PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

The regular meeting of the Porter County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 in the Commissioners' Chambers of the Administration Center.

Those present: Commissioners David Burrus and John Evans and County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger.

President David Burrus called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.


APPROVAL OF PAYROLL

Com. Evans moved to approve the payroll of September 8, 2003, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Com. Evans moved to approve the minutes of July 15, 2003, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.


SHERIFF'S COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
Attorney David Hollenbeck

Com. Burrus, "Under new business, we have the Sheriff's Compensation Agreement but Dave Hollenbeck doesn't appear to be here yet so we will hold off on that one until he returns. We will move on to Office Holders and Department Heads."

(Atty. Hollenbeck entered the Chambers at this time.)

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Good morning and I apologize for being late. I have two items. First of all, as I think you are aware of, Indiana statute was changed a number of years ago to allow the County to basically negotiate annually with the County Sheriff for a salary. There a number of rather esoteric provisions of our state statute that allow the sheriff to have income from a number of rather obscure type operations. Our Sheriff, in the past, has been willing to forego those sources of income in return for a fixed salary that the County Council negotiates with him every year. That has occurred again for 2004. His salary will be $90,350.00. I believe that is what it is this year. I don't think he took the increase. In order to do that, there is a contract and the Commissioners need to execute the contract in addition to the County Council. The contractual language is identical to what it has been for the last ten years."

Com. Evans, "Was the Sheriff offered the $1,000.00 increase as well?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I better take that back because I am not positive, I don't remember if he took the $1,000.00 or not, something sticks in my mind that he didn't."

Sheila Riley, "He declined it at budget hearings."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Okay, then my recollection is right that he chose not to take the $1,000.00. So the salary will be the same as it is this year. Are there any questions? Otherwise, I would ask for your favorable consideration of approving this."

Com. Burrus, "If I remember the history on this, his salary even though it is fairly significant, is probably a bit less than what he may have been able to generate through some of these esoteric provisions."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "I think the last year that we calculated before we came to the agreement, it was awfully close to $100,000.00 by the time it had to do with getting to keep money that was collected on tax sales and any money left over from the commissary fund to feed prisoners."

Com. Burrus, "Any processing fees or servicing fees?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Yes, it has been quite a few years since we looked at it, but yes. This would have started with Sheriff Dembinski before Sheriff Reynolds did effectively give up money by agreeing to this."

Com. Evans, "The Sheriff should be commended for turning down the $1,000.00 also."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Sheriff's salary agreement for 2004 in the amount of $90,350.00, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Sale of the Visitor's Commission building

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Lorelei Weimer is here with me today because of the other matter that we have to bring to your attention. Pursuant to the authority you vested in the Visitor's Commission a while back, we have gone forward in an effort to sell your existing building that houses the Visitor's Commission and proceed with the siting and the building of a new facility. In connection with that we had a competitive bid for the existing building. The successful bidder was First Source Bank. The problematic aspect of this is that the Visitor's Commission needs or wants to stay in this building through December of next year, which of course is a long period of time so we don't have to make a double move. We have negotiated, and part of any process was the bank would have to be willing to engage in good faith negotiations on what amounts to a lease back of the building. I have completed those negotiations and the bank has indeed been very generous with us. The bottom line is, we will be able to lease this facility back for about a third of its market value. Most of the realtors tell me that this amount of space in a building like that in Chesterton would probably lease in the area of $3,200.00 to $3,500.00 a month. We are leasing it for about $1,100.00 a month from the bank until December of 2004 so we can get the new building built. With that in mind, I have provided this to you. It is a real estate purchase agreement that would conclude this purchase. The purchase price would be, after adjusting for the leaseback, would be $555,000.00 and then the bank will make payments of the $555,000.00 during the period of the leaseback and that money has kind of been timed for our needs for the construction of the new building. As you know, this money will be used as the local share of significant federal grant funding that the Visitor's Commission has succeeded in getting. I believe the total presently is $1.8 million of federal money has been secured through grants. The proceeds of the sale of this building will then be the local share of that and should be able to fund the Visitor's Center without any additional source of revenue. Lorelei is here to answer any questions you may have on the status of things and the project but I do need your acquiescence in that you own the building and the real estate purchase agreement itself."

Com. Evans, "Is this a separate agreement outside of the purchase agreement or is this part of the purchase agreement?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "It is part of the purchase agreement. We are doing it a little bit backwards and technically, they should have signed it first and brought it to us. This is the agreement we have reached and will try to expedite it with you having a meeting this morning. If you will accept it, then I will get it to them to sign the offer and then we can close hopefully by the end of the month."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Will there be a separate document for the actual leaseback?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Yes, I will prepare a leaseback. It will be a triple net lease where we are responsible during the lease period for utilities and insurance and all that stuff. We should probably bring it back to you guys for approval. I will do that. I am trying to get it closed annually because the first $100,000.00 that we are going to get at the closing from the bank, we need; we've got some bills, architectural bills and land acquisition that we need to get going on if we are going to get done. This is all on a time line, we have to get done with this building by December of next year."

Com. Burrus, "What is the anticipated start date for the building?"

Ms. Weimer, "We wanted to start to let the bids out in the winter and then start in the spring so we can be in by December 2004. The $100,000.00 is crucial for us because we have stopped all architectural planning until we have those monies. We don't have the cash so we told Bob Gerometta just to hold off until we have that. The other thing we are doing at the same time is because we are in a federal grant, we have to follow INDOT's rules which has slowed the process down. Right now we are in the process of getting appraisals, a review appraisal and a buyer for the land we are actually going to purchase for the new Visitor's Center."

Atty. Hollenbeck, "For the new one. The federal government is funding 80% so they call the shots on how you go about buying it. You have to actually hire someone to be your agent to negotiate for the purchase."

Com. Burrus, "Is there a possibility that your December completion date may slip, is there a way to incorporate that into your leaseback?"

Atty. Hollenbeck, "Yes, candidly the bank has been very accommodating both on the price and the length of time. At this junction, I think we could probably push them out about as far as we can under this set of circumstances. It has been my recommendation lets get this signed, lets get going, and if it looks like we may need a little more time, we will approach the bank and try to get that additional time although the bank is anxious after the first of the year to get in. Obviously this is going to be a branch for First Source. Lorelei doesn't like me to say this, but the world is not going to come to an end if the Visitor's Commission has to, for a couple of months, rent a storefront somewhere. The staff doesn't want to do that and that is understandable."

Com. Evans moved to approve the purchase agreement for the Visitor's Center subsequent to the leaseback agreement with the purchase, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PRESENTATION
Phil Griffith, EMA Director
Jim Allsop, National Weather Service Meteorologist

Mr. Griffith, "This is Jim Allsop from the National Weather Service. Your exact title is...?"

Mr. Allsop, "Warning Coordination Meteorologist."

Mr. Griffith, "He is out of the Chicago area where we get all of our news bulletins and weather bulletins and you guys get a copy of that every day because I forward it on after getting it from his office. He is here today with a little presentation; they had a program we enrolled in and over a two year period have managed to meet their requirements and hopefully remain there forever."

Mr. Allsop, "The program is called Storm Ready. It was developed by the National Weather Service in cooperation with Emergency Management. We have a team that includes Red Shireman from SEMA who couldn't be here today, and also Jeff Miller from Lake County Emergency Management is on this team. The program is developed to recognize communities or counties that have gone above and beyond to try to protect its citizens from hazardous weather. Some of the requirements are that there is a twenty four warning point to receive the information and an emergency operation center that Porter County does have. There needs to be redundant means of both receiving the warning from the National Weather Service and then disseminating those warnings to the public. There has to be a network of trained weather spotters and a variety of other requirements Phil has made sure Porter County does meet all those requirements. Some of the things they have done are they receive all the watches and warnings from the National Weather Service by weather radio; through amateur radio; from state police and other sources. They keep track of the weather through the Internet and radio. They have a network of trained spotters. We came out here a couple times this year to do training so we have a good team of weather spotters. There is good communications both by phone and amateur radio between the National Weather Service office and Porter County. They have really done a great job in getting prepared. The Storm Ready is not storm proof but when the severe weather does hit we make sure the citizens of Porter County are going to be served well by the county here. In addition to the sirens that are already in place, another eleven sirens are coming so we are in pretty good shape. One of the other requirements is to have some type of emergency radio in every school building in the county and Phil assures me that is in place. We only have 17 counties in Indiana that has this recognition so it is a very significant achievement. I just want to say congratulations to Phil. I have some signs here, although two signs don't really cover the entire county but that is all the National Weather Service is prepared to spend on signs. The Storm Ready Status is good for three years and we will look to renew it in 2006. I would like to present these signs to you and you can always order more if you need more. Could we get somebody to take a picture? Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "From the county, too, we appreciate that. That recognition is certainly something we are proud of. Phil, you have some educational activities you are involved in as far as responding to warnings, is that correct?"

