DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Regular MeetingMay 2, 2008 M I N U T E S      The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on May 2, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.      Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, James Branham, Tim Cole, Kelly Cadwell, Ray Riddell, Paul Graeber, Mike Haller and Harvey Nix.  Also present were Fred M. Siminski and Toni Byers.      The following cases were heard by the Committee on this date:      Case 08-5-10.  Petition of Every Child Ministries, P.O. Box 810, Hebron, seeking developmental review for a 36 by 48-foot addition to the ministry building, to be located at 875 S. SR 2, in Boone Township. Zoned CN.  (Sec.14-33N-7W)      John Rouster stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.  He stated that they are registered non-profit and they are trying to enlarge their office space.  There is a dwelling on the property and they would like to put a 36 by 48-foot addition onto the East side of the dwelling that is there, so it would all be used totally for office space.       Mr. Breitzke asked if this is strictly for operations.      Mr. Rouster stated that it is.      Mr. Breitzke stated that he believes they run orphanages in Africa.      Mr. Rouster stated that they work in three countries in Africa.      Mr. Cole stated that on Page 8 of the development plan application that there are a number of drainage issues.        Mr. Rouster stated that this is the original dwelling and part of that has been taken off the back because it was a flat-roofed carport, and then if you go to the very back page, it will show the highlighted addition that they are putting on the house.      Mr. Cole asked if this is in the same location that it’s been in years past.      Mr. Rouster stated, yes.  He stated that Every Child has been there since 1988.      Mr. Cole stated that he guesses they are saying, because they are reducing the size of the existing building by the amount that they plan to add that no further drainage calculations…       Mr. Rouster stated that they are applying for a Variance from the requirements of the storm water ordinance, and they are scheduled to go to the BZA on May 21st.      Mr. Cole stated that we would want to hold back until we see what happens at that meeting.      Mr. Breitzke stated that they won’t get on at Plan Commission until there is a decision made at BZA.  We make no decisions here.      Mr. Cole stated that he knows, still we need to advise.        Mr. Rouster stated that this would increase the roof space by 1,106 square feet.       Mr. Graeber asked if Mr. Rouster was there when they put the first two buildings up about 4 or 5 years ago.      Mr. Rouster stated, no.  They purchased the property from Helen Bowlan and she moved there, he believes, in 1984 and put up the garage, 26 by 26, and that’s a steel pole barn type structure.  Except for that, there’s been no building done since then.      Mr. Graeber stated that he’s most concerned on the erosion control, and they did a decent job about 4 or 5 years ago.      Mr. Haller stated, regarding the site plan on the very last page, he questions what the metal building is used for.      Mr. Rouster stated that that is the garage.  There are two garage doors on the front.  They use it basically for storage.      Mr. Haller asked about the frame building.       Mr. Rouster stated that the frame building has been their office space since 1988.  The previous owner let them use the other building rent-free, but they are growing out of it, and they are in desperate need of office space.  They tore off the flat-roof carport and they want to put this.  This would just increase the roof size by 1,100 square feet.      Mr. Haller asked if the entire building will be used as office space.      Mr. Rouster stated that it is.      Mr. Haller asked how many people will be there.      Mr. Rouster stated that they have volunteers come in on Tuesdays and Thursdays and right now they have an office staff of three full-time and one part-time person, and then a treasurer comes in two days a week.       Mr. Haller asked if the volunteers will be in addition to the full-time. Mr. Rouster stated, yes, usually around three to four.  Mr. Haller asked if they will have seven to eight people there max at one time. Mr. Rouster stated that that would be max, unless there were something exceptional, like a newsletter or something that would be for a few hours one day.  Mr. Haller stated that this building would, more than likely, be classified as a B occupancy for business, so, when they add onto that building, they have to file the blueprint with the state. Mr. Rouster stated that they’ve already filed it and been okayed.  Mr. Riddell stated that they have kind of an asphalt area that abuts an existing driveway to the North.  