The regular meeting of the Development Advisory Committee was held on May 8, 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, D.J. Larr, Ray Joseph, Kelly Cadwell, Harvey Nix and Robert W. Thompson Jr.  Staff member present was Toni Byers.

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

Case 08-4-11.  Petition of Beverly Runk, 2801 Kickbush, Valparaiso, seeking primary plat review for a major subdivision, Leffew Industrial Park, 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)

Attorney Todd Leeth and Randy Peterson stated that they are representing the petitioner in this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated that this is set for the Plan Commission at their June 10th meeting.  There were a few issues.

Randy Peterson stated that they are here to re-introduce the Leffew Industrial Park East. They were before DAC a year ago and were actually okay to go for primary plat, but they had some issues with right-of-way along SR 2 and were held up.  along the way, they worked out the issues with INDOT and the improvements that they need to make to SR 2, and INDOT has granted them authorization to proceed for primary plat.  The improvements are shown on the plan.  There is really no right-of-way taking along SR 2 in that corridor; they just had to work it out with the owner to the West to make sure he would allow them to put a passing blister in SR 2.  The other thing they have added is a water main into the plan, so the site will be served by water main through the City of Valparaiso.  Nothing else is different and they had already been allowed to move forward. 

Mr. Joseph asked if they have added anything to the landscape plan.

Mr. Peterson stated, no.

Mr. Joseph asked if there has been any willingness to commit to some landscaping adjacent to the existing homes.

Mr. Peterson stated that they talked about that. The rear of those homes already have a pretty well-established line of evergreens.  They had also talked about putting a buffer berm along that, and that is detailed in the plan.  On Sheet 15 they do show a landscape screening berm detail and they show where they are going to do some landscaping up along the main entrance.

Mr. Joseph asked if there is anything for the Southwest corner.

Mr. Peterson stated that they are showing  the screening berm all along the West line and the South line of the property.

Mr. Leeth stated that he thinks DAC also has to remember that this is not a residential subdivision; this is a commercial, industrial subdivision.  Each one of the building plans that will come forward must go through the UDO review process at the Plan Commission and will be subject to landscaping requirements in the ordinance, as well.

Mr. Thompson stated, thank you for putting in the water.  The fire hydrants and everything have been run through the Washington Township fire department and also Valpo water and where they will be located?

Mr. Peterson stated, yes.

Mr. Thompson asked if an erosion plan has been submitted. 

Mr. Peterson stated, no, not yet. 

Mr. Thompson stated that this has gone through DLZ review, if he remembers correctly.

Mr.  Larr asked what a “temporary” emergency vehicle turnaround is.

Mr. Peterson stated that if you notice that there’s two stubbed streets and they’re going to put those turnarounds at the ends of the stubbed street, but still inside the property, so that that emergency vehicles can come in and turn around.

Mr. Larr asked if Washington Township tried to pull their apparatus around that temporary emergency…or have they talked to them about it?

Mr. Peterson stated that he believes that was the recommendation from the last DAC meeting to put those turnarounds in.  It’s 100-foot in diameter circle that’s more than enough for an emergency vehicle.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they’re more for snowplowing and school buses to be able to turn around.

Mr. Larr asked if there is a reason to call them temporary.

Mr. Peterson stated that if the stubbed street ever continues through then they can just continue the street through.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they have appeared before Drainage Board and because of the storm incidents this past year, they’ve been considering the impact of storm water drainage on agricultural field tiles, and that’s the case with Cain Ditch, down at the South end of the outlet, and the Drainage Board chair is really concerned.  Dave Burrus and he had a discussion this morning about a couple of ditches. Cain is one that they’re planning some (inaudible) in, and he thinks they need to get together – if  they can get on the agenda for the June meeting so they can figure out something they can do together to figure out how they resolve this issue.  They are working on some changes in the ordinance to prohibit the use of agricultural drainage or field tile for development.   He thinks this might be the best way to resolve the issue, to come to some kind of understandings and explore what can be done at  this point. 

Mr. Peterson asked, even though it’s a regulated drain?

Mr. Breitzke stated that the outlet is a tile, and the purpose of the tile, the regulated drain, in this case, is not an open ditch.  Because it’s a regulated drain it affords some opportunities, but they are not in the construction business, either, so, they need to figure out how to resolve this, to avoid discharging into the ditch.

Mr. Peterson asked if he is recommending that they come back before Drainage Board.