Mr. Griffith, "Correct. We have presentations from how to react to tornadoes to severe winter storms to thunderstorms and lightning. We have about 17 different power points that we have for the general public."

Com. Burrus, "That is an important facet, too. You can be aware of a storm pending but you need to know what to do if one is approaching. Thank you both."

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Carol Nordstrom, Director

Com. Burrus, "I want to apologize because we were under the impression that we had taken formal action in favor of this quite some time ago and then in investigating the minutes we found it had not happened. Therefore, we do apologize for the delay. Carol, you were the presenter the last time and this is the same housing study that we thought we dealt with in the early part of this year. If you could give us a summary of what the proposal is, we would be glad to take action."

Mrs. Carol, "Basically, this would be a housing needs assessment that would be done through a training association called ICHHI, Indiana Coalition for Housing and Homelessness Issues. They receive funding from the Indiana Housing Finance Authority through a grant so there would be no funds required of the county but as Commissioners, you would review this needs assessment prior to it being released. You would be able to make any changes or corrections that you would want and at certain points, you would sign off on the work they had done. So we are basically asking for the support so we can get the process going. It is a very important piece of material that is needed in Porter County to really have a true understanding of the housing that is out in our community and then where are the gaps so that as service providers we can fill those gaps."

Com. Burrus, "In our previous discussions we did have some concerns but they were explained away. John, do you have any questions at this time?"

Com. Evans, "No, but I would like to offer my apologies at this time, I thought it had been resolved the last time."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Housing Needs Assessment request, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Com. Burrus, "What will the next step be?"

Ms. Nordstrom, "ICHHI will prepare the grant and at that point ask for your signatures on the grant and we will give you the grant to review. That will probably happen some time in October because the grant will go in for funding November 1st. Thank you very much."


COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS

North District: Com. John Evans

1. Westchester Minor Subdivision #2115-A-1 Road Agreement, located on the north side
of CR 1200 North (Porter Avenue) between CR 200 East and CR 250 East. Offer to contribute $750.00/lot for a total of $750.00. Owner and subdivider is Mark Wilson.

Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

2. Letter to Canadian National Railroad requesting repairs to 3 crossings. SR 2, Crossing 283257R, CR 475 West, Crossing 283227Y, and CR 150 West, Crossing 283242B.

Com. Evans moved to approve the issuance of a letter, Com. Burrus seconded, motion
carried.

Com. Burrus, "The Canadian National and the Grand Trunk Railroad has had a number of crossings that have been left to deteriorate pretty significantly throughout Porter County. We had one resident complain about the crossing at State Road 130 and the letter that went out not only went to the railroad itself but to the Federal Railroad Administration. That organization was instrumental in helping us get the crossing approved. Hopefully, this will do the same on these three crossings. The Center District and the South District have no Highway business at this time."

CORRESPONDENCE

Treasurer's monthly report for August 2003 is on file.
Building Department's monthly report for August 2003 is on file.
Veteran's Service Officer monthly report for August 2003 is on file.

Approve Quit Claim Deeds for property sold at Commissioners' Sale

Com. Burrus, "A total of thirteen properties were sold at the Commissioners' Sale for a total of $10,620.00."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Quit Claim Deeds for property sold at the Commissioners' Sale,

Com. Evans, "This is probably a good time to announce the date of the next sale which is October 28, 2003. We have quite a few more properties."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "But with the assessments going on, we have additional properties but they have to be assessed and placed values on, I think it is highly unlikely that we are going to get these values placed on these properties by the time we need to publish so those will go on the next Commissioners' Sale. I haven't gotten that final list and I can't imagine that these assessors, with what they are doing now, are going to be able to give us values for this sale on these properties."

Com. Evans, "Let's say we have the potential in the future to have additional properties."

Com. Burrus, "Well, the point is we do have a sale coming up in October for the properties that are ready. This Board also looks at this process as an ongoing process and we are going to continue with it until the properties are sold and returned to the tax rolls."

Com. Evans, "I think it also should be mentioned that this is a "Buyer Beware" type sale so we don't end up with all the requests for us to give the information that we have had in the past."

Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.



Approve contract with Jasper County for bed space at Juvenile Service Center for 2003

Com. Burrus, "This is for an agreement between Porter County and the Jasper County Commissioners for 250 bed days of bed space at the Juvenile Detention Center for the year 2003 in the sum of $25,000.00 annually. Should that be for 2004?"

Ms. Walker, "No, it is just late in coming."

Com. Burrus, "So, typically we do have space available in our Juvenile Detention Center for Jasper County."

Com. Evans, "Are these the same rates of pay that were in effect last year?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Yes, we only raise those rates if requested to do so by Ken Perkins or Judge Harper if they think we should raise it."

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract for bed space for Jasper County for 2003, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Approve contract for Animal Shelter Services with Hebron for 2004

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract with Hebron for Animal Shelter Services for the year 2004 in the amount of $2,015.00, payable quarterly, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Approve contract for Animal Shelter Services with Chesterton for 2004

Com. Evans moved to approve the contract with Chesterton for Animal Shelter Services for the year 2004 in the amount of $6,076.00, payable quarterly, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Request for transfer of funds-Commissioners' office

Fund 01.30$30,000.00from acct 1110salaries
into acct 1120hourly

(To pay part time through the end of the year 2003.)


Appoint representative to Porter County Jail Building Corp. to fill in for Larry Sheets

Com. Evans, "We need to appoint a representative to the Porter County Jail Building Corp to fill in for Larry Sheets due to his illness."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, this is the same as we did for the Plan Commission. I assume this is an interim appointment until he is able to return."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I would just as soon make this an appointment and consider it a permanent appointment unless otherwise noted. It is so hard to get the Building Corp. together."

Com. Evans moved to appoint Com. Burrus permanently to the Porter County Jail Building Corp due to the absence and illness of Larry Sheets, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Clerk approval to sign agreement with GPS for credit card child support payments

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Dale Brewer was in last meeting and indicated that she wanted to sign an agreement with GPS to provide a service for payments by credit cards. I talked to Dale and said I believe the Commissioners need to approve that agreement so I am asking for a motion to approve that. What I requested the service do is present an agreement with your signatures and Dale's signature so there is a signature for both the Commissioners and the elected official on it."

Com. Evans moved to approve the agreement with GPS to provide services to accept payments via credit card, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

John Whitcomb comments

Mr. Whitcomb, "I just wanted to remind you that tomorrow is again, Constitution Day. I hope you guys have read that Constitution I gave you. Thank you, that is all I want to say."

Com. Burrus, "With no other comments or business, this afternoon's session will be Plan Commission business and we will convene at 1:30. We have five issues to deal with, primarily rezoning issues. One second reading and four firsts. That will take place at 1:30."

Com. Evans moved to recess until 1:30 p.m., Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.


AFTERNOON SESSION--PLAN COMMISSION, 1:30 P.M.

Com. Burrus, "The first item on this afternoon's agenda is an ordinance relating to the Porter County Plan Commission and the Building Department fees."

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution No. 03-8 read at Plan Commission's August 18th meeting, forwarded to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation by an 8-0 vote, the proposed ordinance is for Building and Plan Commission application fees."

Com. Evans, "The only negative comment I heard was someone was complaining that you are now charging $50.00 to put in a hot tub."

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, I read that in the newspaper and I guess there is a reason for it. If you want to ask, that is a building permit, more of an issue with Mr. Weltz. Mr. Weltz can probably explain the reason why that is in there."