Have there been any problems with the neighbor to the North? Mr. Rouster stated, no.  Mr. Riddell asked if he has contacted INDOT to see if they have any questions.  Mr. Rouster stated that they have not talked to INDOT.  They are just on the outside of the Hebron Town limits. Mr. Riddell asked if he foresees any additional traffic coming in and out as a result of all this. Mr. Rouster stated, no.   Mr. Branham asked if the blueprints indicate handicapped access and all that good stuff. Mr. Rouster stated, yes.  Mr. Branham stated that he doesn’t see a problem with it.  He asked if they are storing any flammable materials or any excess paper. Mr. Rouster stated, no. Mr. Branham asked if they are putting in a fire alarm system. Mr. Rouster stated, no. Mr. Branham stated that they should consider that.     Ms. Cadwell stated that she knows they have submitted all their paperwork to the state Department of Health and are waiting on the plan for the septic system.  Do they have an existing septic for the frame building, or are they going to tie that into the new septic system?  Mr. Rouster stated that there is an existing septic system there, but when they put the addition on, it goes right over part of the existing septic system.  The state Health Department has recommended a mound system. Ms. Cadwell asked if they are going to tie two buildings onto that mound system. Mr. Rouster stated, yes.  Ms. Cadwell asked if he sized the mound accordingly for both buildings.  Mr. Rouster stated that they called them and asked how many people would be using  this, and the office assistant told them, and they said it was fine. Ms. Cadwell asked, for both buildings? Mr. Rouster stated, yes.  Mr. Breitzke stated that we want to keep track of that in case they fall back to any kind of residential use in the future.   It’s not appropriate that they have one system for two buildings for residential purposes, but, for commercial, he doesn’t see it as a big issue.  The other thing he thinks they need to make clear is the hard surface that they are covering.  He said they have 1,100 feet more, but the reality is that they have a driveway back to the carport, and they might want to differentiate there.  Also, what he would suggest for BZA is to have letters of support from the neighbors.  He doesn’t recall any specific problems with drainage. Mr. Rouster stated, no.  To the North there is a drainage ditch, and there are over 90 trees on the property that will absorb water. Mr. Breitzke stated, well, to some degree, but part of the concern is the impact on the neighbors.  It would go a long way with the BZA and probably the Plan Commission if he has some letters of support.  Are they going to have enough parking space? Mr. Rouster stated that they will be adding some.  They did not put that in, but, on the South side, their intention is putting a driveway in. Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s going to also impact storm water, and that’s going to have to be something they reconcile, that could   take them back to doing some kind of storm water works or coming to an agreement, or they just may have to bail on that plan.  The other issue might be one of parking spaces necessary for the building.  They may need a Variance for that.  he would like to see the least amount of parking they can get away with, but that could be an issue.  Also, if they put another drive in, that’s an issue for state Highway.  He thinks once they talk to them, they will change their mind.  He doesn’t see it happening that they are going to put another driveway in.  It gets to be very expensive.  Mr. Riddell stated that he believes INDOT’s policy is now for existing, unaltered drives that they don’t require any additional permitting.  Mr. Breitzke stated, provided it’s the same type of use; this is the same type of use.  But they should get a heads up so they can know what’s going on.  Issues raised were contact INDOT; delineate impervious surfaces; may need to seek Variances for parking spots. Case 08-4-11.  Petition of Beverly Runk, 2801 Kickbush, Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Leffew Industrial Park East, to be located at 281 N. SR 2, in Washington Township.  To contain 31 lots on 64.34 acres.  Zoned I-1.  (Sec.21-35N-5W) Randy Peterson stated that he and Attorney Bill Ferngren are representing the petitioners in this matter.  He stated that when they appeared before DAC last week it was as an informal review and he went down the list of comments made then and none of the drawings changed.  The list of comments didn’t affect the drawing all that much. Mr. Breitzke stated that issues raised at the last meeting were:  buffer for boundary with residences; consider landscaping and open space plans; engineering feasibility study; erosion control for construction entrance around detention pond; show delineation of hydric soils on the plat; need turnarounds for emergency vehicles; work out access with INDOT along sight distances; operations and maintenance manual for erosion control.  