Mr. Breitzke stated, yes.

Mr. Leeth stated that Mr. Peterson and he will work with their office and, if that does require another appearance before the Drainage Board, they will do that, but he would like to know a bit more about what their plan is.  He is new to this project, so he would like to know more about what’s transpired in the past.

Mr. Breitzke asked if he could be in touch with Mr. Burrus, also.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s glad to see  that some of these things have already been taken care of.  He would like to further strengthen the cause for landscaping and the berm.  Realize that the construction of the individual lots could take a period of years, and that the neighbors will be within sight of all the construction piles of dirt and vacant areas that probably will need mowing, so the berm is a good idea, up front, right in the very beginning, to protect those neighbors, and some landscaping on the berm.  Lot 31 kind of bothers him. It just kind of sits out there in that open space, and he knows that to be economically successful they have to sell every possible lot that they can squeeze in there, but it looks to him that Lot 31 would really need somebody to have some TLC concerning that open lands and little wet areas that are going  to be in there.  He’s not saying, take out the lot, though he did in the beginning and did at one time; he is saying they should look for a good customer that’s going to treat that lot fairly and is going to enhance  the looks of this industrial park.  It will be in everybody’s favor. 

Issues raised were recommend landscaping berm on the South and West; erosion plan; concerns about Cain Ditch – go back to Drainage Board to resolve discharging into the field tile; TLC on Lot 31 concerning wet areas.

Case 09-EP-1.  Petition of Dyer Construction Company, Inc., 1716 Sheffield Ave., Dyer, IN, seeking an erosion control and site improvement review for a landscaped berm, to be located at 240 E. U.S. Hwy 6, in Jackson Township.  Zoned RR. (Sec.29-36N-5W)

Dan Schmitt stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter.   He stated that he is requesting an erosion and site improvement permit from Porter County.  The permit is for a disposal site. They are the general contractor for an INDOT project, R209010.   It’s a widening project, an oversized passing blister for Whitethorne Lane and Mander Road.  There’s an existing passing blister, but it’s very inadequate for that area, so they’re widening it, making it safer. They’re putting a full 6-foot shoulder along the majority of that.  Toward the East then, towards Mander Road, it does narrow down to a 2-foot shoulder.  He has a full set of plans that’s in the members’ packets.  Part of the INDOT project is going to generate approximately 5,500 cubic yards of material. It’s existing material. He’s tried to obtain the soil borings from INDOT, and they do not have them at this time.  It’s an area with silty loam for the top several feet, then, underneath that, is clay material.  The disposal site is where they are asking to place the excavated material, so it’s all soil material.  None of the asphalt or anything else will go into this.  It’s just soil material, so, the gravels, the clays, the silts – that is what they’re looking to dispose of on the disposal site at 240 E. U.S. Hwy 6, the Dille property and, from there, the Dille property is on the South side, basically the center of the project. They’re looking to dispose of the excavating material right there.  He lost a tree line, basically to eminent domain, or whatever. INDOT forced the purchase of that property for the right-of-way. It went from a 40-foot right-of-way to a 60 to 80-foot along that area. Because he lost his tree line, he has a ¾ of an acre that’s zoned for commercial storage – some excavating equipment, mainly, and a pole barn for a shop.  It sits down at the bottom of a hill for woods. Because of loss of the trees that is happening because of their INDOT project, he wanted to do it anyway, basically build a mound or a berm right along the South right-of-way of U.S. 6.  This will actually improve the aesthetics from what is currently there.  He’s zoned properly.  The equipment can stay there, so, as far as he knows, that stuff’s going to stay there.  And this is a nice option for all of us.  They don’t have to truck the material out of the site; they are basically moving most all of the material with a loader, but the rest will be transferred with a wheel loader.  As you can see, in the packet, they have done the proper studies per INDOT standards. They have obtained the proper studies for the wetland determination by a soil scientist and also an archeological study has been done on the site, both of which their recommendations were to proceed. They found no wetlands in the area where they’re looking  to dispose of the material.  Something that he discussed with Porter County previous to this meeting was he’s trying to make a clear distinction between what is their INDOT R209010 project and what he’s asking for today from Porter County, and  that’s a permit for the disposal sites.  They are the general contractor on this INDOT project, so he can answer questions.  What he’s requesting today is the permit for disposing of material at 240 E. U.S. Hwy 6.  They have an erosion control.  It just meets the County’s scale standards.  It’s just a berm.  It will be vegetated.  The existing vegetation in the area is just mowed and it’s just grass.  That’s what it will end up, just grass on the berm.

