PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 8, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on January 8, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Kevin Breitzke, Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Frank Mahnic and Robert Detert, Vice-President. Those members absent were Mike Herzog, Bob Poparad and Commissioner Larry Sheets. Staff members present were Mary L. Cable, Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Detert stated the before he gets into the agenda he would like to announce that Damon Run have asked for a continuance until the February 12, 2003 meeting.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the December 11, 2002 minutes of the Plan Commission and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Election of Officers

President:

Mr. Burns moved to nominate Kevin Breitzke for President of the Plan Commission. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion.

Mr. Detert asked if there were any other nominations for President. There were no other nominations for President.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Vice-President:

Mr. Burns moved to nominate Robert Detert for Vice-President of the Plan Commission. Mr. Breitzke seconded the motion.

Mr. Detert asked if there were any other nominations for Vice-President. There were no other nominations for Vice-President.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Staff Appointments:

Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector

Mrs. Cable read a letter from Mr. Nigro requesting to be re-appointed.

Mr. Detert asked if there were any other nominations for Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector. There were none.

Mr. Breitzke moved to re-appoint Steve Nigro as Assistant Planner/Zoning Inspector for the year 2003. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Attorney:

Mrs. Cable read a letter from Attorney Lily Schaefer requesting to be re-appointed.

Mr. Detert asked if there were any other nominations for Attorney for the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. There were none.

Mr. Mahnic moved to re-appoint Lily Schaefer as Attorney for the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals for the year 2003. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Technical Advisory Committee:

Mr. Bucko moved to appoint the following as voting members to the Technical Advisory Committee: Chuck Walker, NRCS, David Schelling, County Engineer, Kevin Breitzke, County Surveyor, Kelly Cadwell, County Health Department and Stephen Nigro, Interim Director. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Board of Zoning Appeals:

Mr. Breitzke moved to appoint Robert Detert to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Annual Report for 2002:

At this time, Mrs. Cable went over the Annual Report with the Plan Commission members.

Mr. Bucko moved to accept the Annual Report as submitted. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Mahnic asked how many people on this Commission looked at this report other than tonight. He stated he is going to vote on something he hasn’t read not that he doubts it. He asked if we can continue this.

Mr. Detert stated we can continue this until next month.

Mr. Mahnic stated there is a motion on the floor and he had a question on the motion.

Motion carried on the following voice vote:

Biddinger - Yes Breitzke - Yes Bucko - Yes

Burns - Yes Detert - Yes Mahnic - No

Mr. Detert stated to Mr. Mahnic that he is sure we can correct a mistake if he finds one.

Case 00-FP-5. Petition of Living Word Sanctuary, Inc., formerly known as Christian Assembly of Portage, Inc., c/o Todd A. Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy, LLP, 57 Franklin Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking an extension for Woodvine Subdivision to be located on the Northeast corner of SR 149 and CR 700 N. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mrs. Cable read a letter from Attorney Etzler stating that the petitioner wishes to withdraw his petition at this time.

Mr. Bucko moved to withdraw Case 00-FP-5. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Public Hearing:

At this time, Mr. Breitzke, the newly elected President, read the Rules of Conduct for a public hearing.

Case 03-PC-1. Petition of Francis O’Meara, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppber, Wagner & Evans, LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana for a variance to allow a waiver of subdivision control or a single division of real estate so as to create a separate lot, as defined in 17.08.010, without the subdivision platting of Title 16 to be located on the North side of CR 1325 N. between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E. in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of Francis O’Meara. He stated they are presenting to the Commission somewhat of an unusual case. He stated it is a Plan Commission variance, which is somewhat unusual. He stated Ms. O’Meara owns forty-acres at the northwest corner of CR 1325 N. 375 E. He stated on that property she lives in a home that was built after it was destroyed by fire in 1993. He stated Ms. O’Meara purchased the property in 1988. He stated they are seeking a variance to allow her to build a new home, essentially at the corner of those two county roads, still on her property and sell off the current home that she has with a meets and bounds description. He stated that he has provided the Commission a copy or a portion of her property that shows that 1.7 acre property with the home that she currently lives in. He stated that they want to be able to sell that off without going through the Subdivision Control process. He stated the purpose of this is simply economics and hardship. He stated for two homes on forty-acres they simply don’t believe that there is the need to go through the Subdivision Control process for this specific purpose. He stated the petitioner, Ms. O’Meara, was injured on the job and suffered permanent nerve damage and now walks with the aid of a cane. He stated what she would like to do is construct a ranch style home on this property at the location he indicated on the corner. He stated he thinks that this is exactly the purpose under the County’s ordinance for a hardship. He stated he thinks that Ms. O’Meara has shown, by those facts, the need for that. He stated he has appeared before TAC on her behalf and discussed this matter and he doesn’t think that there were any particular issues that arose that would be beneficial for a full subdivision control ordinance matter. He stated he thinks that it is important for the Commission to recognize that Ms. O’Meara is not asking you to be able to do something that she couldn’t do through another process. He stated this is just simple the least expensive way for her to openly obtain her permission to do that. He stated Ms. O’Meara could do a minor subdivision, a ten-acre split or do a ten-acre split and deed it back as many property owners do and no one would be the wiser. He stated they are asking the Commission to grant the variance so that Ms. O’Meara can proceed under the ordinance in a lawful manner and accomplish her goal as well.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Mahnic asked if there was anyone in the audience that has anything to say about this.

There was no response from the audience.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has no problem with this because according to our staff report it meets all of our requirements of RR with the exception that this is an unusual layout. He stated he has no problem with this.

