 |
PORTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Those present were: Commissioners Robert Harper, John Evans and Carole Knoblock; County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger; Administrative Assistant Melissa Hartig; and Recording Secretary Vi Wagner.
President Harper called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Com. Knoblock moved to approve the payroll of September 4, 2007, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.
Com. Knoblock moved to approve the minutes of August 7, 2007, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.
Com. Knoblock moved to approve the claims of August 28, and September 4, 2007, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.
Com. Harper, “We’ve already had a discussion on this. Why are we back?” Atty. Babcock, “You told us to come back in two weeks for a discussion. You may have some questions because it is kind of new and so we had a discussion and if you have any questions for us that were not being provided. You may need to ask Gwenn, but because it is kind of a different area, we thought it would be appropriate that it comes from you and in 90-03, the ordinance, tells us what to do. If you remember Dave’s letter before he left, he said he hadn’t really done one in almost 20 years.” Com. Harper, “So what are you asking for, and I talked to Bob Thompson later, if you are just asking us for an indication, if everything is platted, and if this road meets county standards, then we would not have a problem with that. And if we don’t do that I don’t think there is any way you could develop those ten acre lots.” Atty. Babcock, “You have to do it that way. It was laid out before the UDO for that purpose and so what we did there because of the cost, Bob, I thought it would reflect that we followed 90-03 that eventually you would accept County Road what they are going to call 462 South. I talked to Bob and that seems to be the number designated for it.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Is there anything in 90-03 that isn’t required that would be required if we used a different procedure here? I mean, if we say if they comply with 90-03 we have no problem accepting the road, is there a catch 22? Or does 90-03 have the same requirements that would be required if we did it the normal way?” Mr. Thompson, “The subdivision would control it and the right of way. It would have to have a 60 foot right of way, so that 90-03 according to the engineering (inaudible)….. and go through engineering to accept the road and then in the end it would have to meet a road acceptance form that Al and I sign before the Commissioners sign.” Atty. Babcock, “We bond for it and pay the cost and inspection.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Why doesn’t anybody ever use this form? I am just curious as to why. This is almost the first one we have seen in twenty years.” Com. Knoblock, “Is this going to set a trend?” Atty. Babcock, “Not after … (inaudible)…” Mr. Thompson, “This is the first one I have seen where somebody has visions of actually building a county road. Because the way the code states, you have to have …….. pertaining to provisions on an existing county road or built to county specifications before it would be considered for a subdivision control in an agricultural areas.” Com. Evans, “I think he is filling in the gap here.” Mr. Thompson, “He is building the road to county specifications so that way he has it accepted as a public road and then that way he’s there for ten acres and he could do this in an agricultural area.” Atty. Babcock, “And just so you know, we went through what we call an informal DAC or TAC meeting, we still have, as your highway people will tell you, we still have to do drainage control coming off the road and all the things that would go with it, even a plat situation. It’s just that we did all that work before the UDO came into being including having it platted out and all those parcels including the road parcel accepted for taxation with that in mind. It is already laid out to do it but because of the cost I just thought it appropriate to come here because we ask you to accept the dedication just like you do in a platted situation. And it is different, that is why we did it that way, Bob.” Com. Harper, “Okay, Carol would like to ask Al if he has any problems with this.” Al Hoagland, “I am not sure that I’ve researched this enough to know if there’s any catch, but if it’s all inspected, particularly when it is being built, I can’t see a problem with it. It’s the ones we don’t get to see until they are done that could cause a problem.” Atty. Babcock, “And it’s important that 90-03, it has a specific section that talks about acceptance of work, that if it isn’t inspected, that the county is not obligated to accept it. Not obligated. So in other words, we don’t have the luxury of putting it and saying ‘hey could you guys come over and inspect this’. You’ve got to actually file with them and that you do a clear base, sub-base, those are all inspected and we pay for those inspections in this particular situation.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Well, I am satisfied.” Com. Evans moved to approve the request, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried.
