JUNE 13, 2007
The Warrick County Drainage Board met in regular session with President Philip H. Baxter, presiding, also in attendance were Don Williams, Secretary, James E. Niemeyer, Surveyor and David K. Zengler, Attorney for Board. Mr. Conner was absent. Sean Owen was also present.
Minutes were recorded and transcribed by Cheryl D. Embry.
Those present in the audience were Sherri Rector, A. J. Welte, Ted Stahl, Clarence Welte, Tony Parrish, Lowell Granderson, Lee A. McClellan, Joe Pearson, Sean Suttles, Dan Granderson John Blair, Zane Stephens Nathan Mominee and Chris Kimbrough.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Don Williams: Mr. President, I move that we approve the minutes as presented from May 23, 2007. Seconded by Phil Baxter. Motion carried 2-0.
DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVAL:
Sherri Rector: We have a letter from all children of Mrs. Gourley to withdraw this subdivision, it will be taken off of the agenda and before it’s heard there will be new notices sent to the adjacent property owners.
Don Williams: I move that we withdraw Gourley Estates.
Seconded by Phil Baxter, Motion carried 2-0.
Henry Nodarse: Henry Nodarse, an engineer with Bernardin Lochmueller Engineers, we have designed a drainage plan for the Bell Oaks redevelopment project and we’re here to answer any questions you might have and request approval of the drainage plans.
Don Williams: I don’t have any questions, but does this tie into the legal drain we’re wanting to put behind Schnucks there, Jim?
Jim Niemeyer: Yes.
Don Williams: We definitely want approve to go forward with that. I understand that they’ve requested a reduction from 75-foot to perhaps like an urban drain which is 30-feet and I think they asked for 25. I personally have no problem going down to 30, I don’t know if we need to do that formally or what yet. I don’t know where we’re at as far as those negotiations.
???Speaker: Mr. Williams where we are at this point and time, there was a request made of S. M. Properties to do that, we communicated with….I think Mr. Nodarse communicated with Mr. Niemeyer and I communicated with Mr. Zengler and we had 3 or 4 issues that we wanted to address and I don’t think that any of those are a problem, we were just kind of trying to figure out the process of how we were going to do that, so we’re going to cooperate and get that done.
Don Williams: That’s why you two make the big bucks so we’ll let you hack that out between you.
David K. Zengler: I think they’re looking at a 30-foot, is what they’re talking about.
Speaker ?: We were thinking that the number was going to be 25 and I looked to Henry to see whether that has any impact on the project.
Henry Nodarse: The concern is just the…….25-feet……30-feet puts us pretty much in the back of the proposed building we really don’t have any room between that uh easement and the new proposed building. We thought that you know the 25-feet with the understanding that…there is a large parking area in the back, I imagine they could use it regardless if there is an easement or not.
Speaker ?: I think that what we were talking about was in terms of 25-feet to the extent that the County needed greater access than that we would in an agreement and that was the format we were going to….that I would see some kind of an agreement that we would provide them with that additional access right to get in and service that ditch if they needed to get in, but I think that Mr. Nodarse is correct that if it’s 30-feet it certainly encompasses a big chunk of the back drive that’s there now if not all the way into the building.
Don Williams: 25-feet is enough of an area for an excavator?
Phil Baxter: I’ll go with that, anything to help move this along and that can help the area.
David K. Zengler: I think that there is a few other questions but I think basically that they can be resolved. I mean, most of them are talking about us resuming the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the ditch which is the whole point of what we’re doing and so on. So, I think I’ve been presented a few points but I don’t think that they’re issues……if you’re willing to drop it to 25-feet that was my only real question.
Speaker ? That was the real issue.
Don Williams: So,
you’re putting your retention basins down along
Mr. Nodarse: Yes, that’s correct. There’s no retention right now. There is a detention area in the parking lot but I don’t see how it can work.
Jim Niemeyer: Henry, all current drainage from the properties is going into the ditch behind the store?
Henry Nodarse: Right now the building run-off goes to the ditch in the back and the parking lot behind the building goes in the ditch. In the new plan it has all the run-off going into the detention pond so it will relieve the flow in the ditch behind the buildings.
Don Williams: Are those 50-year plans?
Henry Nodarse: Yes and in fact the 100-year, it can hold the 100-year also.
Don Williams: Because I’m going to be real honest with you, Mr. Nodarse, I think that is probably where the County is headed on future developments, its just a matter of getting it to where we go from a 50:5 to a 100:5, something like that because of the amount of flooding that we have.
