Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer says PUD preferred for new residential subdivision; raises park, utilities and access issues
Summary
A developer presented plans for a proposed subdivision near Lot 4748, urged use of a planned unit development (PUD) to control design and avoid multiple variances, and discussed a 0.3-acre park parcel, over 30% open space, sewer/lift‑station needs and possible trail/easement connections.
A developer representative told the Burns Harbor Plan Commission that a proposed residential community near Lot 4748 would best be managed through a planned unit development, which the representative said provides a single, project‑specific ordinance and avoids dozens of individual variances.
The developer said the site includes about 30% open space and a 0.3‑acre park parcel that contains play equipment; ‘‘It’s roughly 6 to 700 feet [of] walking path right now,’’ the representative said, and also described ‘‘over a mile and a quarter of walking path’’ around the open space in a separate remark. The commission and developer did not reconcile those two figures during the discussion.
Commissioners raised access and emergency‑vehicle questions tied to a cul‑de‑sac near the spur and an easement by Lot 4748. One board member noted code calls for about a 100‑foot diameter to accommodate fire trucks, school buses, garbage trucks and snow plows. The developer said the easement could be sold to the adjacent property line or dedicated as green space to avoid future disputes and agreed to evaluate vehicle turning radii and curb/driveway impacts.
The developer also addressed utilities and potential sanitary‑system impacts. Staff and commissioners said the site is low in places and that the sanitary board may require a lift station; the developer said the cost would be evaluated and that the builder typically ‘‘entertains putting in a recapture agreement’’ to offset large upfront utility costs from future lots.
On zoning, the developer explained differences between general residential zoning, RC‑1/RC‑2 designations and a PUD/PED approach, saying PUDs give the municipality written standards specific to the project and allow the developer and the town to require architectural and site controls without seeking 70+ separate variances. Commissioners noted some municipalities prefer straight rezoning for consistency, while others use PUDs to lock in design standards.
Next steps the developer outlined included engaging engineers, coordinating with utilities on sewer and water, retaining counsel to draft PUD documents, and returning to the commission for formal PUD consideration; the developer expressed a target schedule of mid to late summer for starting work if approvals proceed.
The Park Board was recommended as the next municipal reviewer for whether the town will accept the 0.3‑acre parcel; staff said acceptance would make the town responsible for maintenance, while the developer said the HOA could assume maintenance if the town declines. The developer left contact information with staff to follow up on engineering and sanitary review questions.