Mr. Weltz, "The reason for it is a lot of it depends on the way it is placed. If it is placed on a wooden deck then it has to meet certain criteria and the only way for us to clarify that criteria is to go out and inspect it. They have to meet certain electrical requirements; the biggest thing is the electrical requirements and the load requirements that are being placed on that floor or the deck or whatever it is. This could require maybe 3, 4, or 5 trips."

Mr. Thompson, "Another item is if they do place it inside the house there has to be proper ventilation for the hot tub."

Mr. Weltz, "Which becomes more stringent because the moisture forms condensation."

Com. Burrus, "I personally remember a number of businesses where people have put in electrical requirements, like a hot tub or whatever, from an existing building and how they run their electrical service out doors is not the least bit to be desired. So, to the extent that the electrical part is a concern, I can understand that."


ORDINANCE NO. 03-08
PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PLAN COMMISSION FEES
AND BUILDING FEES

WHEREAS, the Porter County Board of Commissioners adopted the Porter County Code on Tuesday, December 2, 1997 pursuant to Ordinance No. 97-38; and
WHEREAS, the Porter County Board of Commissioners has deemed it necessary to amend Chapters 15.20 and 17.76 (Plan Commission Fees and Building Fees) of the Porter County Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED THAT:
1. Chapters 15.20 and 17.76 (Plan Commission Fees and Building Fees) of the Porter County Code, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with new fees to read as follows:
2.Chapters 15.20 and 17.76 (Plan Commission Fees and Building Fees) Sections 15.20.010 and 17.76.010 (Fees) is added to the Porter County Municipal Code to read as follows:
15.20.010 Fees and 17.76.010 Fees
The following fees apply to the permits issued by the Plan Commission and the Building Department.
Single Family Residential, New Construction and Additions
(Fees include square footage for attached garages and basements. Minimum fee for Single Family Residential construction shall be $200.)

1. Single Family Residence with basement$ 0.10 per sq. ft.
2. Single Family Residence without basement$ 0.15 per sq. ft.

Multi-Family Residential and Two Family Residential
(Fees include square footage for attached garages and basements. Minimum fee for Multi-Family and Two Family Residential shall be $300.)
1. Multi-Family and Two Family Residential$ 0.20 per sq. ft.
and $50.00 per unit
for all units over one.
Residential Mobile Home Districts and TCO
Manufactured Home$ 0.25 per sq. ft.
Minimum $150.00
Alterations, Repairs, or Remodels to all Residential Structures
Alterations, Repairs, or Remodels$ 40.00

Accessory Buildings and Detached Garages, New Construction and Additions
80 sq. ft. to 250 sq. ft. $ 50.00
251 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft.$ 75.00
501 sq. ft. to 999 sq. ft. $ 100.00
1000 sq. ft. to 1999 sq. ft. $ 125.00
2000 sq. ft. to 2999 sq. ft. $ 175.00
3000 sq. ft. to 3999 sq. ft. $ 225.00
4000 sq. ft and over$ 275.00

Alterations, Repairs, or Remodels to Accessory Structures and Detached Garages.
Alterations, Repairs, or Remodels$ 40.00
Open Deck$ 75.00
Enclosed Deck or Porch$ 0.25 per sq. ft.
Minimum $ 75.00
Above Ground Pool and Inground Pool. Includes Deck
Pool and Deck$ 100.00
Hot Tubs and Spas$ 50.00
Fence$ 45.00

Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses (Primary structure use is non-residential). (This fee structure includes structures used for Use Variances and Permanent Use Variances as granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals).
New Construction and Additions$ 0.25 per sq. ft.
Minimum $ 250.00
Maximum $ 10,000.00
Alterations, Repairs and Remodels$ 0.25 per sq. ft.
Minimum $ 200.00
Maximum $ 10,000.00
Outdoor Advertising Structures$ 200.00
Business Identification Sign (on-site)$ 150.00
Solid Waste Facility$1,000.00
Telecommunications Towers and all Other Towers
New Construction (Tower only)$ 500.00

Antennas$ 250.00 each
Electrical Upgrades
Up to 200 amp increase$ 40.00
201 amps and over$ 55.00
Change of box on existing service, no upgrade$ 40.00
Temporary Electric Service (No other permits)$ 40.00
Backup Generator Permit$ 30.00
Electric Permit (No Amp Change)$ 30.00
Demolition Permit (Residential and Non-residential)$ 50.00

Plan Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Primary Plat, Secondary Plat and Replat Applications (Fee paid when applying for TAC hearing)
1 to 10 lots$ 350.00
11 to 49 lots$ 450.00
50 to 99 lots$ 500.00
100 to 199 lots$ 550.00
200 to 299 lots$ 650.00
300 lots and over$ 750.00

Minor Subdivision Application (Includes Primary and Secondary Plat applications).
Minor Subdivision$ 350.00
Appeals to Plan Commission$ 200.00
(Includes appeals of Minor Subdivisions and
Executive Director's decisions)
Amendments(Includes Planned Unit Developments)$ 350.00
Site Plan Applications$ 250.00
Vacation of Subdivisions$ 200.00
Change of Use (From Residential to
Non-residential Use) TAC Site Review$250.00
Board of Zoning Appeals
Variance$ 200.00
Use Variance and Permanent Use Variance$ 200.00
Special Exceptions$ 250.00
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO's)$ 200.00
Appeals of the Executive Director's Decision$ 200.00
Home Occupations$ 200.00
Mineral Extraction Permits$ 500.00

Plan Commission fees and Building Department fees shall be reviewed on an annual basis prior to the first day in June. The staff of the Building and Planning Departments with the Plan Commission and County Commissioners shall conduct said review.
Effective date of fee structure upon passage of this Ordinance, January 1, 2004.
This Ordinance passed and adopted this ____ day of _________, 2003
PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
S/David L. Burrus
S/John A. Evans
Larry D. Sheets
Attest: s/Sandra K. Vuko, Auditor

Com. Evans moved to approve Ordinance No. 03-8 on 2nd reading, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN FOR DRUG FREE PORTER COUNTY
Jackie Sterling, Porter County Recorder

Ms. Sterling, "I will be real short. I am here to represent the Porter County Red Ribbon Campaign Committee for a drug free Porter County. We are in our tenth year of existence and you have always been so kind and helped us with our cause. I just want to share a few things with you this morning. I don't know if you have seen our red ribbon or our logo this year, but it says 'Drugs shatter the world' and how true this is. As we pick up the newspapers and we read where teen smoking has increased and drug use throughout the United States has increased, we can't lose heart and give up the fight. We sell these shirts for $5.00 a piece, it is the only fundraiser we have to help partnership with the schools throughout Porter County in helping fight the use of drugs. We are going to be having our kick off on October 20 and you have been so kind to allow us to do that at the government center each year. I would like to ask your continued support and see if we couldn't do that on October 20th, here."

Com. Evans, "You are to be commended, Jackie. This is how many years you have been doing this?"

Ms. Sterling, "This is the tenth year I have been chairman."

Com. Evans, "Each year it seems to get better. I have no problem at all giving you permission to do this."

Com. Evans moved to approve Red Ribbon Day for Drug Free Porter County to be on October 20, 2003,

Com. Burrus, "I have the same remarks as John. It is an honorable program and we certainly recognize the need. Whatever we can do to assist, we will do."

Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

REZONE-R1 TO R3, JOHN HANNON, OWNER, 1ST READING
Robert Thompson, Director Plan Commission
Karen Tallion, Attorney for Eagle View Development

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution No. 03-09, petitioner John Hannon requesting an R1, single family residential zoning amended to R-3, multi family residential zoning. This was originally at the Plan Commission of July 9th meeting. At their August 13th meeting, it was forwarded to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation of a 7-1 vote."