Phil Baxter: Do you have any more questions?
Don Williams: No, that’s more retention then we’ve ever had in the past. I would move that we approve the Bell Oaks Centre Replat drainage plan. Seconded by Phil Baxter. Motion carried 2-0.
CASTLE ORCHARD ESTATES:
Jim Niemeyer: Please state your names.
Nathan Nominee with Sit-com representing Regal Homes of
Chris Kimbrough: Chris Kimbrough with Regal Homes.
Phil Baxter: Jim, do you have anything on this?
Jim Niemeyer: No, we reviewed them and everything appears to be in order.
Don Williams: The only thing, it’s not really draining toward the basin in the center of lots 1 & 2 it looks to me and all of them are 2 ½ acres except for lot 1?
Theodore Stahl: My
name is Theodore Stahl, I’ve lived at
Phil Baxter: Where does it drain?
Mr. Stahl: It just runs off. We need a retention pond with a stand pipe so the water could gradually come out, possibly that would work. 80% of that water that comes off the front half of that property is going to come rushing down to the road and there is no where for it to go, there is no county ditch.
Don Williams: There’s not one along the road?
Mr. Stahl: Yeah, but it just goes out into that farm field, the one I hand dug and it didn’t come out to the road, we just did it for agricultural purposes for the water to come down and go west, it’s not a county ditch, it don’t even show on the maps. These gentlemen here are really going to catch the water and so is Mr. Welte. I think asking for a retention pond is a reasonable request.
Don Williams: Is there not a lake in the center of that or did I read it wrong?
Mr. Stahl: That’s on the back side of the elevation.
Don Williams: Right, the front side of it where lots 1 & 2 are, yeah they’re draining in this direction.
Mr. Stahl: They drain towards the road and this mud here they’ve dug out a nice road ditch, I don’t have no complaint with it but the water has to go somewhere and it’s going to go to the lowest point and it’s not a County ditch.
Phil Baxter: I agree with you, we were just talking about that. Let’s let these people respond to see if they have any answers.
Dan Granderson: As
that water makes its way to the west….Dan Granderson,
Phil Baxter: Do you gentlemen have anything you would like to add?
Nathan Mominee: Something that might aid and comfort the neighbors is the side of the ridge they are talking about on the west side of the subdivision, we are going to propose one new building site on that side of the ridge, so the potential is one more home site.
Don Williams: I thought lots 1 & 2 were both on that side of the ridge?
Mr. Mominee: 1 is an existing house a present existing homesite there that’s why the acreage on that one is different.
Don Williams: My next question would be why did you have that acre and a half inside your development?
Mr. Mominee: It was purchased with the property, so we incorporated it into the subdivision and just created a building lot around the existing structure, it created it’s own lot in the subdivision because it was bought with the 15 ½ acre piece. So it just becomes a lot in the subdivision but it has an existing home on there already. They are correct, currently this west side where the home site is not and where the home doesn’t have a grass yard, it’s being cultivated, the co-efficient for infiltration for rainfall when it hits the earth is actually lower when you have a lawn, you will infiltrate more rain water when you have grass, cause the grass is going to take the water and soak it in, you will have more runoff from a cultivated field. So the runoff generated from a farm field is going to be higher than the runoff from a grass lawn. When we calculated our developed watersheds those are some of the things…you know…co-efficient is what we use to determine the developed and undeveloped runoff. So in short a cultivated field is going to produce more runoff so we’re kind of improving the situation by adding the grass lawn which is going to accept more rain fall when it hits the earth. We are adding the impervious area of the roof and the driveway for one new house and this part of the watershed that these gentlemen are concerned with.
(He also exhibited a topo map showing this and explained it.)
This is the ridge top as you can see by the contours here
and this is actually one large ridge with two valleys going this way. Currently
the existing flow path exits a pipe or goes into a pipe under
Phil Baxter: I’m going to make a suggestion to come back two weeks from today and lets have Steve look at it.
Don Williams: Our ordinance says that if all the lots are 2 ½ acres then it doesn’t have to have drainage but we’ve got that… (someone from the audience started to speak) .we’re having a discussion, thank you. But you have the one lot that is only 1 ½ acres, if that hadn’t been in there I don’t think we would have had any problem having to approve but I would go along with tabling it for two weeks and take a look at it, cause I looked at the same drawing and I saw the flow that direction this morning when Jim brought the drawings into my office and perhaps have Mr. Sherwood have a look at it. I mean it’s close to being within our ordinance where we wouldn’t have any problem but with that one smaller lot in there lets look at it and be safe cause we’ve had so many drainage problems, I’m not willing to create another one and you all are just going to have to bear with us. We’re not opposed to the project but we’re going to have a licensed surveyor check it out and make absolutely sure what needs to be there. So with that I would make a motion that we table Castle Orchard for two weeks. We’ll do it two weeks from today same time same place. Phil Baxter seconded the motion. Motion carried 2-0.
