Chesterton Tribune



Two commercial buildings dropped from 1100N PUD

Back To Front Page



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.

PSR’s attorney, Greg Babcock, did not, however, ask planners to schedule a preliminary hearing on the PUD.

The development 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.

The development 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 draining now.

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 possibility.

Planner Jim 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 said.

“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 there.”


Posted 10/19/2020




Search This Site:

Custom Search