December 4, 2009

The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on December 4, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Kevin Breitzke, Tim Cole, Mike Haller, Ray Joseph and Robert W. Thompson Jr.  Also present were Fred M. Siminski and Toni Byers.

The following cases were heard by the Committee on this date:

Pre-BZA review for Dawn & Dale Eliason for a dog kennel at 746 W. 700 N., in Portage Township.

Dawn & Dale Eliason stated that they are the petitioners in this matter.  They want to run a small boarding kennel.

Mr. Thompson asked how many dogs.

Mr. Eliason stated that he was thinking 8 or 9. 

Mr. Thompson asked if they are just going to be for people who are vacationing or for breeding.

Ms. Eliason stated, not for breeding.   It’s just like for when people go on vacation. She baby-sits animals for people in their church and it would be easier to do from her house.

Mr. Thompson asked if there might be times when the eight stalls are empty.

Ms. Eliason stated, right.

Mr. Joseph stated that he visited the site last week and saw the building.  Do they plan on constructing kennels inside that barn?

Ms. Eliason stated, yes.   There’s going to be like 10 stalls on the inside and they will be separate kennels for each animal.

Mr. Joseph asked if they are going to put up a dog run or fencing.

Mr. Eliason stated that that’s going to come this spring when the weather breaks.  Right now, they would be totally kept inside.

Mr. Joseph asked if there is parking and how many spaces are available.

Mr. Eliason stated, four or five.

Mr. Joseph asked if they plan to put up a sign.

Mr. Eliason stated, no.

Mr. Joseph asked what they are going to do with the dog waste.

Ms. Eliason stated that they will bag it and put it in the garbage.

Mr. Eliason stated that they have a garbage man that comes every Friday. They don’t want a big dumpster.

Mr. Thompson asked if they talked to their neighbors.

Mr. Eliason stated that they did and explained that this would be small and will be kept inside and insulated.

Mr. Thompson stated that the BZA will probably ask for commitments.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this is a very wet area forever.  It’s hard to manage because it’s flat, and there are issues with drainage to the North.  Have they had their house flooded?

Ms. Eliason stated, up front, in the roadside swale. 

Mr. Eliason stated that they are going to have some fill, clay or sand, this summer.

Mr. Breitzke stated that when they do that, they should come to the Plan Commission to make sure they have good erosion control.    He is concerned about the businesses around them.  Who owns the asphalt business and what is it called?

Ms. Eliason stated, C&L Asphalt, and it’s owned by Len Dooley.  He stated that also, across the street, to the North, there’s a big horse-boarding and to the West, too.

Ms. Eliason stated that that’s because some friends of theirs got flooded out.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it’s not really boarding then, just a family situation.  He asked where they pasture those horses.

Ms. Eliason stated that they’re rarely out.

Mr. Breitzke asked how big the Eliason lot is.

Ms. Eliason stated, 5 acres.

Mr. Breitzke asked if there is an animal rescue place across the street.

Ms. Eliason stated that she guesses it’s a rescue shelter with a lot of animals that is owned by Bonnie Swarner.  She’s got renters in there.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they are going to have insulation in the building, because noise is a really big issue with dog shelters.

Mr. Eliason stated that this is already insulated and got the interior walls up.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they are going to have some kind of short runs so the dogs can go in and out during the course of the day.

Mr. Eliason stated, yes.

Ms. Eliason stated that they will just shut the doggie doors at night, about 5:00.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he would recommend that the BZA set some hours when the dogs are out; 5 might be a little early.

Mr. Cole stated that he doesn’t know if he got the information ahead of time on this and is not sure where it is.

Ms. Eliason stated that it’s at 700 N., about a half a mile East of the County Line Orchards, on the South side of 700 N.

Mr. Cole stated that his major concern is the future of this and possible expansion, or that this is a Temporary Use Variance…?

Mr. Thompson stated that the only way it becomes temporary is if the BZA puts prohibitions for it to be that way.   Under state statutes, it’s either a full Use Variance, or that’s it.  It only becomes temporary, in that sense, where the BZA wants to review it after a certain period of time, they must set those conditions on it.

Mr. Cole stated, so, without those conditions this could go on to the next owner?

Mr. Thompson stated, yes.

Mr. Cole stated that he recommends that the BZA be requested to put some conditions on the future of this and that it doesn’t increase in size without an appropriate appeal or permit from the right agencies and at that time, it should probably even come back to DAC for review.

Mr. Thompson stated, if granted, a Use Variance would be permanent on the parcel, and one concern always is what happens in the future with a different owner. That’s why we ask for conditions etc.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they should commit to picking up the dog waste X number of times a day.