A gentleman from the audience stated that he would not get to come back in two weeks and would like to make a statement, The Board advised him that what he said wouldn’t make any difference for two weeks when the issue will be revisited.
Kip Diekmann: My name is Kip Diekmann and I live on the property just south of the new development and I know Ted. He is right about the ditch so I wanted to confirm what he said and then also too, if you build a house on there, I have no problem with building houses on there but a roof will not take any water down and soak it into the ground so what’s underneath it will be runoff. If they put in a drive that is asphalt or pavement there will be no soaking into the ground. I just wanted to confirm what Ted was saying and to let you know that this would not affect my property as it is draining away from my property. I think that it would be a problem for Ted and people down farther west. I have nothing to gain either way.
Don Williams: We have enough drainage problems in this County, we certainly don’t want to create another one so that is why we’re going to have a licensed surveyor look at it. Thank you.
Al Welte: Al Welte,
NORTH WARRICK INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION: (Lee A. McClellan)
Don Williams: I
move to approve drainage plans for
Jim Niemeyer: The next item on our agenda is a drainage discussion concerning I-164 Commercial Park.
Joe Pearson: I’m Joe
Jim Morley, Jr. I’m Jim Morley, Jr with Morley and Associates, project engineer.
Coming before you today we have filed a primary plat for this project in which you’ll hear July 11th, I think is when it comes before you on an official basis. I talked with Jim Niemeyer and wanted to discuss an issue with him and he felt it was best to bring before you to take a look at an idea we had, not looking for an approval today obviously that comes when we officially come before you. We just wanted to kind of get some feed back if you will. I have a couple of documents. Typically when we bring forward a subdivision to you as you know we provide a retention basins for the development and usually the development has anywhere from ¼ acre lots to 1 acre lots or whatever. This project here is being split in half and however the subdivision ordinance requires to bring it forward as a subdivision even though the lots are large lots. I believe one is 5 ½ acres and the other one is 13 acres. The issue before us today is the 13 acres eventually will be developed as perhaps commercial, perhaps condo’s, perhaps apartments, perhaps single residential and the lot 2A which is 5 ½ acres it will be developed most likely as commercial. Our concern is because we don’t know how they will be developed we were concerned in putting the retention basin in the wrong location, as you can see with what I passed out to you there is a combination of 16 different layouts that a person might use on this piece of property depending on what the final use of it is whether it’s commercial or residential. For example if it was commercial they might want their retention basin at the back so they could get their development as close to the highway as possible, where if it was residential it would be exactly the opposite they would want their retention basin probably along the highway to get their houses as far from the highway as possible or perhaps they would want it in the middle and have backyards around it. So what we are wanting to……what we have suggested the drainage report that we submitted or the drainage plan that we will be coming before you in a couple of weeks on is a request that both lots 2A and 2B instead of having the retention basin on them at the time of the primary plat, both 2A and 2B would be required to come before you at the time of development once it’s determined how those pieces of ground are going to be developed. From what I was told this has been done before in Warrick County, I personally have not done it but I guess it was my idea to bring it forward on this one. I also know that there is some drainage concerns in this area as this is right below Colonial Hills and Williams Ditch was just dredged here in the last year because of drainage concerns in that area. I would not want to put a basin in that was under sized for however this piece of property is developed in the future nor do I want to put it in the wrong location. This would not prevent a retention basin from being placed on this property, it would actually give the Drainage Board two cracks at it instead of one. It’s just a desire from the developer not to put it in a location and then have to come back in and vacate those easements and have it re-designed and come in front of the Drainage Board again once it’s determined where it is applicable for the type of development that comes in.
Don Williams: Understand, you wanted a two way discussion, I take it (laughter)
Mr. Morley: Your ahead of us on that one, I guess I’m looking for maybe……
Don Williams: I’m looking at this and to be honest with you, even with my glasses on I had trouble telling which way the elevations are, I see them labeled but they’re so small, maybe on the bigger map.
Don Williams: Which way is the natural drainage?
Mr. Morley: From an elevation standpoint this piece of property will have to be filled to a point in which it is basically flat.