Ms. Cadwell asked how big of a berm are they talking?

Mr. Schmitt stated, roughly 5.5 feet high and about 40 feet.  It’s in between Dille’s driveway, which there are some aerial photographs, and the woods to the East.  They are looking for that whole stretch, approximately 650 feet long and about 40 feet wide and roughly 5.5 feet.

Ms. Cadwell stated that whenever this  type of work is done and there’s a lot of heavy machinery, any future development on that property would be subject to the impact that they have on those soils.  So, all the heavy machinery, every place they park it, that compacts the soils.  The owner just needs to understand  that it won’t just be the 50 feet or however wide they’re going to go – it will extend beyond. The guys are going to be driving in and they’re going to start doing circles, so, just keep in mind, that they can keep this property from being built in the future if  they overly compact it.

Mr. Schmitt stated that anything that truly is beyond that would be a dozer to come back and push his windrow up and over.  They’re not going to affect his system because it’s out of range.  Any parking of equipment will be on the job site, within INDOT’s right-of-way, so the only time they are going onto that property is when they place material, and they will be coming from the North.

Ms. Cadwell stated, just a reminder to try and keep them in a confined zone, or it really could impact the property owner in the future.

Mr. Schmitt stated that the first thing they are doing is placing the silt fence. There is access for Porter County and INDOT personnel to inspect the property.

Mr. Larr stated that it’s two separate projects:  One is INDOT’s, which will be submitting a Rule 5 soon, from what he’s told. Doug Wolf from the Department of Environmental Management visited  the site last week.  There is silt fencing up already for part of the project.  The wetlands that are East are going to be heavily watched as the highway project proceeds.  Mr. Schmitt and Dyer Construction have been very cooperative with members of  the Plan Commission office.  He’s willing to work and make sure that it’s a project that’s upheld by our standards.

Mr. Schmitt stated that he did visit the site again and did find some discoloration of the wetlands, so that will be addressed this afternoon, as will anything else within 24 hours of notification. What was seen and what was talked about actually has nothing to do with what they even started in the clearing of  the right-of-way.  From what he understands, INDOT had moved some beaver dams and a blocked  culvert that’s just East.  The only reason it’s somewhat a gray area is that they have incidental construction, i.e., a guardrail that they’re replacing, and they disturbed the soil and it looks like they never placed rip-rap all the way around the headwall.  So there will be discussions this afternoon as to whether they should actually rip-rap that.

Mr. Thompson asked if they have looked at whether they are going to be impacting anyone’s drainage with the berm.

Mr. Schmitt stated, yes.  It’s at the top of the hill and  that was part of the wetlands study.

Mr. Thompson asked if Mr. Dille’s pole barn sits down the hill some.

Mr. Schmitt  stated, yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated that we should clarify that that beaver dam and the culvert under the highway was more  than a ¼ mile to the East.  When they unplugged it, it just went gangbusters over and across the top of Mander Road and kind of ate out part of Mander Road.   They kind of need to have an idea of what the construction deadline is.  The INDOT deadline is August 31st.  What’s with this?  Are they putting dirt up until August?

Mr. Schmitt stated, no, they will be generating material.  Definitely, there’s a box culvert that is just East of Mander Road, 4 by 7, so that will generate quite a bit of material.  What they are looking to do, they’ll probably be excavating along the South side prior to that box culvert.  They start the box culvert right after school.  They have permission to start the box culvert beginning on June 8th, so, for 3 weeks, they have Route 6 closed and they will be excavating that box culvert.  The end of June roughly is when the process should be complete.    They were asking for this permit to go to August 31st , but they are hoping that by June 31st (sic), the filling would be done, the topsoil would be back and they would have at least temporary seeding in.  He was requesting that the permit go until August  31st in case there s a problem with INDOT, if there are any changes or any more material that needs to go into that location, that the permit will still be open until that point.

Mr. Breitzke stated that his point was that as soon as they finish putting dirt on there, if they’re closed, they want  to see seed almost immediately. 

Mr. Schmitt stated that if they know there is going to be a week when they are not going to fill, they’ve been instructed that it will be seeded.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the other issue is the construction entrance. Do they have that as part of the plan so they’re not tracking dirt out onto the road?  Do  they have a temporary entrance?