Approval of Agreement with Johnson Controls for cameras for Sheriff’s Dept Atty. Rinkenberger, “Well, he is not here but I can give you a little background on this. This is part of that upgrading, that motion that we made to upgrade those cameras in the jail facility, those digital cameras so they would have a film of everything going on. This is one portion of the jail that was left out of the original motion and initially someone out at the Sheriff’s Department signed it, we said no, you can’t sign contracts, the Commissioners have to sign the contract. So this is something we approve that we have to sign that they have the money for. So this is an ongoing upgrade on the cameras. We need a motion to approve the contract and then the Sheriff has the $13,933.00 in his budget to pay for cameras in the interrogation room.” Ms. Hartig, “They have most of the money. We have enough to cover the rest of it but they have it, it’s grant money. For $11,200.00.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “So that’s what this is.” Com. Harper, “When we first started this project the reason we started was to bring the jail into compliance with what the federal government wanted us to do, with the prisoners.” Com. Knoblock moved to approve the contract, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried.
Ms. Lippens, “Deb had asked me a question last meeting of what the contract amount was for the previous time, and it was $105,753.00.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I have reviewed the contract.” Com. Harper, “Is it in our book?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “It’s the document right after Dave Lain’s Johnson Controls Agreement.” Com. Harper, “So, Gwenn, you’ve reviewed this and you have the money available for this?” Ms. Lippens, “Yes, in the IT budget.” Com. Harper, “And you are asking for our approval at this point?” Ms. Lippens, “Correct.” Com. Evans moved to approve the contract, Com. Evans, “It’s nearly $6,000.00 less than the last one.” Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried. Receive and Open bids-Administration Center Rewiring Project Com. Harper, “Complete Computer Services.” Com. Evans, “Do you have an estimated amount?” Ms. Lippens, “Between $70,000 and $100,000.” Com. Harper, “It looks like their estimate is…it looks like $87,650.00. Let me make sure they have three, yes, they are all the same. Northwest Communication, Inc. and their bid is $124,428.00. Those are the two bids. Is there anyone here that bid on these projects? These will be available for you to look over and you will come back in two weeks with a recommendation which will be ..?” Ms. Hartig, “The 18th.”
Mr. Thompson, “This is, we sent out and we also advertised this in the newspapers for engineers, surveyors, interested in submitting a proposal for the North County Garage on the west side of Brummitt there for the new addition. What it is, is it is to create the plans or plats necessary to go forward in front of the Plan Commission for development plan review and also for design of septic systems and all permitting necessary through this route in front of the Plan Commission and other departments.” Com. Harper “So, none of these will have bid amounts in them, right?” Mr. Thompson, “I asked them to give me a fee based on some of the items I submitted in there but I also asked them to give me a hourly rate.” Com. Harper, “In David Rensberger Surveying, they have $110.00 per field hour, $55.00 per office hour. Here’s what they did. They made a list of some of the things that you proposed, okay, Bob, a list of ten. They said the above items can be prepared for $7,000.00, additional items or charges will be at $110.00 per hour for field time and $55.00 per hour for office time. So that is their proposal. The next one is from Great Lakes Engineering, they made a list and based this on their interpretation of what you are asking so you will have to look over that list and they do services for a lump sum of $108,800 and additional services on the basis of negotiation and the rate is based on a fee schedule. They made a more comprehensive written recapitulation of what they felt you asked them to do and they said the project will be completed for $28,400.00 and they had a couple extras, they did an extra about turning the closest water tap and estimating cost of running services at $1,000.00, drainage calculations, storm water management for the project in the sum of $6,000.00, from Bonar. Next one is McMahon & Associates and they again, in three pages, went over what they felt the scope of work was and a lump sum base fee of $22,500.00 and they have an additional fee for storm water run off calculations and a storm water contention, water detention basin, etc. at $2,750.00. They attached a schedule of rates. Those the only four you had? If anyone is here that submitted those, and wants to look them over, you can You can have a chance to look them over and turn them in.” Mr. Thompson, “Right. I will go with Al.” REPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS North District: 1. The Lakes of Liberty Woods Subdivision Road Agreement located on the north side of CR 700 North between CR 200 West and SR 149. Offer to contribute is $750.00 per lot for a total of $2,250.00. Owners and subdividers are Daniel E. and Barbara A McCoy. Recommend approval. Com. Evans moved to approve, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried. South District: 1. Natures Trail Manor Subdivision Road Agreement located on the east side of CR 600 West just north of CR 250 South. Offer to contribute $750.00 per lot for a total of $1,500.00. Owners and subdividers are Gerhard K. and Christine A. King. Recommend approval. Com. Knoblock moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE
Clerks monthly report for July 2007 is on file. Request for approval of maintenance agreement in the amount of $594.00 per year with Edge Office Solutions for the Commissioners office copier Ms. Hartig, “We currently have a maintenance agreement with Adams Remco and it runs around $820.00 a year and Edge actually brought the proposal and it brings it down about $230.00 a year.” Com. Knoblock moved to approve, Com. Evans seconded, motion carried. Request for additional appropriation-Commissioners
Fund 233.30 $10,000 to 2320 auto, truck & equipment
1) supplies for up keep of jail vans. Com. Knoblock moved to approve,
Com. Evans, “They are already gone, in September, they are done with their Com. Harper, “Yes.” Com. Evans seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “They are, John, and I think it’s something they need to take a look at, but they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if they come back. They have a contract with someone on a yearly basis and so forth. Anything else to come before the Commissioners? Oh, the roof. Joe is going to give us an update on the roof at the courthouse.”