Don Williams: Because you have some flood plain issues, don’t you in here?
Mr. Morley: I don’t have flood plain but I have flooding. The flood plain is not accurately represented on this piece of property but in heavy rains part of this ground does go under water, so that is why I say that it is all going to have to be filled up so in the end when it’s developed whoever develops those piece of ground will have to come up with a flood protection grade and in the end it will basically be a flat piece of ground so the contours in the end won’t have any affect on it.
Don Williams: Well
you know where our concerns about the area and the flooding in this area
particularly. I don’t know if you’re aware of our intentions to perhaps reverse
the flow of Howard Williams Ditch to take it directly to the river. We are
looking at that, we have a couple of areas here in
Jim Morley: Well, I’m just in the exact same spot you are, I don’t know where to put it so I guess my request is that you guys would have an open mind and consider the idea of instead of fixing that position two weeks from now or a month from now when I come before you and allow it to be fixed at the time the pieces of ground are developed because any time the ground is developed it will have to come in front of Tech-Review in which Jim is a member of and the drainage plan for this project would say that it has to come in front of Tech-Review and at that point whoever develops lot 2A or 2B can look at that and see what they’re real run-off is, if they did commercial or residential and put that basin and size it appropriately for the type of development and then also put it in the location that makes sense for that type of development because I know my luck. If there are 16 options there is a pretty good chance I won’t pick the right one which means if it gets recorded that way it has to come before you to be vacated cleared off and then come back in front of the Drainage Board again anyways. So I’ve got a 1 in 16 chance of it not coming back here 2 times anyway and actually if I guess wrong comes back here 4 times because it has to come here twice for vacation proceedings.
Don Williams: . I’m trying to think if we’ve done anything like that before or not, Sherri?
Sherri Rector: The only time anything like this is ever been done was a couple of lots down by Buehler’s and they put in ground retention in the parking areas of a couple of little lots and they came in on those individual lots. Some of my concerns and I know they have been working on this, will be and I told Mr. Morley this yesterday, we need recorded drainage easements, we need recorded retention areas and if you approve a plat with nothing there then there has to be some type of documents that come forth later to record all these. And also when a subdivision is done now, a certificate of compliance is submitted that also includes all drainage structures, retention and the developer is responsible to get those installed and if not, then we have a letter of credit for the drainage now. So, one of my concerns is if you have a developer comes in and gets the plat recorded and then he sells this lot to this person and this lot to this person then what are we going to use to get letters of credit., you know those individuals need to be made aware when they buy this lot, hey, you’re going to have to post letters of credit for all this drainage, record easements and all that. So that is just some of my concerns, I don’t have anything against the subdivision but this is something new and it is not following our ordinance, but I understand what they’re saying about that large lot.
Don Williams: Oh, I understand they’re concerns.
Sherri Rector: Right, so I just wanted to let you know the different points that I was looking at also, but that was the only subdivision that has ever been done was a couple of those small lots at Buehlers. The rest of them were covered in the subdivision plats.
Don Williams: Yes, and that’s another change I would like to see in the ordinance, you know this business of giving them 4 years to put in their drainage basins is no good, as far as I’m concerned that should be the first thing they build.
Sherri: Right and we can work on that too.
Mr. Morley: And perhaps one of the ways ….one of the things we could do is on the recorded plan on each lot we could put a you know put a box around a statement that says this lot is required to have retention basins you know recorded and go in front of a drainage board and everything and kind of put that right there on the plat so its obvious that anybody who sees it that comes here and by no means is this an attempt to not do a retention basin or get out of that in any means…….
Don Williams: And I don’t take it as that, I just know that you’re wanting to do something here in an area which is really as far as the entire county goes our greatest concern, that and the area over by Schnucks, they have our attention and that is what we’re intent on getting taken care of. So to tell you what to do or what not to do, it’s really hard, Jim to do that cause we’re not engineers. Phil plays in the dirt sometimes.
Phil Baxter: I agree with Don, it’s got to be big and I don’t know what big is as far as this goes but I mean I’d like to see it a hundred year. You’re the engineer……
Mr. Morley: Would you have an open mind about if we brought it forward in this manner, would you keep an open mind about something different?
Don Williams: I think I would have an open mind, I mean I’m not going to sit here and make you any promises, you know but I’ll be glad to look at the presentation, but I understand your concern about exactly where to put it. I can promise you an open mind but I’m not sure I can promise you anything more than that.
Mr. Morley: That’s about all I can ask for, I’ve got one open mind, do I have two?