He understands they are working for one on storm water, too.  Mr. Peterson stated that he has gone through all of DLZ’s comments, with the exception of the outlet. Ms. Cadwell stated that concerning the hydric soils, what really is needed is a statement from the soil scientist on the plat.   Mr. Branham stated that the turnarounds need to be shown on the plat. Mr. Peterson asked if they can do a detail of what the turnaround would be.   Mr. Branham stated, as long as it’s on the plat and meets the standard making it big enough for emergency equipment to turn around.   Is there any possibility of getting municipal water into this?  He doesn’t like industrial parks without a water supply.  Mr. Peterson stated that that’s a good question.  They did make the call to the City water department and there is a 16-inch main on the other side of SR 2. Mr. Ferngren stated that that’s part of the feasibility study that Mr. Breitzke had asked about.  Mr. Peterson is doing some investigation as to costs. Mr. Branham stated that if there is going to be an industrial park there could be a variety of materials and manufacturing processes and so forth in there and you watch the news and see industrial parks going up in flames and it’s hard for the fire department to handle it without a commercial water supply.  Mr. Peterson stated that he’s been told that since it’s outside the City limits it would be a voluntary tie or one that’s mandated by the Plan Commission.   Mr. Riddell stated that he wasn’t here last week, but it sounds like they covered the concerns he had as far as the T-turnarounds and contact with INDOT.   They should get with Ray Joseph concerning  the turnarounds.  He thinks there is even a buffer strip that’s required between properties, and the Highway Department likes to see 34 by 60 minimum. Mr. Ferngren stated that they are actually proceeding under the ordinance prior to the UDO on this project, and it didn’t have that buffer, but they will get with Mr. Joseph on the numbers on the turnarounds.  Mr. Cole stated that we talked about landscaping and exceptions, but that would be up to the Plan Commission.  It looks to him, even though they didn’t have to, that they have provided some substance of open space from the detention pond.  Of course, we would like to see a dedication for that.  He voiced a concern about the stubbed road to the South and that that property may remain residential. That would mean that school buses might be coming through  this industrial park and they need to be prepared for that.   Mr. Breitzke stated that it concerns him that they only have one access to the whole development.  If there is an accident on SR 2 in front of that, how do other vehicles get in and out?  More important is, how do you continue to operate a business without access?  He would suggest that they talk to the neighbors in the warehouses to the North and try to figure out what other routes they have to get in and out. With the one access, they are going to have to have like a grand boulevard type access, at the very least, so there is some kind of   bypass mechanism.  It’s still very tricky, depending on the nature of it, and particularly with the commercial, industrial use the potential for having a tractor trailer accident in front of that is a bit higher than normal, as opposed to a subdivision access.   It was brought up at Drainage Board about the outlet being to Cain Ditch, the condition of Cain Ditch.  It’s largely a tile system to the South and then you have farming operations.  It’s not really one of the best outlets for the water management. I see a lot of control of the water going on and a lot of positive things, but, on the other hand, what happens is if we have some issues with the outlet and what are they prepared to do to help improve that with the neighbors to the South. Mr. Peterson stated that he went out there and walked that stretch of tile.  He’s got some photos of that.  From what he can see, it looks like it’s in very good condition.  He talked to some people who said there’s never been any standing water out there other than your major massive storms. Mr. Breitzke stated, with the tile situation, if it gets plugged or broken further South, what happens when those break and the water comes out.  At that point, it blows up out and away and we may have cause for concern of that.  Ideally, it would be open all the way, rather than through a tile system. Mr. Ferngren stated that it seems if that’s a regulated drain – and you’re talking about damage to a pipe that occurs off of this site – what would this property owner’s obligation be to repair the damage that somebody else did.  