ROOF SITUATIONS ON PORTER COUNTY BUILDINGS (Courthouse, Ad Center, North County Annex) Mr. Lain, “Actually for all roofs on all the county buildings, they are in need of some maintenance. The builder did come for a walk over on the roof, Chuck Labilla, they did the original roof here and on the Ad Building and the Courthouse. The integrity of the roof itself looks good, we’re thinking it’s (inaudible)… and unfortunately the warranty is up, and the warranty stops at the top curved rooftop. So, I did put some flashing up on the west end, on the roof top, I started at the east end.” Com. Harper, “Now which building are you talking about?” Mr. Lain, “The Ad Building, here. Now the courthouse…” Com. Harper, “Okay, let me stop you a second. Have we been having leaking here?” Mr. Lain, “Oh, yes, here? Plenty of leaks. The courthouse itself…” Com. Harper, “How old is this building?”
Mr. Lain, “I think 14 years old. And the warranty is for 15. The courthouse, I talked to Chuck and he will come for a walk over there. There again, a lot of the water is coming from roof top years, but the roll lock on the fifth floor, which is all limestone, I was up there with Judge Alexa today, and most of that caulking is totally deteriorated and gone. Now just to even look at it and give an estimate on it, we are going to have to get an aerial lift because you have to go up in the air just to look at these caulked joists.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I don’t know when they caulked last over there. They did when they renovated but I don’t know if that was caulking the exterior of that building.” Mr. Lain, “When they renovated, it was the roof for sure, but I don’t know about that.” Com. Harper, “But the roof is leaking over there?” Mr. Lain, “Oh, yes. Not as bad as here. I think there’s a lot of water damage at the courthouse, at least on the walls…” Com. Harper, “And that is coming from the roof.” Mr. Lain, “Judge Alexa showed me that this morning. Like I said, Chuck has been real busy with all the recent rains we had, he is trying to get out here for a walk on the courthouse. We’re guessing it is about (inaudible)….The material itself is deteriorating fast, it is rubber and it’s guaranteed by Firestone. It’s either going to be seams or pitched pockets.” Com. Harper, “So do you think you can get back here in a couple of weeks and let us know what we need to do here?” Mr. Lain, “Yes. Also, JDC is leaking quite a bit, too. Now that is a different type of roof. That is a concrete tile roof, that is a specialty company. What it needs is what is called a tune up, and that stuff is put together with a series of fasteners and at the time of expansion and things start moving and it needs to be tuned up, everything tightened up and I don’t think anybody’s done that.” Com. Knoblock, “Is that under warranty?” Mr. Lain, “No, Charles Booth did that, nobody is really sure when. From the reports I got they didn’t do a very good job. Now I’ve got a specialty company out of South Bend that specializes in slate tile roofs, and if it is okay, I was going to give them a call and see if they can come over and do a walk through on the roof and see what they think it needs to eliminate some problems.” Com. Evans, “What about North County Administration Building?” Mr. Lain, “You know, they have added a few leaks but I know there’s problems and I had to put some gutters up over one door way because the sidewalks, it’s a long way now, they are running back into the emergency exit. Somebody went up there and I believe it was the same outfit I was telling you about that does the tune ups. That’s a copper standing over there. I haven’t had any work orders from there for water damage. I think the Animal Shelter is also leaking.” Com. Harper, “Why don’t you check the North County Government building and tell us when you come back with all the rest what you think.” Com. Evans, “Add that one to the your list and see if you can get us a total on all of them.” Mr. Lain, “This outfit is out of South Bend, is it okay to use an outside contractor?” Com. Harper, “We are going to see how extensive it is, we may have to bid on it.” Com. Evans, “If it is over whatever the amount is. We will probably have to bid it, but we need a scope of work to bid it from.” Com. Harper, “Why don’t you do this, in the next couple of days, sit down with you and give him some direction on what he is going to do as far as the scope of work. Are you willing to do that? Why don’t you set it for the next couple of days and get an idea of what you need to put this together and let’s check all these buildings and find out where we are at.” Com. Evans, “Might as well, is the Sheriff’s Garage in much need of repair?” Mr. Lain, “We’ll look over that.” Com. Harper, “Should we check that roof at the Sheriff’s Department before it gets out of warranty or not?” Atty. Rinkenberger, “I have not heard one peep about a leak out at the jail which is amazing.” Com. Evans, “The leak is from the inside out when the guys escaped.” Atty. Rinkenberger, “Can you stop in tomorrow?” Mr. Lain, “Sure, I don’t know what I am doing in the morning, it depends on the work orders, but I can make time to come see you. I will get with Charlotte in the morning. If not tomorrow, then possibly Thursday.” Com. Harper, “Here’s what’s happening on the caulking of those windows. We’ve got to take care of it, they go in, they’ll fix them all and then the water comes through and ruins the wall and then they’ll come in and fix the wall again. Might as well find out about that, too. At the old courthouse.” Mr. Lain, “Judge Alexa’s chambers and offices, they have been in there several times to patch up the drywall and everything but it keeps leaking. I can check that out. I can get quotes on a lift.” PLAN COMMISSION
Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance #07-05, Section 2.21, 2nd reading Mr. Thompson, “First case is Plan Commission Resolution 07-12, this is second reading. This is an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance for the residential lake area, RL District, changing the setback requirements of a side yard setback from 5 feet to 8 feet for the sides and from 5 feet to 10 feet for the rear. Again, this is second reading. This was heard at a public hearing at the Plan Commission at their July 25th hearing and sent to the Commissioners with a favorable recommendation.” Com. Harper, “You already passed it on first reading, right?” Com. Evans moved to approve on 2nd reading, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried. Rezone – AG to RR, Joanne Baron, Petitioner, 2nd reading Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution No. 07-11, petitioner Joanne K. Baron, requesting AG, Agricultural and Open Space zoning district to be amended to RR, Rural Residential. This was heard before the Plan Commission at their July 25th public hearing and forwarded to the Commissioners with a favorable recommendation of a 6-0 vote. Again, this is second reading and I believe it is with commitments, I don’t have the ordinance. Commitments were that there would be only two residential structures on the seven acres.” Com. Harper, “You’ve got the agreement for the commitments, we’ve got those, right?” Mr. Thompson, “I believe it was forwarded down to Melissa.” Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone on 2nd reading, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried. Rezone—R1 to IN-Mary Madeline Rhoda Brush, 1st reading Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission resolution 07-13, petitioner Mary Madeline Rhoda Brush requesting amendment to the zoning maps from R1, Single Family Residential to IN, Institutional District. This was heard before the Porter County Plan Commission at their August 8th public hearing and it was forwarded to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation by a 7-0 vote. This is for the proposed North County Highway Garage.” Com. Harper, “We are going to have public hearings tonight on more than one zoning matter. In the public hearing we will give anyone a chance to speak, it you want to speak for or against the zoning. We ask you to limit your remarks to about four minutes so we can get through everybody. There are two microphones, one is here and one is there and if you form a line behind the microphone and you can take turns speaking on the subject. We are recording all of this so we ask anyone that speaks, before they speak, even if you speak more than once, to give your full name and address, your mailing address so when the minutes are typed up later our secretary will recognize and know who said what during the meeting. I will first open the public hearing on this petition. Is there anyone here to speak for this, Bob, or anyone here on this petition. Can you tell us a little bit more about it so the Commissioners have an idea and why it was passed?” Mr. Thompson, “With the new Unified Development Ordinance, the governmental type office or non office, service providing building for the government, must go into institutional zoning district. In the old code, it could go into any residential districts. The reason is what we are doing is they are proposing to put in a new garage, the housing, the equipment for the North County Highway Garage, the current garages cannot hold some of the equipment, plus they do not have an office nor is it heated. The whole idea is to better serve the public in the north county area with better service and mainly going along in the snow removal section where the drivers can show up and their vehicles are going to be in a heated garage and they’ll be able to take right off and go versus having to warm their engines up, clean everything off and spend time getting out. So, that is the whole reasoning behind it, if the garages there on the east side of the road cannot handle what Al Hoagland as Highway Superintendent needs for his current fleet.” Com. Harper, “Is there anyone here to speak for or against this project, this rezone. Anyone here to speak for or against? If not I will close the public hearing on this rezone. Are there any questions?” Com. Evans moved to approve the rezone on first reading, Com. Knoblock seconded, motion carried. Rezone, RR to C1, Lawrence and Therese Carson, 1st reading Mr. Thompson, “This is Plan Commission Resolution 07-8, Petitioner Lawrence and Therese Carson requesting a zoning map amendment from RR, Rural Residential, to C1, Neighborhood Business. This case was heard at the Plan Commission at their June 13th public hearing and it was forwarded to the County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial by a 9-0 vote. Before I go any further, I need to explain that the 90 days for decision is almost up. By state statute, if the Commissioners do not act within 90 days then Plan Commission ruling becomes law. So, I do need to mention that. I think this is the last hearing prior to that 90 days.” Com. Evans, “Bob, your Plan