Don Williams: At least we understand what your looking at and wanting.
Springston Canterbury Green was tabled until next meeting, motion was made by Don Williams and seconded by Phil Baxter. Motion carried 2-0.
Phil Baxter: Okay, we’ve got claims.
Don Williams: Mr. President I would move that we pay the claims in the amount of $36,227.09. Seconded by Phil Baxter. Motion carried 2-0.
Phil Baxter: Anything else, Jim?
Jim Niemeyer: Just any other business that might come up or anybody has a discussion.
Tony Parrish: We’ve been talking to Jim, my name is Tony Parrish and we’ve been talking to Jim about behind our houses and we’ve talked to an excavating about putting a 12-inch pipe in behind 4 of our homes with a drop box at the north end of each property which would carry the water out….we wanted to take it all the way through all the subdivisions but we’ve got some people that didn’t want to participate in it. There is a drainage, a storm drain right between two houses and the excavator come out and shot the laser and everything and we could take the pipe you know run that water some of that overflow out to that storm drain and that is what we were here to ask is to see if you guys would consider that. Basically, what it would be is we would put a 12-inch pipe with 4 storm collection boxes at the north end of every property on 4 pieces of property and then that water would carry out between two houses in a 12 inch pipe and would go out to a storm drain underground.
Don Williams: Have you had a chance to look at it? I think we have to have Jim look at that..
Jim Niemeyer: I’ve looked at that and addressed it in my report.
Don Williams: We just haven’t had a chance to look at it.
Tony Parrish: It would keep our I mean it would make our yards dry and then whenever this problem does be resolved, it would even improve the problem I mean it would even help it is on lot 102 to lot 105 so you have lot 115 to 106 and it would improve their water situation too because they wouldn’t be getting all of that flow and we never had a problem with water out there on that storm drain backing up at all. It would help take the water cause used to the water used to go in two separate locations, now we get….and it was about…well you can see right here…well you can see right here this is the way the water used to flow pre-development.part of it went out to this through the pipe and here is the road the storm sewer so that much water went down through the storm sewer and out through the ditch and this is what used to come behind our house and go down through this easement down to the ditch. Now this all goes through our yards to the ditch and all we’re asking is these lots 102 and this lot right here we would actually put a big collection box here and have the water running back to that drain and a collection box here but have that pipe tapered back to that. So these houses right here would run to that and this house would run to that and then they would go out to that storm sewer and as you can see this used to all flow right there and then it would go out through here and go down there but you can see the difference in what it used to be and what it does now.
Don Williams: Is this open back here?
Mr. Parrish: This is
Don Williams: Ok so its an underground pipe.
Mr. Parrish: What this would help I mean we wouldn’t have you know each box would collect and it would go into that pipe and then go out to the storm sewer and they’ve done a laser so we’ve got the right drop here to go out there.
Don Williams: And then you would have them tie into the sewer.
Mr. Parrish: Yeah and then that would help all the water also going down through here cause it would take part of it off.
Don Williams: Did you have a recommendation on that, Jim?
Jim Niemeyer: This proposal? The only way you’re going to keep water off all these lots is a parallel drain whether it’s a swale or pipe. I don’t know if we’d tap into a drain out here whether it would be too much for it…it would have to be.
Mr. Parrish: Well, we’ve never ever…I mean this water is draining down that a way, it actually goes across the road.
Phil Baxter: Its actually got to go that direction anyway.
Mr. Parrish: This drain has to go across…this is just a box and it goes across this road and down here and we…in fact when we had that rain before we pumped water for two days solid running that pipe and there was no problem at all. So it would help, its not going to eliminate the problem but we’re looking for solution for the short term you know immediately to help get the water off our yards. Now if they do put another swale or pipe its even going to make it that much better. We’re just looking to something….and we’re going to pay for this, that’s how desperate we are is just to get something done so we can have a backyard.
Phil Baxter: Like I said we just got that report right before this meeting and we’ll take this up at our meeting in two weeks but at this point from what I see I have no problem with it.
Don Williams: I agree it looks ok to me too.
Mr. Parrish: And it’s going to be done by a professional company.
Don Williams: It would have to be.
Phil Baxter: I understand, but at this point I don’t see a problem with it but we will take it up again in two weeks and see what else we can do.
Don Williams: We need to read Jim’s entire report.
Mr. Parrish: So come back in two weeks then?
Phil Baxter: Yes. Thank you and if not we’ll get the result to you.
Don Williams made a motion to adjourn seconded by Phil Baxter. Motion carried 2-0.