Ms. Tallion, "My name is Karen Tallion and I represent Eagle View Development. I know that Com. Burrus has heard this before so I will address my remarks to you and I just want to give you some background. We are here requesting a rezone from R-1 to R-3 for approximately 4.6 acres. The rezone is part of a total subdivision package that is including approximately 14 1/2 acres. Of the 14 1/2 acres, approximately 10 of them are devoted to single family detached homes. All of those single family homes lots as we have them set out now are considerably larger than the normal minimum requirements. What we would like and what we are asking for today is a rezone on this parcel of approximately 4 1/2 acres. At the bottom, this parcel is along Tower Road, the location is just south of 100 North and next to this parcel is Aberdeen Golf Course. The intended use for this area is basically golf course condominiums. We currently have set up 37 condos in approximately what we are thinking, 8 buildings. The density that we propose is considerably less than what would be allowed under R-3 maximum and we have presented to the Plan Commission an agreement for written commitments to keep that density down to no more than 60 for the entire parcel so there are 37 and 24. In addition to what we wanted to point out that the entire subdivision has utilities accessible to it. There is water connection directly from Valparaiso city; there is sanitary sewer available from the Wage & Works Conservancy District, part of Aberdeen which is just kind of adjacent. There is also storm sewer drainage that would go into an existing drainage ditch. The reason we are asking for the rezone, this was the old Hannon family farm and the Hannon family is no longer in the farming business and we are looking to develop this area into generous lot sized single family homes. Now just down the road from this piece is an apartment complex that may have the highest department density in the entire county. I don't know that for sure, but we are looking at that. That is the Hills of Aberdeen. What we would like to see here is this sort of golf course condominium concept being used as a transition between high density down the road and the single family dwellings. We think that the fact that it is basically surrounded by the golf course on the back provides a great amount of green space where these condos are looking like you don't have something jammed into a space. We think a transition at this area is not only desirable but it is very appropriate for all the uses that are going on out there. A couple things that came up at Plan Commission meetings were addressed in the agreement for written commitments. The commitments limit the number of total residential ___________ of being used both on the single family section and in the condominium section. The commitments also agree to limit the access road usage. I might just make that small technical correction on one of those. It says that the owner agrees that the plans will include one public access from Tower Road and one public access on 100 North. It should say, 'no more than that' because we may find that it is possible it could be less. We are trying to limit the number of access roads that go in and out on 100 North or Tower Road. That will be Commitment No. 3."

Mr. Hannon, "I can clarify that for you. This is a great location for a road coming out onto 250 West because there are good sight lines and is far enough away from the intersection. We have worked with the street department and we don't know if this is going to be approved. This might be better developed as a cul-de-sac. We just don't know at this point, we need to work with the staff with it. It is really no more than, because it might even in fact be less if that makes sense. We don't want to mislead anyone, it is really no more than one cut per road. In fact, it might be less depending on what happens with you, the Planning Department and the Highway Department."

Ms. Tallion, "We have been to the Plan Commission twice. The first hearing we had a number of remonstrators. We came back with several different corrections and things that addressed those concerns."

Mr. Hannon, "The real bottom line is we think this is completely consistent with the Master Plan for Porter County. The Master Plan says what we should do is put the people where the utilities are rather than go out and build another subdivision in a cornfield. If there are water and sewer available, that is really a good place to put the people. It is truly a transitional piece of property between the high density and the single family that we are proposing. We don't picture any more beyond us, we think it becomes single family on our north piece and anything beyond that."

Com. Evans, "How much property is left there on the original farm after this?"

Mr. Hannon, "This is the end of it. This is the last piece that belonged to the Hannon family. We had originally owed a piece like this. The old farm house has been sold off and this piece here became part of Aberdeen."

Com. Evans, "How big are the single family residence lots?"

Mr. Hannon, "In excess of 12,000 square feet or larger. Some of them are considerably larger."

Com. Evans, "And the condos, are they mainly 2 or 3 bedroom?"

Mr. Hannon, "I don't know that I can say that. We picture them because of the terrain as kind of a townhouse set up where you would drive in underneath, go up, have your main living level which would open out onto the golf course. You could add another level, a bonus level, if you choose. We picture them as townhomes attached that would be sold as golf course condominiums."

Com. Burrus, "Did you happen to do any calculations as to how many units could be built on your 14 plus acres under the existing zoning?"

Mr. Hannon, "Yes, it is basically 40. If it is developed as a straight single family, it is real close to 40, plus or minus."

Com. Burrus, "Is there anyone here speaking against this proposal? Stand and be recognized please for the record."

Jeff Blanco, "From Valparaiso 97 N. Tower Road, which is just east of the property we are talking about. First I want to make it clear we certainly respect the Hannon's desire and ability to develop that property. We don't want to stand in the way of that. We are very concerned with a couple different things. The condos themselves and the fact that the idea that it is necessary from a transition standpoint, if you are familiar with the landscape or the geography of that area, in between the apartment complex and where this property starts, it is wooded and there is the sewage treatment plant in between. Because of the way the road moves you would not necessarily see the apartments if you are going south on 250 West until you are there and vice versa as you are coming back north. This is not a farm land if you will. Now you can see for miles around so to say it is a necessary transition is probably not; if it was a corn field, I would say yes, that makes a lot of sense given the nature of the land, you really don't see any of these things to acknowledge the fact it needs to be transitioned. Therefore, to say this is a good move to make it more available for the single family homes doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you see the property. I do like the fact that Mr. Hannon is talking about the roadways and where they are in cutting that down to one. The supposition that the entryway onto 250 is clear from both sides is not an accurate assumption given the fact that at the corner of 100 and 250 is a complete blind spot. If you are driving up 250 and hit 100, you can't even see the stop sign on 100 North. Let alone think it is a very clear view on either way because what you have coming down 250 from the Hills of Aberdeen, it dips down and then it comes all the way back up to the top of the hill which is the corner of 250 West and 100 and where he is putting the road in is almost at the bottom of that. You are almost having to look up and hoping a car is not coming around the corner from 100 and then it curves down toward the apartment it makes it very difficult to see. So if a road was going to be put in, it would be better to put it on 100 North where you are actually at the highest point of the property and you can see east and west very clearly. The other issues we have I would like to bring to the Commission's attention is the traffic issues we have with a potential of 37 or as many as 60 apartments there and according to the land plan, I believe was authored in 2000. If you look at this where it is highlighted it says the road section that identifies being ____________ Porter County and the one that has the factor volume over capacity ratio the highest of anywhere in the county, is the section between CR 250 and St. Road 2. That is the exactly the property from US 30 we are talking about here today. Clearly it states this has been a congested area and a problem for the county and this was prior to most of Aberdeen's development. As you look at the way the area is being developed, and with Aberdeen growing as fast as it is, this on top of it, we are out stripping the infrastructure's capabilities to support the amount of development going in there. We are not saying don't develop, we are saying do it at the same time which the infrastructure can support it. That is going to cause a major problem, we have already had lives lost at this intersection exactly where they are talking about the road at 250 three years ago we had a motorcycle accident where the individual died. Last year the owner's daughter was in an accident where she had to have reconstructive surgery on her jaw, also at the intersection of 100 and 250 West. We have a serious problem there. The third piece that is of my mind is that we have a major drainage problem there. Now while it states there is a functional drain there the reality is there is not a functional drain, in fact, it was declared a dead ditch prior to this and what we have is a culvert that goes under 250 right across from where they are planning on a rezone itself. That ditch is a fair sized culvert but the ditch itself is only about 12 inches wide where the water exists today and that water runs right into my property which is across the way as well as Homer's property. We have a situation now where our properties, Homer's is 35 acres, and mine is 35 acres, and we receive every drop of water that comes in Aberdeen today. So we are in a situation now where our water levels, we've got standing water. We have never had water before and we have ground that is saturated because we are getting so much additional water that we have not seen before. This type of development is only going to exacerbate that problem farther than we have today. Then what happens is that creek runs back around under 250 West, north of 100 North and there is a large swamp there which is only right now, 2 feet above the road as it stands because that culvert in the back side is stopped up and it goes back out to Clark's Ditch. So with that situation all we can do is create a bigger problem than we have today in the drainage and the traffic. Then the transitionary plan is not an effective argument for why this particular development makes sense. You might need to consider those arguments as you go forth with the rezoning process. Thank you."