Commission report says C4 and you just said C1.” Mr. Thompson, “Let me check the original request, I’m sorry, there is a mistake there. C4 is what the application was for. I’m sorry, that was a mistake on our part for putting that on the resolution. Let me take that back, the application does say C4, but the petitioner did amend that at the Plan Commission hearing and requested from C4 down to C1. My fault, my mistake.” Com. Evans, “So the request is for C1. I just want to make sure that is what the Plan Commission heard, was the request for C1.” Mr. Thompson, “They amended it, now that Bill brought it up, they talked about C4, they were concerned about some of the uses, so they went back down to C1 and final decision was based on C1 that they were requesting.” Com. Evans, “Okay.” Com. Harper, “Again, we are going to let the petitioner make their presentation, then we’ll hear comments for or against. As I said, limit it to about four minutes and we’ll probably have a second round where we come back to answer some of the questions. Our attorney keeps track of the time. We ask that anybody that comes up to speak in a public session give their name and address. We also ask there not be clapping or applause or anything after the people speak. Let everybody on both sides tell their story and then we will come up with a decision. Go ahead, Bill.” Atty. Ferngren, “Good evening, I am William Ferngren from Ferngren Law Offices, LLC. I have Larry and Therese Carson here and behind me is Grant Courier is the architect of the project, Gary Green is the project construction manager and Bob Palm is the engineer for the project. This is a petition to rezone the Carson property from its present zoning classification of R1 to the neighborhood commercial or C1. Under your new zoning ordinance, it is actually the N-C classification, same as the C1 under your previous ordinance. As Mr. Thompson mentioned, we were at your Plan Commission on June 13th, had a lengthy discussion on the merits of the case. At that time the Plan Commission under advisory planning made a recommendation to you, a negative recommendation that the rezoning should not occur and that the property should remain zoned as it is today, R1. State law however, vests the final decision making authority with the County Commissioners and that is why we appear before you tonight. The property as you can see on the placards over there and I also hope that you each did receive the binder I delivered to your office on July 31st. It consists of about nine acres of property located at the southeast corner of State Road 2 and Division Road. It is an angular corner so this property is not truly north or west because of the unique configuration of zoning classifications adjoining are a little configured in unique ways with the north and to the east I am going to call it, which is on Division Road, I believe the parcel is owned by the Bowman’s. That is presently used as single family residential and is zoned R1 under your current ordinance. The south of the property and also somewhat to the east there is one parcel of land that is already zoned neighborhood commercial along State Road 2 that immediately abuts our parcel to the south. The remaining property surrounding us to the south and east is zoned R1. West across State Road 2 is a church and we provided a letter directed to your attention that indicates the church does in fact support the petition. Then north and west is the Aberdeen Planned Unit Development which contains obviously a number of different uses ranging from residential all the way up to a gas station, wedding facility and that sort of thing. Incidentally, I don’t know if I did mention the Bowman parcel at the last meeting, by counsel they were represented and indicated on the record that they do in fact support the zone change amendment tonight to the neighborhood commercial zoning classification as we’ve requested. Properties located on State Road 2 which is obviously a state highway, it is an arterial street designated by your ordinance meaning that this is a major traffic mover which is a place where commercial development should be located. That’s precisely where we are. Our other crossroad is Division Road which is classified as a collector road and under your ordinance, a collector road is also a major mover of traffic designed to get traffic movers to the state roads and other arterial collector streets. So we’ve got an excellent location and two roads clearly capable of handling any additional traffic that this property would generate through our proposed uses. Incidentally, since the last meeting we have met with representatives of INDOT concerning access to the property. Originally we had depicted three entrances to the property all from State Road 2, that was prior to our meeting with representatives from INDOT who confirmed for us that they will allow us to have one access off of State Road 2 provided we move that as far as we reasonably can away from the stop light at the intersection of State Road 2 and Division. Mr. Courier, the architect, in a few moments will go over his revised lay out and demonstrate where a proposed access road will be. But, INDOT has confirmed for us that they would provide us the access to this parcel. If you would turn to your binder of information that I provide you, under Exhibit 2, this is a very small section of the zone map, your recently adopted zone map for Porter County and as you can see there is a