Issues raised were BZA to put conditions on for the future; dog waste daily pickup schedule.

Pre-BZA review for Stephan Good for waiver of subdivision control.

Don Bengel stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.   He stated that this property is off of 36 S., south of Division Road on the West side of Sager.  There’s a private road for the first couple hundred feet; 327 feet of the road is public right-of-way, but not publicly maintained.  The rest is a road easement.  In the past they’ve done a minor sub on the North and he thinks there’s 2 to 3 houses built on the minor. He thinks the 3.6-acre parcel has a house, and there’s 3 other sites on the South side that are vacant.  Their site is a 10.24 acre site at the end of the road, South of where Mr. Good presently has his house.  The 17.13 acres is the sand pit that’s out there.  John McQuestion owns the land to the South.  The request is to build 1 house on the 10 acres and they are requesting a waiver of the UDO.  There’s good drainage and no real benefit to go through the UDO. The road is well-maintained by Mr. Good and Mr. Connor.

Mr. Thompson asked if the 10.24 acres is really being developed off of two different tax parcels?  Oh, he’s just reconfiguring.

Mr. Bengel stated that the only piece they’re working with is what Mr. Good has.  He has a house on the 7.13…

Mr. Thompson stated, but, basically, he’s splitting off the 7.13.

Mr. Bengel stated, from his own parcel. John McQuestion developed in Lot 4 of Morgan Minor and he lives there.  Recently, he thinks he purchased the 5 acres right South the parcel in question.

Mr. Thompson asked how he gets to the 5 acres.

Mr. Bengel stated that he owns the 30 acres South of it.

Mr. Thompson asked if they would access through the same private drive.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes, 36 S.

Mr. Thompson asked, who owns the private drive?

Mr. Bengel stated, it’s owned by O’Connor.  There’s an easement granted to all the other properties.

Mr. Thompson asked, and they would have right to easement on it, the new home?

Mr. Bengel stated they have it now.

Mr. Breitzke asked if the new parcels will have the right of access.

Mr. Bengel stated, yes.

Mr. Breitzke asked for documentation of that.  Stephan Good owns two parcels out there, and he’s just going to reconfigure them…basically, square it up to the line.

Mr. Bengel stated that they took the South line of that, where it runs East and West – that’s where the line runs through.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he’s really an advocate for public access, but they already have a private road down this way and we want iron-clad agreements on who’s going to maintain the road and snowplowing and a share of all that.  Also, mail trucks and school buses typically don’t go down these private roads, and that should be mentioned to buyers.  Is he seeking Variances from storm water control and open space?

Mr. Thompson stated, everything.

Mr. Breitzke asked if there are any issues with traffic merging onto the County road?

Mr. Bengel stated, not that he knows of.

Mr. Cole stated that he wasn’t sure which property this was.  He would like to have more information sent to him.  He feels very unprepared, as a result.  He wouldn’t recommend anything on this.  He thinks this is a hodge-podge, a mess, and in the future it’s going to be one big problem. Some of these are the oddest-shaped parcels for no reason at all.  There appears to be provision for right-of-way to non-existent roads.  This is terrible and some of the worst planning he’s ever seen.  He recommends that the BZA tosses it out and asks for a better idea.

Mr. Bengel stated that the request is to put one house on the 10 acres and it could be one house on 40 acres.

Mr. Cole asked, what happens when this person sells and he decides to subdivide that and now there’s an impossible situation to subdivide. The future here is so unknown.  One house on 10 acres is fine, but nobody around here seems to enjoy living on 10 acres.

Mr. Bengel stated that there’s a lot of 10-acre parcels being sold.  He doesn’t think it would be a good thing to subdivide the 10 acres into smaller lots.

Mr. Cole stated that what we say today isn’t going to impede someone from trying to do it, and that’s what he’d like to prepare for. This is a mess.  There are no access roads.

Mr. Haller stated that in the bottom right corner he has Lot 15 and, according to the photo images, there is a driveway that goes through 15 into the 1.1 acre parcel just to the West of that.

Mr. Bengel stated that he doesn’t think that’s used for access.

Mr. Haller stated that there’s a house on both of those.  Then you have this long, skinny arm of the parcel, which goes nowhere, because the house that’s there has access from  36 S.  Is that a public road?

Mr. Bengel stated, that the first 327 feet is public right-of-way, but he doesn’t think it’s publicly maintained.  There are three or four accesses off Sager Road.

Mr. Breitzke asked if he knows anything that’s going on with that thing behind 15?