Mr. Schmitt stated that they do not, with INDOT.  Right now, Dille is allowing them to track back and forth on his concrete drive, and they are keeping that clean.

Mr. Breitzke stated that that probably won’t knock the mud off the wheels.  They are going to have to give more thought to that.  Are they going to keep the concrete clean daily?

Mr. Schmitt stated that the only problem is he’s working it out with INDOT right now is when they move to that North side, because the whole South side, everything will be stored on that South right-of-way. It’s minimal work on the North side. During the North phase, they more than likely they will mow with an excavator and a tri-axle and just truck that off-site.  Originally, the job was done that way, just to truck it off-site and so as of right now, that’s their plan, that when they go to the North side, they don’t even want to mess around with equipment or even trucks crossing back and forth.  If  they do go to that point, if the material from the North is disposed of on this site, then it would be with tri-axles, and they would put a temporary construction entrance basically adjacent to Dille’s driveway, just on the East side of his existing drive.

Mr. Breitzke stated that his concern is there’s so much – he thinks from the stage from the shoulder of pavement when you’re loading. It’s when they unload, and when they’re driving back out and you could end up tracking.

Mr. Cole stated that this is something that’s been needed for a long  time and the original public input for Whitethorne Woods, it was pointed out by the public that this passing line and line of sight and entrance to Whitethorne Woods had a lot to be desired.  He’s very much for this.  He would also like to commend them on the archeological study. 

Mr. Schmitt  stated that INDOT is dictating that.

Mr. Cole stated that he wishes the County would think about that, too.  Is he going to be forming and shaping the berm, as well, or is he just leaving  the dirt there and waiting for Mr. Dille to do it.

Mr. Schmitt stated that they will be shaping and forming the berm themselves.

Mr. Cole stated that he has been moving dirt at the back of his property, on the edge of a wetland that belongs to the state DNR.  He doesn’t think there’s any silt fence there.  He doesn’t think anybody has bothered to check it or investigate what he’s doing back there.  If one inch of this dirt ends up back there, there’s going to be a thunderstorm in Indianapolis.

Mr. Schmitt stated, no, he can guarantee that.

Mr. Cole stated that now we have his assurance that he has not done anything of that nature and that any further removal of that dirt of transport of that dirt will be Mr. Dille’s responsibility.

Mr. Schmitt stated that that is correct.

Mr. Cole asked if this was 55,000 cubic yards.

Mr. Schmitt stated, no, just, 5,500.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they looked at the drainage overall on the site and he can see where (inaudible).

Mr. Larr stated that he should be able to pick up the permit Monday from the Plan Commission office or today.

Issues raised were to understand the impact of equipment on the soils and compaction; when done with fill, seed immediately; watch mud tracking onto roads from construction equipment.

Verizon Wireless collocate of antennas on a wireless communications tower at 165 E. U.S. 6.

Julie Garnello stated that she is representing the petitioner in this matter.   She stated that they are looking to place their antennas on the existing tower and equipment inside the existing fenced-in area.

Mr. Thompson asked if they will be the only ones on the tower right now.

Ms. Garnello stated, yes.  She knows there’s another application in.

Mr. Thompson asked if they will be adding a new equipment shelter.

Ms. Garnello stated, yes.

Mr. Thompson asked if the gravel pad and everything is all set.

Ms. Garnello stated that they are just going to put their equipment inside the leased area and antennas on the tower.

Mr. Thompson asked if they are going to put a generator out there.

Ms. Garnello stated that it’s inside the shelter.

Mr. Thompson asked how it’s fueled.

Ms. Garnello stated, hopefully, natural gas.  They always shoot for diesel, but it’s usually denied.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he would prefer natural gas.

Mr. Cole stated, all he can say is, thank you.

Pre-BZA UV review for Gariup Enterprises LLP for outside storage at 173 S. 500 W.