large area that is in fact zoned R1. There are some parcels zoned R2, but as you can see, there is a neighborhood commercial that abuts this parcel, the same exact zoning classification we are asking for. Also, there are institutional, those are light bluish color and there is medium intensity commercial further up north on State Road 2 as well as the obvious commercial uses I am sure you have all seen in the Aberdeen Planned Unit Development. Exhibit 3 in the binder is the neighborhood commercial zoning classification, or CM which is like the C1 Commissioner Evans mentioned earlier. This provides for you a list of the permitted uses, one of the things we are looking to do here and quite simply, these are the uses we are looking for, things that neighborhood commercial provides so people that live near the area can have access readily to these services just like they do in Aberdeen. It is exactly the type of thing we are looking to provide in this area. Exhibit 4 is your staff report. These are people educated in planning and planning principles. Our original request as mentioned was for a general business or C4 under your old zoning ordinance, however, the report prepared by Raymond Joseph of your own staff indicates a more appropriate rezone would be C3. The permitted uses allowed in the C3 district would match the characteristics of the area, the proposal required in this service, such as water and sewer, if approved under the Unified Development Ordinance, the project would be classified moderate intensity commercial and that is a more intense commercial use than we are requesting. Remember, we are requesting neighborhood commercial so the planning staff, those educated, those with degrees in planning, have made a determination that the moderate intensity commercial would in fact be appropriate for this area. Exhibit 5 is the site plan for the property. Grant is going to explain that in just a moment, this is revised and is not included in the previous packet. I just received this, however the layout is similar. What it does now is it depicts simply the one entrance from State Road 2 and the other entrance proposed off of Division Road. So, Grant, if you would like to explain your concept.” Grant Courier, “Good evening, my name is Grant Courier, Vice President with Linden Group Architects and Planners. I would like to give you a rough pass through the site plan. We are looking at about 9 acres and we’ve actually composed 3 main structures which comprise about 40,000 square feet. We have provided parking at about 5 spaces per thousand square feet or about 200 cars. We broke up the buildings to increase site lines to the development, also, at a phase development over time which might actually do one building and then lease them out as space permits. We also provided some open areas where there can possible be a pedestrian assembly point, a clock tower, a focal feature. One of the main attributes of the site is the farm house. We really wanted to preserve that and develop a destination type restaurant and we will be adding some space to that and making it handicap accessible and creating a theme for the development around the existing farmhouse. Another great feature of the site which also aids with a buffer for residential is the easement on the eastern boundary. It actually comes onto our site about 75 feet and then we have another 75 feet plus at the back of our structures so there’s over a 150 feet buffer from this commercial development to the residents behind. Within this area we are looking to preserve as many trees as possible, we also want to create a retention feature that will control storm water. And over on the northern portion of the site we are looking at preserving that area as well. One of the revisions we made to the plan based on the review of accessibility with the county is we were originally proposing three curve cuts on Route 2. We’ve come to provide one curve cut as far southwest as we can and that would be full access. Then we created another curve cut out on Division. We feel this would greatly help out with any traffic congestion, any worries of traffic problems, congestion coming out or ingressing towards State Road 2. In terms of refuse enclosures, we are sympathetic to screening those as best as possible, there would be a full six foot high enclosure, it would soften the landscaping. In terms of the architecture of the buildings we are looking at structures that are only one story in height and have a residential character with residential shingled roof lines. These are four sided structures, we would carry masonry details all the way around each building. We are looking at (inaudible)….. corners and ins and outs, with the use of glass, appropriate ample signage, some roof lines or awning lines that we introduced over some of the windows to create some interest and possibly introduce some copper details. These are some snapshots of the existing farmhouse that we wish to preserve and architecturally try to tie some of those details in with the rest of the plans. Overall, the parking comes to about 255 stalls, we picked up five stalls versus the last plan that we rewrote and we feel that the criteria of the biggest (inaudible).” Atty. Ferngren, “Turning to your next exhibit in your packet, that would be exhibit 6 and this is a letter from Allen Kent and Bob Stymis from the Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church indicating that they do in fact support the