Homer Ashford, "I live at 146 Gilford Circle. As Jeff said, I own the 35 acres across the way. I bought that property in 1989 and the ditch we are speaking of had a 10 inch culvert and because of all the building at Aberdeen and what have you, I've got a 28 inch culvert there now and I am still getting wash and there is no place for the water to go. As far as the traffic, we had a little hayride and one of the women was getting ready to make a left turn to come into the property and she was hit from the back end. So it is a bad stretch of roadway down through there. The other day, I come up to the 3 way stop headed down Tower Road, and my property is about a block down, as soon as I made the turn I put my directional light on and looked in the mirror and here is a truck trying to go around me so I kind of stopped where I was at and he finally went around me. That is a double stipe there, no passing signs and stuff and as he went by he kindly flipped me the bird. As I said, it is a pretty dangerous area of highway down through there. When they were building Aberdeen I went to the board meeting and complained about what I thought we were going to have a water runoff and they assured me there would be no problem. Another problem is they have weir plates up where the sanitary station is and when that water from the development west of Tower Road, that water builds up and comes down and you get a hard rain, it goes over that weir plate like there is nothing there. It just washes down right down into the ditch. At one time it was nothing but a trickle of water. I can't see where this is going to do anything by dumping more water in there. I bought this as recreational, I had no plans in buying it to resell it but I get the impression if I don't sell it pretty soon, it is going to be under water. Thank you."

Com. Burrus, "Is there anyone else to speak against this? Do you folks care to make any rebuttal to the questions or comments that were made?"

Ms. Tallion, "Just a couple things. First of all with regard to the transition aspect of this property. I don't think you can counter the transition image by saying you can't see it 50 feet or 300 feet away. The existence of a major apartment complex is just down the road and anyone looking for single family lots is going to know that even if it is not in your sight line. We think the transitions argument really is a major consideration here. The other thing has to do with the traffic and the density. I think it is clear a lot of complaints we heard were from people who say the traffic out there is already pretty bad. At some point they are going to tell the county we need to do something about the roads out there. That exists even today. What we are looking at by this rezone, as Mr. Burrus suggested, a difference between maybe 40 and 60 possible dwellings that would be in there. The kind of thing we are looking at, golf course condominiums, is not really set up to cater to families with three teenagers who all have cars. We expect the population density would be less in this kind of market that you might otherwise get in a single family residence. I don't think the change from R-1 to R-3 for this purpose is going to result in any appreciable higher density traffic than would be allowed under R-1. I think I will let John address the water issue."

Mr. Hannon, "In terms of transitional, if you get to the point on the property where to try to leave as much property as we can, in a green or open form with the condos being concentrated along the golf course. When you get up to this elevation on the property you can see the apartments. It is like they are your next door neighbor, there is no question, it's a pure sight line. One of the reasons we call this Eagle View is because when you get up to this piece of property, you can see 360 degrees in all directions. It is quite an amazing sight. The objective is to keep the condos along the golf course and it is truly a transitional piece because those apartments are in your sight line. The drainage, we understand we need to go through subdivision process. During that process, traffic issues will be addressed, drainage issues, there are more steps to go here. We have had preliminary conversations with Kevin Breitzke and he has indicated that drainage issues have to be addressed appropriately and is thinking we need to use a two year rate of flow out of the property as opposed to the normal ten year. We understand those issues will be addressed at the Plan Commission level during the subdivision process. We are here to discuss what is the appropriate use of the land. We think this is truly a transitional piece and the utilities are there; it is a good place to put the condos along the number 9 hole at Aberdeen."

Com. Burrus, "Any further comments speaking against?"

Jeff Blanco, "Yes, the master plan I went through says it is clearly R-1; that is for a reason. That is to protect the area to be single family homes. Regardless of what Aberdeen did because they are a separate entity, they are the PRD or PUD and that gives it its own, it can do what it wants. We have to speak about the plan itself and what the best use of that space was as the time of the plan. We are asking almost to a degree of a spot zone of a R-3 development where it has to be in light of the plan itself in exclusion of what Aberdeen did. Since it is under a different part of the ordinance aspect of it and the transition argument that if you are standing at the top of your condo you can see apartments, well by that nature you would also have to say I can see the high tension power lines and I can also look directly into two swimming pools of sewage. I hope John can sell that because I am going to be looking at those things for years and years and if he is going to build them I sure hope they come. The transition property is more for the people moving through the area not so much whether I am sitting at my breakfast nook looking at a series of apartments. So the fact that the geography of the land does come into play when thinking about the transitionary aspect. And the need to transition from PRD or PUD to a the R-1 which was the original intent of the land is not a good argument."

Com. Burrus, "Okay, we will close the public portion of the hearing. John, do you have any comments?"

Com. Evans, "The Plan Commission's vote was obviously favorable, the drainage factor will be addressed at TAC and will it go back and be retroactive to their existing problems?"

Mr. Thompson, "We can look at it but we can only address the site as it is. We can probably go back and look at what is possibly causing the problems they are talking about but as far as going into subdivision control we would have to look at the amount of off site water. We are trying to make sure they release what they create in a controlled method and release it in the same rate that as it is today. We would review that as a subdivision, and that lot we can't go through subdivision control but we can require another site plan. In subdivision control we can call that Lot 1 and look at it but they will not go through individual subdivision control for all those condos, but they do have to go through site plan and at site plan they will be addressing subdivision control and drainage."

Com. Burrus, "I think that the drainage issues do have a place to be addressed, at TAC and at the Drainage Board, so to the extent the restrictions and requirements that need to addressed, that is the appropriate time and place for them. One thing that sticks in my mind is it is a very steep site, very steep terrain. Even as the existing condition, the amount of run off is going to be much, much greater here because of the fact that it is not going to soak in as much. Even on undeveloped conditions, this is a high run off site. One of the predominate things is how does this whole thing fit into our county land use plan, or Master Plan if you will. We should look towards clustering units and we should do this towards sites where we do have municipal utilities available. We are trying to avoid strip subdivisions along highway or county road frontages to the extent we can. We have been encouraged to try to do what we are saying here. On the other hand, the point was made about the road. I am familiar with this road from at least back to 1960 and I know that during the pre-development phase time, that road was very rarely traveled. As it has been developed from Aberdeen and other neighborhoods, that traffic level has increased. Certainly there has been some problems out there. One of the things that needs to be looked at from the county's point is what kinds of road improvements are going to be necessary to accommodate this kind of growth. This is one of the things that falls on the county as a result of large scale development. Another point that has a problem in my mind is that often times we see a number of residents who are currently living in a new development come in and object to another development identical to theirs virtually on the grounds that the new one is contributing to problems and they fail to take responsibility for the problems that they created. So this is a snowball effect, it grows, and we have a responsibility to do what we think is prudent under the guidance of the ordinances and the rules of development we have on the books. That is our challenge here, to try to do what is right with those references in place. I think this has a lot of merit with respect to the idea that it does fit into the requirement of clustering that we have under our Master Plan. Still keeping in mind the potential problems it could create."

Com. Evans, "I agree. The problems that have been created with your drainage at Aberdeen shouldn't be reflected back to this property. The density is always a question whenever we look at something like this and the traffic is absolutely something we need to address. Probably will have to do that and further look at the property at TAC. The density that is on that road there now is caused by the people that are there using it as a freeway. As Dave said we could just improve the road and make it a little more passable and safe. My other question in regard to the traffic, the proposal of John's intersection as opposed to the replacement of it which is something that needs to be addressed also."

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, the plat did show two outlets on 250 West and the Plan Commission did request that it be one. Still it could be looked at further as far as keeping an entrance on 250 West."

Com. Burrus, "I think, in spite of some of the deficiencies that might exist, the benefits tend to outweigh the problems here and I would be looking toward a favorable decision."

Com. Evans, "I have heard those arguments and they make sense and they make sense to allow the project to continue, too. The thing is we have to oversee the growth and this is an area that is going to grow regardless of what any of us do. I think this is a pretty good project. I know from past experience from Mr. Hannon that when I sat on the other side of the table that he was definitely concerned about drainage and the property I developed in Portage and I know that he would carry that to his own project, I am sure."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Hannon rezone from R-1 to R-3 on first reading,

Com. Burrus, "Before I move on that, I wanted to address the drainage issue one more time. I am not sure, but the Clark Ditch, does it extend up in your property as a legal drain?"

Mr. Blanco, "To my property. However, where this water way runs into doesn't hit Clark Ditch until it curves back under 250 West. It all goes directly through so the challenge we have is that we get development goes and we get the promise of improvements. So that is what we are struggling with. Its always go ahead and do what you have to do and the promise of we'll catch up with it and it never happens."

Com. Burrus, "Do you know if that legal drain, is there an assessment role attached to that drain? Do you pay taxes on it or maintenance?"

Mr. Blanco, "Unless it is incorporated in my property tax, I don't know. It doesn't show up as a line item on my tax bill."

