absolute minimum. Definitely, in my mind it’s the absolute minimum for anything.

 

Paul Couts stated, I would agree with you on that one.

 

Don Ward stated, we have a sidewalk, if you are going to put a 5’ sidewalk out there and you have 2-11’ lanes, you got 27’ used right there.

 

Paul Couts stated, I understand that that.

 

Don Ward stated and if you’re going to have a sidewalk right along there you really need the road pushed away from the sidewalk a little more, to make it safer. I don’t think there will be many people walking. I would do 50 units in there you’ll have a lot of traffic in and out. It will be noticeable, that’s for sure.

 

Paul Couts stated, I guess, Jeff says go for it, I don’t have any problem going 40’. If you want us to make it 40’ wide we’ll make it a 40’ wide easement.

 

Jeff Ward stated, that doesn’t mean we have all 40’.

 

Paul Couts stated, we’d plan it out that way. I’m not sure what we’ll do with the extra land but, we’ll put it down there.

 

Jay Clawson stated, well, if you have it and like Don said, the only thing, especially if your not going to be using it as utility but if someone wanted to fence part of it. If you had 30’ and they put a fence down it would really kind of tunnel. That’s the only legitimate, that I saw, seeing how we’re not using anything for utilities in here. I did talk with our Fire Chief and they didn’t see a problem with the radius and stuff in here for fighting a fire and its not running close to any other structures. That was another reason that we wanted more room and some in these other subdivisions is to buffer because, you don’t to run a drive 6” from somebody’s window when somebody’s bedroom happen to drive going by where people are driving back and forth in these and a lot of times its not trying to be mean to people when they are doing it but a lot of it…

 

Paul Couts stated, what might happen in the future, I understand that we would not want any building wall to set right on the easement line. That would not be a good situation at all.

 

Jay Clawson stated, right, so if you could buffer that back so if it, later like you say, later you decide you want to widen that road a little bit if you ever go into a different phase 20 years down the road that’s already built into the system. That’s the only thing I see about.

 

President Anderson stated, we can’t vote on this and put contingent on a 40’ right-of-way coming into it and far as the easement for utilities how are they...

 

Attorney Altman stated, they would have to bring that back for approval.

 

President Anderson stated, but then they would have to come back and ask for approval.

 

Paul Couts asked, I don’t know normally we would just take and record the easement. Sometimes it even goes on the private utility company’s easement form and we would just record that. Can we just give you a copy of that then? I’m at a lost because…

 

Jeff Ward asked, I guess that the question is if we have to come back in front of the Board what do we file for, as opposed to just recording the easement when we put in place.

 

Jay Clawson stated, just saying that N.I.P.S.CO. wants to come to come down to the North of the line, if they want to go there and they want a 20’ exit would you be opposed to putting a 50’ easement because, that’s where they want, along with your street? Because, if your looking straight sidewalk 27’ and then they are wanting 20’ you could come down the South side with your easement and then you can grant them a 50’ right-of-way and then they would have open up for any kind of utilities they want. Not saying they want to break it down that way but, if that’s what they decide you can do that at a later time.

 

Paul Couts asked, could we do what we do in Tippecanoe County a little bit and I’m not trying to compare you to Tippecanoe County. What we do there is, we come in and get approval, then if there is some kind of change we do it with what we call an amended final plat. The other thing you haven’t talked about is, as each one of these buildings are built, we actually have to bring a plat back that shows that building location and rerecord it each time so that somebody can come in and know where that piece of property is. I guess what I’d really like to see, if you think that this will work in with your scheme is to give us approval tonight. Then say okay, when you get your utilities all done and maybe you can do it with the first building is, come back with an amended final plat that shows like, the first building and any of the recorded easements that go with it. Would that be an acceptable way of handling it? Because, we’re going to be back here 25 times with the plat that has to be recorded as an amended final plat. Down there the staff as opposed to coming back to the A.P.C. each time approves the amended final plat. You have to remember each time a building goes up in here we have to add that building in and have a recorded document that goes with that in some way. You can either do that with a small drawing or you can do it with a big drawing, it depends upon which you folks think should to be done here. I still have to do that to make some kind of a title, record situation for somebody to buy a unit.

 

Director Weaver asked, does that amendment, do you have someone from the staff sign that amendment before it is recorded just like a plat?

 

Paul Couts stated, yes.

 

President Anderson asked, do you feel comfortable doing that?

 

Director Weaver stated, much better, if I know that somebody in our office has to sign that before its recorded that way, they can’t record something without our signature. At least we’re going to know what is going on. That’s my concern, that we are aware where thing are and what is going on.

 

Attorney Altman stated, they’ve got to do that when they get a building permit.

 

Director Weaver stated, record the amendment but, its after the foundation is in, that’s my understanding.

 

Paul Couts stated, you get the building permit and then you build it because, the contractor builds it in the right spot. We come back out, check it, and survey it and then we do the amended final plat. It shows the precise location. We’re going to add the easements in the common area for driveway. There are a number of things that have to be added on to it.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I understand.

 

President Anderson asked, the primary approval shall be granted upon the receipt of the conditions required by the Commissioners?

 

Attorney Altman stated, well, you certainly want the restricting covenant reviewed by the Area Plan Commission.

 

Director Weaver stated, you want to vote on the secondary ballot, not the primary ballot.

 

President Anderson stated, okay, they have been met with these conditions.

 

Attorney Altman stated, that’s right, have been met with those conditions.

 

There was discussion among the Board members.

 

Attorney Altman stated, the amendment final plat approved by the Director for every building…

 

Jeff Ward stated, well, it could be a building or a set of buildings.

 

Attorney Altman stated, I understand but you call that a building regarding, the other day that’s what you called that, whether it’s one or two is called a building.

 

Jeff Ward stated, yes, a building, and a building can be a single unit or it could be a double unit, two dwelling units.

 

Attorney Altman stated, which ever you decided you wanted to build.

 

Paul Couts stated, correct.

 

Attorney Altman asked, is there anything else to be added to that list? Obviously, it is also subject to the drainage easement modification, the Drainage Board. Is there anything else then?

 

Ron Pollock asked, what do you want to do with the old one?

 

Director Weaver stated, Primary.

 

Attorney Altman stated, bring it in, bring it in with the other.

 

Don Ward asked, what was that one restriction that you were going to go through Area Plan Office. 

 

President Anderson stated, was there a final plat on building and easements?

 

Attorney Altman stated, yes.

 

With no further discussion the Board voted.

 

Attorney Altman stated, announcing the results of balloting on second ballots Planned Unit Development application #2 is approved subject to the four conditions on the record, phase one.

 

President Anderson stated, next on the agenda will be business and we’re going to do away with that.

 

Paul Couts stated, thank you very much gentlemen.

 

Jay Clawson stated, I make a motion that we pass on the business. 

****

 

The meeting adjourned.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Weaver, Director

White County Area Plan Commission