rezoning of this property from residential to commercial. Lastly in your packet there is a proposed ordinance, nothing unusual about the ordinance, it is rather straightforward. I thought maybe it would save the attorney a little bit of time in preparing this for you. Finally, to just sum up where we are at, there’s a number of reasons to support this petition. Primarily, we are not even asking what your staff recommended or deemed it to be an appropriate zoning classification for the property which is the medium intensity commercial. We are asking for the neighborhood commercial. We have support from two adjoining property owners, the Bowman’s to the north and the church in the other direction. This is comparable to other uses in the area. As I mentioned there’s neighborhood commercial abutting this parcel, there’s also commercial use in Aberdeen, a gas station, restaurant, and inn, there’s a golf course. All of those uses are in very close proximity to this. We are located on a state highway. Obviously a major traffic mover; a state highway that has a stoplight in place, an appropriate location for commercial development. Development of this property in a different way isn’t really feasible. We are located on a state highway at a stop light. This would require the extension of water and sewer services to this parcel and coupling that with your set aside of open space and other road costs for improvements, made it simply economically and feasible to do that on this site and certainly the return on any investment to develop this with acre sites and with your set aside for open space make it again, economically and feasible. INDOT will allow access to this site; they have indicated as Mr. Courier showed you on the drawing they will provide at our expense, access to this location. Increased assessed valuation is another reason commercial property brings in a much higher assessed valuation that you would ever get from residential development on this property. The Porter Township Trustee, Ed Morales, I spoke with him about the project and he indicated that he does not have any objection because the property should be rezoned to a commercial classification to allow that higher assessed valuation to help offset the tax payers burdens. This will also provide needs to local residents. These services are needed and they wont have to travel like they normally otherwise would the distances that they do at this time. Potential jobs are another, notwithstanding the construction jobs, it is a continued investment in the county through entrepreneurial investments and other people working at these particular locations. I don’t believe this is a case of the slippery slope where if this happens we are opening doors and the camel’s nose is under the tent, whatever you want to call it, that all of a sudden State Road 2 becomes a commercial corridor. That simply isn’t the case. Again, you are vested with the control of that and every case needs to come to you and be considered on its merits and I think when you look at this case and compare all the facts which support the rezoning, this is one that should happen. The next case that comes before you, in the fact that this was rezoned, if in fact it is, doesn’t obligate you in any way to rezone the next piece of property. What you need to do at that time is again, consider all the facts, consider that case on its own merits. Finally, the new Unified Development Ordinance grant alluded to the protections that would be provided by buffering those, this is a document that last time I checked was 480 pages long, the county spent tens of thousands of dollars to have Ground Rules develop what they thought was appropriate as far as the zoning ordinance and included within that is a tremendous amount of detail regarding how do you develop residential property next to commercial, how do you develop residential to industrial. There are all sorts of standards in your document that you just adopted to demonstrate how do you protect the residential next to the commercial. Exhaustively, they are in there, looked through them on a number of different occasions so those protections are implicit in your ordinance that residential can exist next to commercial. I think you only need to look across the street to Aberdeen to realize there are a number of homes, people that purchased homes live right next to a gas station. And how does that work? It works because you provide the buffering, enclosures of refuse containers as Grant explained. All of the protections you set forth in your UDO will provide the same protections to these adjoining property owners. With that, we would simply request that you approve our zoning request to neighborhood commercial for this property. Thank you.” Com. Harper, “Does that finish your presentation?” Atty. Ferngren, “Yes, it does.” Com. Harper, “All right. At this point I will allow anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against this to come forward and form a little line right over there and give your name, your address, and make your comments. So is there anyone here to speak either for or against this petition, either way?” The following people spoke either for or against the petition: Sara Kolacki, attorney for property holders, Mr. and Mrs. Bowman; and Mr. and Mrs. Clark. (for the rezone)
Against: The public comments were not transcribed at this time. The comments can be found on Commissioners Meeting tape 1 and 2, dated September 4, 2007.
