It took nearly two
years but the planned unit development proposed by PSR LLC for 58 acres
across the street from Dogwood Park went from mixed R-1, R-2, and R-3
housing and a pair of commercial buildings, to single-family units only and
a pair of commercial buildings, to just single-family units in what is now
almost--but not quite--a conventional subdivision.
Members of the
Chesterton Advisory Plan Commission nibbled around the edges of the PUD at a
concept review Thursday evening, but found nothing so objectionable as to
prompt them to take a bite out of it.
Greg Babcock, did not, however, ask planners to schedule a preliminary
hearing on the PUD.
would be comprised of 36 single-family units. The lots on which the two
commercial buildings were originally sited--on the far west edge of the
acreage--have now been converted into an outlot which would be used for a
detention pond, while a second detention pond would be located on an outlot
fronting 1100N. The main entrance into the development has been aligned with
23rd Street and a series of T-driveways off 1100N has been eliminated--after
planners expressed their squeamishness over multiple roadcuts--and an
interior road would connect with Pradera Trail in the Stone Meadows
subdivision to the east.
PSR is requesting
four, relatively minor, variances:
-- The first to
permit a shared T-driveway for a pair of homes fronting 1100N which would
otherwise be landlocked.
-- The second to
permit monument signage to identify the development.
-- The third to
permit the width of a handful of lots to be under the 75-foot minimum
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
-- The fourth to
permit the erection of six-foot privacy fences in the rear yards of homes
backing onto 1100N.
PSR is also
requesting the waiver of the Town Standard setting the maximum length of a
cul-de-sac at 600 feet. Babcock told planners that the cul-de-sac would
likely be 625 to 630 feet.
would be built in a single phase, with all infrastructure installed at the
same time, Babcock noted. And--addressing concerns about drainage voiced by
residents of Pearson Road to the west, in unincorporated Liberty
Township--Babcock emphasized that the developer’s legal responsibility is to
detain runoff and then release it at no greater rate than it’s currently
Planners did have a
few comments. Sharon Darnell wanted to know whether, in place of six-foot
privacy fences in the rear yards backing onto 1100N, four-and-half-foot
fences could be erected instead, but concealed from motorists’ view by trees
or shrubs. Babcock said that he would confer with his clients about that
Kowalski suggested that, rather than building a cul-de-sac, the roadway
could be run all the way to 1100N, so that there would be a traffic loop for
residents. “A road that flows in and flows out, and everybody’s happy,” he
“That would create
another roadcut onto 1100N,” Babcock replied, mindful that two months ago,
at the commission’s August meeting, planners specifically objected to the
series of T-driveways giving onto 1100N. Babcock added that he would need to
hear a consensus in favor of that extra roadcut before he’d be comfortable
advising his clients to change the plan of development.
Members had no
other substantial comments on the concept at this early stage. “Good first
step,” Jeff Trout said.
Earlier in the
evening, two residents of unincorporated Liberty Township repeated concerns
about drainage which they’ve made before about the proposed development.
Evelyn Komenas, who lives to the west of the site on Pearson Road, is
fearful of being flooded out. “We cannot handle any more water that comes
our way,” she said. “Once it’s built, it’s done. There has to be no water
drainage on our property.”
Don Tharp agreed.
“What’s going to happen to the water?” he asked. “There’s a big problem