Mr. Bengel stated that he doesn’t know.

Mr. Haller asked how that gets extended to get it buildable size.

Issues raised were agreement for road maintenance.

Pre-BZA review for Norm Hudson for a real estate office in a CH zone. 

Mr. Hudson stated that he is the petitioner in this matter. He owns a parcel off Route 6, about 600 feet from the intersection with Meridian.  The property is currently used as kind of a residential rental and used that way since they purchased it in 2002 or 2003 and has been rented out since then.  The tenants just vacated the property.  He would like to use part of that as a real estate office and the other half as an apartment.  There would be minimal reconstruction on the inside. The house is fairly modern, built in 1993 on .65 acres.  The setback on the South side of the property is about 90 or a little more from Route 6.  The parcel is 66.8 feet wide.  There is an easement on the West side for the occupant to the North.  There is a 10-foot easement on the far West side of the parcel.  He is primarily a commercial consultant and he also does residential real estate.  He works by himself; no employees currently.  There would be no substantial change in the environment.  He parks there during the day; the tenants would park on the back side.  He would not expect them to have more than one  or two cars.  In the future, he may have one employee, but nothing planned now. He’s not had one in the last 10 years.

Mr. Joseph asked if he plans on having more parking up front.

Mr. Hudson stated that he thinks there’s enough space there for four or five cars.  There is not really parking there now – just some stone and some grass.  It will have to be regraded, so there’s firm footing to park.

Mr. Joseph asked if he plans a sign.

Mr. Hudson stated, yes.  Currently he works out of the basement in town, but it would be nice to have some advertising inside the guidelines of the ordinance.

Mr. Joseph asked if he would live in the other half of the building.

Mr. Hudson stated, no, just an office.

Mr. Thompson stated that there is a drive on the West side that goes all the way back.

Mr. Hudson stated that that is an easement that goes back to the parcel behind the property, a perpetual easement 10 feet from the West boundary of the parcel.

Mr. Thompson stated that he will have to work with staff to make sure he has sufficient parking based on square footage of the office and the apartment, where it needs to be placed. He has 66 foot of frontage and it looks like 60 feet is drive entrance, almost.  Does he really need that much?

Mr. Hudson stated, no, there’s currently asphalt.  It will be narrower.

Mr. Thompson stated, with it being so wide there, clients or tenants coming out of there….

Mr. Hudson asked if he would suggest making a barrier.

Mr. Thompson stated that he should work with INDOT on something.

Mr. Hudson stated that they are the ones who did that.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he would like a little more definition along the right-of-way, make a green barrier, back maybe 10 or 20 feet, and, for business parking, something closer to the building.   Is there an issue with parking in front of the building along 6.  There’s existing parking there.

Mr. Joseph stated that this is an overlay district, so they are required to have parking behind the structure, but there is an existing parking and we could probably work with what he has.

Mr. Hudson stated that the problem with parking in the rear is the septic system.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this goes back to a pre-existing, non-conforming situation.  But we want more separation between the pavement on 6.  He’s proposing a sign.  That might be an opportunity to do some nice landscaping and define that better.  He doesn’t like to see walls go up, and you need to be able to see out onto 6 from the entrance and exit.  Will he make this ADA compliant?

Mr. Hudson stated that it could be.

Mr. Haller stated that this is a mixed-use type situation – part business, part residence.  A business would be required to have some modifications to the building to pass the state statutes for a Class I structure, one of which would include an ADA accessible bathroom, and a fire wall between the two occupancies.  Mr. Hudson needs to get him a floor plan of that building so they can talk about getting two exits, at minimum, and analyze the bathroom situation.  Technically, he can’t use that commercially until the building is modified to meet state code.  They will also have to check with the Health Department to see if the septic is sized properly.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he thinks they need a waiver from the Health Department for commercial use.  Petitions such as this going on to the BZA should be checked out also with the Building Department before going to the Board.

Mr. Cole used to be a very nice area.  If he pretties up the place, maybe he could influence the neighbors.  His main problem is the dangerous traffic in that area, find a different way to gain access, maybe from Meridian.

Issues raised were to work on parking requirements and apartment requirements; suggest more definition on right-of-way; floor plan for Building Commissioner; possible wavier from Health Department on commercial use.

Pre-BZA review for Ed Drazer on Sleepy Hollow sub for relocation of the common area.

Don Bengel stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.

After discussion between Mr. Bengel and the DAC members, it was determined that if Mr. Bengel reconfigures the open space to include more of the oak savannah the open space requirements would be met and this case will not have to go on to the BZA.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.