Attorney Mindy Heidel stated that she is representing and accompanied by the petitioner, Matt Gariup.  She stated that in the packets that were mailed is a map of the property.  The property has been used for the last 40 years for the storage of construction equipment – job trailers, etc.  The use has not changed, but the zoning ordinances have during that time period. As a result of a recent notification by the BZA that they were not in compliance, they are applying for the UV at this time.  She is showing a closeup update picture from today, an aerial, showing the site.  There are several barns, which are consistent with the use as an agricultural area.  But most of these barns have an area where construction equipment is being stored and has been stored for some time.  The plans that were originally submitted to the BZA, they would like to somewhat modify.  South of the barns there are some other out buildings, but these are not being used to store construction equipment.  These are consistent with the agricultural use of the area, being barns, sheds, an old pig sty.  So they propose collapsing, or making smaller, the area for the proposed storage of machinery to just the area North of the barn, which would cut the area in half that they are asking for.  Also, after visiting the site, they show an L shape of trees in front of these agricultural out building.  They would like to move that North, so that on the other side of  the barn…they feel that because of the elevations of the area, that will better shield the area from view of 500 W.  For screening, they want to put in either arborvitaes or small pine trees that would shield the area from view of 500 W.  To the immediate North, there’s one neighbor and there is a proposed berm or screen on those maps and that would also be either an arborvitae screen or a tree stand of pines/evergreen trees.   There is a stream or ditch on the property.  On the new map, it just runs along the very bottom South side.  On the former map, it’s designated in light green.

Mr. Gariup stated that on Mr. Breitzke’s copy, the 75 foot is laid out on there just to show that that is currently a grassy area.

Ms. Heidel stated that there was some question as to whether they had a buffer strip along the river.  There is a 75-foot buffer strip along the river. They are not going to be anywhere near it.  There will be no fuel stored on the area, except that incidental to being trucks and so forth or small portable gas tanks.  There will be no permanent fuel storage or permanent storage of any hazardous materials.

Mr. Joseph asked if they will be willing to record something that states that they will not place any storage or materials within the 75 feet of the stream.

Mr. Gariup stated, sure, sure.   Another thing, too, they’ve been investigating for a while possibly doing a residential development on this property anyway, so they’ve been actively trying to find a piece of property, but his father recently passed away and he mobilized this place back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, so they’re going to slowly start cleaning up and getting out of there anyway.  In the short term, they would be happy to get some trees in here and make sure what part behind you could see would get screened off.  They are trying to see about getting some sanitary in there.

Mr. Thompson stated that they might, if they are still going to go ahead with any residential plans, take a look at what our code calls for on perimeter landscaping, so they’re one step ahead.

Mr. Gariup stated that they do have about 40 acres here, which would be to the East, which would be in hardwood trees and they could eventually start using those to enhance the landscape areas.

Mr. Thompson stated, the creekbed area, just South of the barns and stuff --- is that dry intermittent or actually flowing?

Mr. Gariup stated that it’s intermittent.

Mr. Thompson stated, but there is one just to the South of them that is flowing.

Mr. Gariup stated that that’s right. That’s that Ludington Ditch, is what he thinks they call that.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the Ludington Ditch is a half a mile South.  That’s probably just some unnamed tributary or a farm drain and it is intermittent.  Then somewhere across from the driveway there’s a tile on the West side of 500 W. that drains back to Ludington Ditch.  Regardless, they just want to be very careful of the activities around that dry bed as it feeds to the South and the Ludington Ditch. Are they removing the hog sheds?

Mr. Gariup stated, right now, that’s just a concrete slab right there.  He thinks there is maybe some steel stacked on that.  As part of their commitment, they could get that moved back outside of that 75-foot area.  In the short term, he doesn’t know if that slab necessarily needs to come out of there; he doesn’t know if it’s an erosion problem or anything.

Ms. Heidel stated that it would be consistent with the current zoning.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he was more worried about the debris and the condition of materials.

Mr. Gariup stated that the only thing stacked on that slab right now he thinks is some steel material, which they can get moved.

Mr. Cole stated that he’s not really familiar with this area at all, so most of his questions are for orientation. To the East of the main group of buildings, there appears to be a subdivision or somebody has built a pond. Whose property is that?

Mr. Gariup stated, he doesn’t know. 

Mr. Cole asked if this is part of a subdivision or just somebody’s grandiose pond.

Mr. Gariup stated that he thinks there’s two brothers that live like in adjacent homes here that own up to their property.

Ms. Heidel stated that those tracts are over 17 and 19 acres; not a subdivision tract.

Mr. Cole asked, in the yard itself where they have their stored materials, has there been a drainage pond or something to capture any runoff from oils or greases?

Mr. Gariup stated that really the only thing in the storage area is trailers and some block material and brick. There’s really nothing that would be an oil-shedding product.  There’s really not any storage of materials, per se, there, like aggregates.  Just some stone and these trailers – that’s basically it.  The cleanup shouldn’t be too bad.

Issues raised were screening and to look for commercial property in the future.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.