Com. Burrus, "The Drainage Board has responsibility for maintaining drains, ditches and legal drains. They have an aggressive program now to do just what you are talking about. The only prerequisite that has to be in place is the assessment role, such as that drain has the funded money to work with. If it doesn't have it, then the Drainage Board has been in the process lately of establishing assessment roles. If the Clark Ditch is a problem for capacity to carry this water through then that is another issue you might want to bring up at the TAC meeting; that we need to get a determination of what the status of that drain is, so that the county Drainage Board has the ability to get what we need to have done."

Mr. Blanco, "There is another option; that is to run the water down a very established channel ditch that is on 100 North down through the Links there which is clearly built to move a lot of water run off."

Com. Burrus, "I have a suspicion knowing the site that you are going to have to go over a crest and that might be physically impossible."

Mr. Blanco, "Yes, but as his property rates go up, mine go down because of the water that continues to pour into that. So, I would like him to bear that expense versus me and move that water to a very well established and functional drainage."

Com. Burrus, "Could that be explored, to see what part of the drain could drain to the west?"

Mr. Hannon, "There is a small part that could drain to the west, the rest of it would be virtually impossible because of the nature of the terrain. But there is some part up in the northwest corner."

Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

REZONE, AG TO C4, REX AND JANET VEACH, 1ST READING

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission 03-12, the petitioners, Rex and Janet Veach are requesting a parcel of land zoned agricultural and open space be amended to C4, General Business. This was presented to the Plan Commission at their August 13th meeting and forwarded to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation of 8-0 vote."

Com. Burrus, "Mrs. Veach, do you care to take this opportunity to speak in favor of your request?"

Mrs. Veach, "Yes. My name is Janet Veach and I do live on the property at 716 West 1014 South. We do have a pole barn up here. This section that we are interested in rezoning, and I did get a zoning book, and it falls into more of C1 or C2 category which would be mini ware-housing. It is a 100 foot section by 1320 feet long. We would like to just rezone this area and put up some storage buildings. In the meantime since we were at the last meeting, we have come up with some news that the county has sold our road. Back about five years ago when this was all supposed to be Boone minor subdivision, this all was going to be housing in here. That was put to a stop. At the time it was going to be a minor subdivision, this section of road, 850 feet, was going to be maintained by the county. Everything here would be maintained by the homeowners. Since we bought the property, there is all of 13 acres, this land here, this 65 foot which is our gas line and our electric coming back and also our access road, has been sold. When we bought the property five years ago, the title company somewhere down the line did not zone it to us because it wasn't going to be a subdivision and it had turned into a private drive. That area according to Judd Salman who owed the property, that was supposed to be on our deed because we would maintain that as a private drive. It has always been known to us as a private drive. So this gentleman bought the property for $14.32 in a tax sale. This Judd Salman and a few attorneys have been going back to court to try to get this property back. We have been informed he can do whatever he wants. He can totally wipe out our road, he can do whatever he pleases. Judd Salman and his attorneys went to court two weeks ago and they got a restraining order on this person so he can't do that."

Com. Burrus, "Is he a resident there?"

Mrs. Veach, "No. He is a developer from Portage. There was some opposition; we had asked the neighbors and they did not want storage buildings in there. We asked them if we put up chicken barns, horse barns or hog barns, would that make a difference. They did not care about that; it was not a problem. They just didn't want storage buildings. Because they didn't want the storage buildings, they wanted to see the open land. Well, we are zoned A and put in these other type of barns, we would still be putting up barns no matter what. When this gets re-deeded back to us in the process, we would even be willing, there were a lot of concerns about the gravel, up to the entrance we would put in the access, we would put in asphalt so it didn't cause a problem with dust. We mentioned to them about a green fence. They didn't want that because they wanted to be able to see the land. We would be glad to put that up because I did read in the zoning book that it was a requirement."

Com. Burrus, "Can you point out the intersection of State Road 2 and 231. Is that where you can turn west to ________ ?"

Mrs. Veach, "Yes, on this corner it is a vacant corner, there are two auto body shops here, this is Tom's Tire and he also has some storage buildings which he doesn't even have fenced in. We would like to fence ours. This is the farm implement dealer, and then this is zoned AG here, she doesn't have any animals it is just some older barns and a farmhouse."

Com. Burrus, "So as she pointed out earlier, these folks live on a large parcel on the south side of the private drive and there are four residences on the parcel. It is really an awkward situation with that kind of combination on Bridle Street and a private drive. Now you folks are involved in the trucking business?"

Mrs. Veach, "Yes."

Com. Burrus, "And that hasn't been a problem at all?"

Mrs. Veach, "No."

Com. Evans, "Lots 5 and 6; are they occupied?"

Mrs. Veach, "Yes, this is Gary and Cheryl Holbreth and this Amy and Carey Falman. This is farmland; this is all zoned AG; this is owned by Randy Schuster and this is all farmland. Lots 5 and 6 run on 231. Our property actually goes to the center, but it actually goes to the center of our gravel drive and being that is my sister, we walk through there. We got some quotes from Wick and Morton Buildings. They are not going to be shoddy; they are going to be nice. We do have a nice building back here now and we are finally getting the tin on the inside. They will be nice. We would have restricted hours. We are going to live there. I don't want to have it open 24/7. We are going to make it operational hours; preferably closed on Sundays and no outside storage."

Com. Burrus, "Is there anyone in the audience that would be speaking in opposition to this project? Then I will close the public hearing of this meeting."

Com. Evans, "Well, it is a pretty busy highway through there. 231 is pretty busy. I don't know how you would be able to restrict people from Sundays because everybody wants to get in and out of their storage shed."

Mrs. Veach, "We would have known hours. There are a few of them that are closed on Sundays."

Com. Evans, "What was the Plan Commission's basic consensus and what was their main objection?"

Mr. Thompson, "One of the items was narrowness of parcel. In fact, it was proposed that the access to the mini warehouses would be through the same that the residential parcels access to. That was probably the main reason right there is the narrowness and the access and that the access is used for residential."

Com. Evans, "What you said earlier, we would be granting you access to a road that we don't own and somebody has already said they can close if they wish."

Mrs. Veach, "This all came up since the meeting back in August. We would have to wait until after all of the roads situations were resolved because they are going to take this back to court to be deeded back to Judd Salman. We have spoke to Mr. Salman and he has the paperwork there that we were supposed to acquire 13.1 acres. We acquired 11.8. 1.25 acres is the 65 foot by 850 foot strip that was not put on our deed like it was supposed to. I would be paying the taxes on that 65 foot strip."

Com. Burrus, "Bob, is there any regulation in our ordinance regarding gaining access to commercial property from a private road?"

Mr. Thompson, "One would need permission, I know we have dealt with this in other cases with minor subdivisions and the people don't own the road and they can't really involve and access it to private property."

Com. Burrus, "This is so unique. I am not familiar with this."

Mr. Thompson, "The development of the minor subdivision, I don't have the final plat in front of me but I would assume there is a 60 foot access across this parcel all the way out to State Road 2 to allow for the access of residential parcels. The development of the minor subdivision, now whether or not we allow commercial development to cross that development, . . ."

Com. Burrus, "The issue brought up in August was that of customer traffic."

Mr. Thompson, "I don't know, with that being the second reading in front of TAC, I don't feel comfortable knowing that these people are accessing property that is not deeded. For something like that I would have to lean over to legal advice."

Com. Burrus, "Mrs. Veach, you said that the buildings that you are proposing would be going down the yellow strip, would they have their own access off of State Road 2 or would they have access from your private street?"

Mrs. Veach, "That's why we were asking to have it come off of the private drive. We would have one access because according to the zoning book it requires one entrance and one exit."

Com. Burrus, "To be frank, another concern I have is if we are going to a commercial zoning, from Agricultural to Commercial, a fairly significant jump, it is requested at the C4 level one of the risks we run is that . . ."

Mrs. Veach, "Well, all we would be doing is the mini warehouses. That's why it would be C1 or C2. Now the neighborhood went to a little convenience store. We are in a little neighborhood but not a large neighborhood like to put a Zip Foods or something."