He’s hearing that it’s working now and it’s part of a regulated drain, that this property’s in the watershed and… Mr. Breitzke stated, well, it works for this property. Mr. Peterson asked what the other options might be.  He stated that they are draining this site to a low point, following the natural drainage course of the entire watershed. Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s something that he hasn’t heard back from Mr. Burrus on.  He asked him at the meeting to suggest what you might have.  He just put out the caveats at that time because they needed to come back anyway. That’s one of the things to be mindful of.  We are basically doing…the improvements are a substantial change in use from what they were in the past.  He thinks he can improve it, and that’s really our goal, overall. Mr. Ferngren stated that he doesn’t know what they mean by that.  Mr. Peterson asked if he’s suggesting to rebuild the overall tile down to the open cut ditch. Mr. Breitzke stated that it's really up to the Drainage Board what they are going to finally come up with.  A lot of the tile is ancient, and that will be something they will discuss – maybe something in partnership with them…just keep an open mind about it    right now because, basically, that’s the utility that they are relying on for drainage. Mr. Peterson stated, from an engineering standpoint, nobody likes to hear about reduced release rates because they don’t believe them, but they’ve cut it back by nearly a factor of four in the 10-year storm, and they have to reduce this down to… Mr. Breitzke stated that they have to, anyway, because it’s a 2-year storm release. Mr. Peterson stated, no, it’s not.  It’s .13 times the area of the site. Mr. Breitzke stated, or the two-year, whichever’s smaller. Mr. Peterson stated, no.  DLZ has never said that.  It’s not in the ordinance. Mr. Breitzke stated that he thought it was. Mr. Peterson stated, no.  He’s positive.   Mr. Breitzke stated that .13 was usually the smaller of the two. Mr. Peterson stated that it's a 17-acre foot detention pond.  He took into account probably a 150-acre watershed that’s North of the tracks.   Mr. Ferngren stated that they can talk about this at the Drainage Board, but, it seems to him that if there are issues with the pipe and it’s a regulated drain that that process exists. Mr. Breitzke stated that that’s something that we still need to keep a dialogue about, because, ultimately what he wants to see is an overall improvement for everybody out there.  He thinks they’ve got some design issues with buffers around this.  Hopefully, they are working on that.  Mr. Ferngren stated, again, they are proceeding under the old, so they don’t have all of those requirements, however, recognizing that there are some adjoining uses, and they’ll visit with their client about what they might be able to do. Mr. Breitzke stated that the other thing to make clear is where the timeline is at, because there’s going to be a lot of discussion and confusion because of the new ordinances; their application pre-dated that.  Mr. Riddell stated, in General Notes #8, “construction activity for pond work to begin spring 2001”.  They need to correct that.     Mr. Breitzke asked if they are going to phase this and how many phases they are going to do. Mr. Ferngren stated that it’s probably doing to be demand-driven.  Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s a question that will probably come up at Plan Commission, and they should do their preliminary cost estimates.  They are fortunate because water is right there, but…do they have to bring the water under, too? Mr. Peterson stated, yes.  Mr. Breitzke stated that they will have to get state permits then.  Do they have any retention pond or is it all detention? Mr. Peterson stated that it's all detention.  Mr. Breitzke stated that he was going to suggest dry hydrant if they do have water out there standing, but that’s not going to happen, which is just as well.  Mr. Peterson stated that he has a feeling that the bottom of that would be, given that it’s hydric soils, probably be wet or damp.  He does intend to put some prairie grass in there to help with the storm water quality, but, in terms of a normal pool, there probably will not be a standing pool of water.  Mr. Breitzke stated that since he’s near the top of everything he would prefer that they not have retention, in this case.  Mr. Cole asked if the City of Valparaiso has said anything about required annexation if they tap into City water. Mr. Ferngren stated that their standard application for extension says that they have to waive remonstrance. Issues raised were statement from soil scientist about hydric soils on the plat; show turnarounds; investigate possibility of municipal water supply; consider an additional access; correct general construction note #8 to read work to begin spring of….appropriate year, not 2001. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.