Com. Knoblock, “We’re here strictly for the rezone and the Plan Commission did the rest of the thing. When they changed the new plan, it did go through RR to R1 on the Unified Development and I thought that was a step up and it was good. There were two businesses on 2, one business on 2 and one business on Division Road and 200 and they were both closed down. I don’t know if you knew that. I feel like we are opening it up for businesses all along State Road 2, south of Division. I just can’t make an exception and go against our Unified Plan. And I think if we rezone it, everyone along 2 will be applying and I think we would be starting a trend. I guess that is all I have to say.” Don Evans, “A detention pond. But it’s not finished. He just dug a whole bunch of dirt out of there. So, it looks like a heck of less.” Com. Evans, “The proposed IDNOT single entrance versus the three entrances, how far is it from the intersection? What’s the distance from Division?” Atty. Ferngren, “I think it is over 500 feet.” Com. Evans, “And from this same intersection on Division, the distance to the entrance?” Atty. Ferngren, “200.” Com. Evans, “Neither one of them are lighted? Neither one are going to be lighted?” Atty. Ferngren, “We’re working on that.” Com. Evans, “They both of course, have ingress and egress, passing blisters?” Atty. Ferngren, “Yes.” Com. Evans, “How old is the farmhouse?” Atty. Ferngren, “Over a hundred years old.” Com. Evans, “I think something needs to be clarified in regard to the new ordinance versus the old ordinance. There is no such thing as a PUD in our new ordinance anymore so this type of zoning has to be ferreted out on a case by case basis as was stated earlier in case anyone is wondering about that. Lastly, someone said that the stoplight at 2 and Division was erected only after a death occurred there. Indeed, that was not true. The engineering study was under way, in fact, the engineer who was doing the study for INDOT’s wife was the one who was killed at that intersection. And there are two different types of roads that intersect there and I think sometimes they get misconstrued as well. One is a state highway, the other is a county road, so I just want to make sure those things are clear. That’s all I have.” Atty. Ferngren, “Commissioner Knoblock did mention the zoning change from RR, Rural Residential to R1, and yes, that did in fact happen. But to develop this site when you take into account the roads, the extension of utilities, set aside for open space, you simply can’t support an R1 zoning classification and neither would the RR classification at this particular spot as well. It may economically unfeasible. This is the type of development that can support Mr. Carson’s right in the highest and best use that is available to his property. I really think it should be considered on a case by case basis. Somebody else needs to come in and present their facts, I think we presented a great deal of facts that support our petition and what we’re hearing is the concerns are going back to the Unified Development Ordinance that provides those protections for these people. I would again ask that you approve the zoning request.” Com. Harper, “Bill, let me say something, this is very tough, but the idea of the Unified Development Ordinance is to have the intent, housing is intensively small lots, commercial around the cities and towns. I hate to do this because it is really aging me every time I do this, but I am to the age I have to tell stories and my story tonight is that as a young man I was raised on County Line Road, on the Lake County side and I went to school in Merrillville. And Merrillville was an area of subdivisions and all of a sudden there was commercial on every corner, there was a main street and all of a sudden there was commercial down the street. There’s some beautiful subdivisions, so now when you drive through this area, there is no area that is really residential and there’s a lot of area that is really not commercial, it’s sort of commercial. And you don’t have that town atmosphere anymore, you just have a sort of strip mall city with so many blocks back in you have houses and any corner that is on any street can become commercial. That is not our idea and as you gentlemen have used some of the zoning already in this area, if this zoning is passed, as Carole said, it would just be the basis for zoning right on down Highway 2 and pretty soon, and we are going to have to make a decision in this county. Are we going to keep our commercial around cities and are we going to maintain our residential areas? And if we are, then we have to say no to this one. Do you have anything to add?” Com. Knoblock, “No.” Com. Harper, “Do I hear a motion?” Com. Knoblock moved to deny the rezone, Com. Harper seconded, motion carried. Com. Harper, “Is there anything else to come before us? No. Okay.”
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
|
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
September 4, 2007