Com. Burrus, "You have a unique situation and then the scenario that could happen, puts us in a little bit of concern. Once this property is rezoned, then anything in the C4 category can be done there. And we have instances in the past when the rezoning has been accomplished and the petitioner has sold the property before it was even done and somebody with totally different plans come in. They are free to do whatever they want with this zoning."

Mrs. Veach, "Would it make it more comfortable if we do get the rezoning and do not develop it we could come back and rezone it AG. Is that okay?"

Com. Burrus, "There is not anyway we can document to the point where . . ."

Com. Evans, "I am just not comfortable giving you permission to allow access to a commercial site off of a roadway or a piece of ground that you don't own . . ."

Mrs. Veach, "I would wait until this is finished. This all just came up in the last month."

Com. Burrus, "You see that is the risk the site has. We could solve it this time, it is still private, that private individual could still fail to pay taxes, . . "

Mrs. Veach, "That would be us. It would be deeded back to us because it was sold to us as that but it falls back onto Chicago Trust."

Com. Burrus, "You have four residential people that would depend on that road."

Mrs. Veach, "Any myself. I depend on that road."

Com. Burrus, "I am really having trouble with that and I think John is, too. The commercial endeavor on something other than a public right of way' putting a commercial parcel together with a private access is not a good combination."

Mrs. Veach, "I don't think they would allow us to put a drive on Highway 2."

Com. Burrus, "That is the restriction your site has. It is so long and narrow that you probably
have a real difficult thing to deal with. Unfortunately, I am not going to be in favor of this. It has some merit from your point of view but it brings so much baggage."

Com. Evans, "We will have to deny your petition now and when that is determined that you can always return and try it from scratch so to speak. There may be other . . ."

Mrs. Veach, "I don't think the road's situation is going to change. The road is still going to be there, it is still going to be a private drive."

Com. Burrus, "If you were interested in the storage facilities, probably a different site would be better. Start with something you have some control over that you can develop with the proper zoning to start with."

Com. Evans moved to deny the request of Rex and Janet Veach for rezone from AG to C4, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Rezone, RR to C4, Pedro Azevedo, 1st reading
Bill Ferngren, Attorney

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission 03-11, petitioner Pedro Azevedo requesting an amendment from RR, Rural Residential to C4 General Business. This was presented to the Plan Commission at their August 13th meeting and forwarded to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation with written commitments 8-0 vote."

Mr. Ferngren, "Good afternoon, my name is Bill Ferngren and I am here on behalf of the petitioner. I have the revised written commitments. On the first page, in the first whereas paragraph, I inserted the date that the application was filed on July 23rd. Then on the third page, in section 5D, pursuant to the Plan Commission's request, we added the language 'and the traveling public on US Highway 30 so as not to become a nuisance'. On the north side of County Road 600 West by Wagner's Too, (inaudible comments) (Mr. Ferngren covered the microphone with the map and he was unable to be heard by the recording system) and this is the existing ___________. The adjoining 4.04 acres is the parcel that we desire to rezone from RR to C4. The intended use of the property is zoned for retail professional space complex. There are 4 acres located on the northeast corner of U.S. Highway 30 and CR 600 West. As Mr. Thompson indicated at the Plan Commission it was a favorable recommendation to rezone. All the property is under one ownership. Both parcels and the intent and the desire is to keep the same zoning classification. Because the C4 doesn't provide for a number of different uses, we have restricted some of those uses and if you look at the top of page 3, those used listed there are restricted from use on this property. That would include service and filling stations, tavern, nightclub, bar, truck freight terminal, truck service center and a variety of adult entertainments, such as massage parlors, adult bookstores and that sort of thing. Those are the uses that we are working with at the Plan Commission and various discussions we have had with the administration, those uses are restricted from being in this development. I would like to also point out in Section 5 under the Further Conditions, the exterior construction, we have also incorporated some stringent requirements requiring the developments to be a first class development. All the exterior of the building that face US 30 will have a brick or stone or some other similar type of quality construction materials so that they are aesthetically pleasing to all the passers-by and provide a very nice commercial corridor through the county. In addition to those conditions on the structures themselves we have also added Section 5E that requires a minimum retail value of $5,000.00 for landscaping so in keeping with the quality design of the building and the aesthetic appearance from the building, we also include a very generous landscaping requirement to make sure this property doesn't develop in a manner inconsistent with the county's designers."

Com. Burrus, "Is there anyone here that would be speaking in opposition to this? If not, then we will close the public portion. John, do you have any comments?"

Com. Evans, "There is existing ingress and egress starting on the site?"

Atty. Ferngren, "At this location, no."

Com. Evans, "Are you proposing that as additional?"

Atty. Ferngren, "We would like to in the future provide an access road in this area but unfortunately this is the septic from this parcel. There is sewer that is coming from the south, I don't know when, but there is discussion on that. Ultimately we would like to provide that access but simply can't go across the septic field."

Com. Burrus, "I think that was one of the things discussed at Plan Commission that had to do with frontage road versus backage road. Is that something that might be discussed further at TAC?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, with rezoning, they are going to be subject to the US 30 overlay requirements which they have to provide 40 foot frontage and the road built to county specification on this parcel. I do prefer their proposal on the backage road, to get it away from US 30. I think those are really more accommodating to traffic, but they do have to do the requirement."

Com. Burrus, "Is that requirement doable?"

Atty. Ferngren, "Well, the overlay ordinance actually allows for variance as well so in working with Mr. Thompson, we know this isn't really the best spot even though we are supposed to put a frontage road in; lets use the backage road because it will provide for a safer and better looking development in the end and consistent with Mr. Thompson. There is sufficient setback here where these two buildings are shown consistent with what the overlay ordinance requires as far as setbacks."

Com. Burrus, "One thing we discussed at the Plan Commission meeting was, and this might be contrary to the interpretation that is used for Valparaiso, continuos parking facilities, continuous driveways, in my mind, do not necessarily constitute a frontage road. I would think that whether it was in the front or the back it ought to be a dedicated right of way and it ought to be to some standards, whether it is county road standards or whatever. Is that consistent with what you understand, Bob?"

Mr. Thompson, "The US 30 overlay will require 40 foot right of way for __________________________."

Com. Burrus, "What about the actual construction requirements?"

Mr. Thompson, "20 foot or 24 foot wide. There are some requirements in there."

Com. Burrus, "It would seem to be that the spec and the configuration would be something different than a continuous parking lot."

Mr. Thompson, "Even with a parking lot they are not allowed to parking within this 40 foot right of way."

Atty. Ferngren, "The building setback could be used for the frontage road."

Mr. Thompson, "The building setback is in addition . . "

Com. Burrus, "That defines the space available. The problem with that is the idea that somebody's private property is anticipated to be filling the requirements of a frontage road. That needs to dedicated. That would come later and I guess the issue here is the rezoning. I am hoping that the frontage road issue or backage road issue would be addressed further on if we approve this."

Mr. Thompson, "One thing with the existing parcel, is with the US 30 overlay we cannot enforce the frontage road on that if we rezone the parcel. There was a little __________ showing the US 30 overlay ordinance and that existed (inaudible)."

Com. Burrus, "We are dealing with the same owner on both. You've already expressed a desire at some point if we can revert that to a commitment. That is something that could be added as a contingency for our action today?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We can approve it on first reading conditional upon a written commitment at the next meeting then at the next meeting we could approve it."

Atty. Ferngren, "The commitment would be that these two parcels are tied together with some sort of frontage or backage road."

Com. Burrus, "Yes, that and there is going to have to be some dedicated right of way for that purpose and some point in time a commitment to be constructed. I don't know how that timing issue can be addressed."

Atty. Ferngren, "Again, this area is subject to for the property, really hinges on .."

Com. Burrus, "Is that same septic field going to serve the new building, too?"

Atty. Ferngren, "I don't believe so."

Com. Burrus, "Does that meant that the portion to the rear of the building is going to be dedicated for septic?"

Atty. Ferngren, "This piece is dedicated to the septic."

Com. Burrus, "Then that means that every bit of space that would be available for backage road would be utilized for septic system."

Atty. Ferngren, "Until such time as the sewer system is . . . "

Com. Burrus, "What source is that sewer coming from?"

Atty. Ferngren, "I'm not sure. (Inaudible)"

Mr. Thompson, "________ serves Wheeler High School, do they not?"

Atty. Ferngren, "___________ does serve Wheeler High School and it is just north of this."

Mr. Thompson, "The Lake Eliza District, I am assuming."

Com. Burrus, "Lets pursue that commitment if we could and if you could determine what the source is and maybe a time table, tentatively for the sewer."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "What if there can never be a back road."

Com. Evans, "Can we put in a time requirement after the connection of the sewer?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "What if that back road is not feasible; what would your written commitments say about entry to the property from 30?"

Com. Burrus, "It's the frontage road that is the issue."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I am just wondering if you shouldn't have continency commitments because you guys are writing a commitment on something that may never occur and you don't have an alternative plan."

Com. Burrus, "The frontage road issue is a doable one. Only a portion of the other side, when you get into the ____________ building then it becomes a conflict right there."

Atty. Ferngren, "There is enough room if the sewer never were to extend. If we can access the site and put in the frontage road there, I think that the preferred location with Mr. Thompson and the property owners, is using it in this manner. That may or may not become a possibility. This parcel isn't required to have a frontage road. We can accomplish that here, but rather than installing the road at this time . . ."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "If one alternative fails then it would be your written commitment that you would subject project this property to the requirements of the overlay, right? More or less that is what we are saying. Maybe after the meeting you could talk with him about the alternatives; what the written commitments say and present it at our next meeting. That way we can cover all our bases."

Com. Burrus, "It looks to me that it ought to be a commitment to have a frontage road. First preference is at the back, called a backage road. And if that is not acceptable or available in a specified period of time, then it would have to be in the front."

Com. Evans, "I like the fact that it is close to an already existing stoplight."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Azevedo rezone request on first reading contingent on the discussion with regard to the frontage and backage roads, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Rezone, PUD to RR, Steve Debold, Chester, Inc. owner, 1st reading

Mr. Thompson, "This is Plan Commission Resolution 03-10, petitioner Steve Debold of Chester, Inc. requesting a PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning be amended to RR, Rural Residential. This was before the Plan Commission at their August 13th meeting and was given a favorable recommendation by an 8-0 vote."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "We are repealing a PUD ordinance?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes."

Steven Debold, "This parcel is located on the east side of State Road 149. It is in between County Road 700 North and US Highway 6. South Haven is just west of the property and Ravinia is just to the north. It's 36 acres of completely wooded site. Just a history of what happened with this site. In October of 1999 the church rezoned this parcel from RR to PUD. They were planning a subdivision that would be called Woodvine PUD. Shortly after the approval of the rezone, the church realized they were financially unable to do a development of this size. So it brings us to this point where they want to move forward on the church and they would like to solely have the church on this parcel. Of course we need a rezone from PUD back to the original RR."

Com. Burrus, "And this request is for the entire acreage? So there will be no residual parcel left that would be PUD?"

Mr. Debold, "Yes, exactly. They want it for their new sanctuary and that is it."

Com. Evans, "36.15 acres is what we are talking about?"

Mr. Debold, "Yes."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "What is the document? The actual ordinance?"

Com. Burrus, "It refers to PUD Ordinance No. 99-23."

Atty. Rinkenberger, "But we are still going to have to have another document to take this action. We can't just take the action."

Mr. Thompson, "An actual ordinance repealing it?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "Yes."

Mr. Thompson, "Okay."

Com. Evans moved to repeal PUD Ordinance 99-23 and reinstate the property to its previous RR zoning conditional upon the issuance of a properly executed ordinance, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Debold, "Construction of the sanctuary, we are in a hurry to construct this and we have already gotten TAC approval on that, would we be able to follow through with getting permits to do so?"

Com. Evans, "A church can go in any zoning that exists, isn't that right, Bob?"

Mr. Thompson, "Yes, a church can be developed under an RR zoning."

Mr. Debold, "Since we already had TAC approval, can we start construction?"

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I don't see why not. The only thing, he can apply for his permits even if we don't have the repealing ordinance or the new ordinance."

Highway 149 extension,
David Schelling, Highway Engineer

Mr. Schelling, "I have several items to bring before this Board. The first item is the 300 West project. There has been several agreements that we had before the Commissioners before this particular one, increases design fee from $44,000.00. This is basically worth it, its been done already by Butler Fairman and Seiffert and I have two copies of that for you. This agreement was looked at previously by the Commissioners and then it was forwarded down to INDOT for their approval. INDOT did approve it so the next step is for the Commissioners to sign it."

Com. Burrus, "David, this is a result of the increased scope of the project?"
Mr. Schelling, "Yes. That is the biggest item."

Com. Evans, "We already looked at this?"

Mr. Schelling, "Yes, and INDOT reviewed the cost and, well they didn't sign it but they sent it back to us to sign."

Com. Evans moved to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 5 for design services, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Bill from Butler Fairman Seiffert for $44,064.00

Mr. Schelling, "The next item I have is the bill from Butler Fairman for $44,064.00 since February, but I held off on paying it because we needed an agreement. In conjunction with that we have claim forms to INDOT to reimburse us $33,048, at 75%, this is from the old highway bill. Then half of our local share would be 12 1/2 % of the cost, which would be $5,508.00."

Com. Burrus, "Just for the record, what we are dealing with here is payment for engineering services on the 149 extension to date but at the same time the source of funds is the $3.7 million federal demonstration funds that were acquired by Commissioner Sheets through Rep. Visclosky a couple years ago. As these claims come through the current distribution of payment is that the state is administering the federal funds to pay for 80% of the cost, INDOT is paying 10% of the cost and the county has a local share of another 10% of the cost. The source of our funds to this date is primarily bridge funds and that is because there are a large number of bridge structures involved with this project. This should bring us to the current status with the engineering fees today."

Com. Evans, "This is something that needs to be taken care of and put on track."

Com. Evans moved to approve the payment to Butler Fairman & Seiffert, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Agreement for Notice to Proceed

Mr. Schelling, "On June 6, the Commissioners approved the Supplement 1 for the right of way engineering agreement. This increased the cost $4,744.00. This was due to change of sale of property and everything was approved back in June. INDOT approved it. I have a letter here transmitting a copy to Butler Fairman & Seiffert. A copy of the agreement and also a Notice to Proceed for them to continue with that work under the agreement that was approved in June. I have that copy here."

Com. Evans moved to approve the Notice to Proceed letter, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Schelling, "I have a design supplemental agreement if it is okay with everybody. I am a notary so I can notarize your signatures and then I can go to the Auditor's office and have them sign it. That way I can give it to Pete because those have to be sent down to INDOT."

County Road 100 South, bring road up to grade

Mr. Schelling, "The last item I have is we have a situation on County Road 100 South, just east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad. It is a situation where we have to bring our road up to grade and to do that we are going to have to relocate a ditch on private property. I have an agreement for a granted roadway and drainage easement for C. Weinhauff for the right for us to go into his property and relocate it and I worked up a proposed document that Gwenn has reviewed. I think you have also. I think it is in pretty good form now and I would like permission to proceed with that."

Com. Evans moved to approve to bring CR 100 South up to grade, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

ATTORNEY REPORT
Gwenn Rinkenberger, County Attorney

Atty. Rinkenberger, "I have one other housekeeping matter. It applies to the Porter County Jail Building Corporation. I am the attorney for the Porter County Jail Building Corp. We are in a position now where we are closing out the project and we have been named in litigation; both the Porter County Jail Building Corporation and the Porter County Board of Commissioners. The Porter County Jail Building Corp., at my request, has retained attorneys from Hoeppner Wagner & Evans. One is a bankruptcy expert and one is a construction litigation expert to assist me in the pending litigation. The Commissioners have been named but it is our belief that you are parties that are improperly named. Nonetheless, I am seeking your authority to also retain the same two attorneys who will be doing the same work for the Building Corp. to assist me in your representation to dismiss you from the two pending lawsuits."

Com. Evans, "I believe that you have been doing an outstanding job keeping abreast of that situation and if you need some help, I will move to approve."

Com. Evans moved to approve to retain Hoeppner Wagner & Evans for the litigation of Porter County Jail Building Corp., Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

With no further business the meeting was recessed.

Com. Evans moved to recess, Com. Burrus seconded, motion carried.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

David L. Burrus
John A. Evans
Larry D. Sheets

Attest: Sandra K. Vuko, Auditor