Mr. Detert stated he has no problem.

Mr. Bucko stated it is fine.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problem. He stated he does have one question. He asked how will the driveways for the houses be designed.

Mr. Leeth stated the home that you see there is existing. He stated it comes off of CR 1325 N. He stated the new home will be on the corner further to the east and they are not sure off which county road the driveway will come.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated the only thing that they brought up at TAC was they need to get the wetlands issue sorted out, which is part of the building process. He stated he sees no problem with this at all.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-PC-1. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes

Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-PUD-1. Petition of Jeff Bann, 630 W. 81st Avenue, Merrillville, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 30 between Shorewood Drive and Dorchester Blvd, in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of Edgewood LLC. He stated Edgewood is the petitioner before the Commission seeking a Planned Unit Development, which is a rezoning process through the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, which was adopted in the late ‘90’s pursuant to State Statute. He stated the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to present to the Commission the concept plan and rezoning ordinance for this Planned Unit Development. He stated as was indicated, the property in question is on the south side of U.S. Hwy 30. He stated U.S. Hwy 30 is the northern property line of the rectangular property in this area and is 24-acres in size. He stated it has 795-feet of frontage on U.S. Hwy 30 and is surround by the Shorewood Forest residential development. He stated Shorewood Forest does not touch this property but for the eastern property line in this area. He stated to the south is Shorewood Forest and Lake Louise as you can see on the aerial map. He stated approximately west of their property line in this area is the Shorewood Forest homes as well. He stated Shorewood Forest is principally on three sides of them, though not touching two of the sides directly. He stated the land is currently zoned R-1 under the Porter County zoning ordinance. He stated as he has indicated to you they are presenting to the Commission a concept plan for the development known as Edgewood, which is a 50-lot single-family home development. He stated the proposal is to allow and construct within Edgewood high quality low or no maintenance homes of a villa type nature with a side courtyard on most all of the lots with the exception of the lots bordering Shorewood. He stated prior to the beginning of tonight’s hearing he passed out a package of a project overview that included this landscape plan, the site improvement plan and some project overviews or details, bullet points and some descriptive narrative language with regards to the project. He stated also included are some architectural renderings of sample homes that they anticipate locating within the development. He stated the market value or price points for these homes they would anticipate to be in the $200,000 to $300,000 range and they believe this is very consistent with the Shorewood Forest community and the Union Township community as a whole. He stated there will be a Property Owners Association within Edgewood that will be responsible for lawn care, snow removal from the drives and walks. He stated this runs with the theme of the development and the market for this development to provide for low maintenance or no maintenance home sites. He stated this they believe will trigger a very simple following that the homes will be principally occupied by empty nesters. He stated there will be very few children within the development. He stated in those price points they think that the families are going to find or be looking for larger homes in those same price points rather than the quality and style of homes that they are providing for in Edgewood. He stated the Shorewood owners themselves, they think, will be downsizing and looking for this product and would probably be some of our most valued customers and lot and home purchasers within the development. He stated this project, you should know, has evolved and developed over many months. He stated his client and himself have gone through a series of four meetings with Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association. He stated they met with the Board of both the Utility Company at Shorewood Forest and the Property Owners Association Board. He stated all of those discussions and all of those meetings have crystallized into a formal agreement from last June. He stated he wanted to highlight to you some of the points or terms of that agreement. He stated this agreement is part of the record and he will be happy to share with the Commission a copy if they have any specific questions. He stated the four important points that he wants to highlight to the Commission is the most important with respect to buffering and the neighborhood to the east is their eastern property line. He stated the agreement provides that they will only have nine (9) lots that border on Shorewood Forest on that property line. He stated on the opposite side, on the Shorewood Forest property line, they have nine (9) lots as well. He stated the plan that is before the Commission carries that agreement forward and has only nine lots. He stated some earlier plans had as many as 16 lots along that property line. He stated those lots along the eastern property line meet the County’s zoning code. He stated that they exceed it quite significantly in size with the R-1 zoning district. He stated those lots also by agreement will have screening and mounding to further buffer and shield that property line. He stated in that project overview is a photograph of that property line today and you can see that there is an existing tree line that shields the Shorewood Forest homes from the interior of their property today. He stated this of course will be enhanced and maintained as they move forward with the development and this is part of the agreement that they have with Shorewood. He stated also in the agreement is a commitment by his client that the home styles throughout the entire Edgewood development are going to be consistent with the housing types that they showed through their private and public forum meetings with Shorewood Forest. He stated that those are consistent with the renderings that they provided to the Commission in the project overview. He stated that again he wanted to highlight to the Commission that they committed to Shorewood Forest contractually that they are going to have those types of housing within the development. He stated thirdly the agreement provides that Shorewood Forest Utilities will provide sanitary sewer service to the Edgewood development. He stated this is contingent upon the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission adding this property into the Certificate of Territorial Authority or Service Territory for the utility. He stated they think that this is going to happen. He stated as he has indicated Shorewood serves all three surrounding properties. He stated he wanted to alert the Commission to the contingency that is located within the agreement with regards to the sewer service. He stated lastly he would like to quote to the Commission a portion of paragraph seven from the agreement, which provides that “Shorewood Forest Property Association and Shorewood Forest Utilities do hereby support and urge adoption and approval of the project consistent with this plan and subject to the terms of this agreement.” Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association and Utilities are supporting the petition that is before you tonight by virtue of their agreement with his client last June. He stated this was the culmination of a lot of effort on both party’s behalf over a number of meetings, some private some public forums, so that they arrived at that buffering along the east property line of this development so that it is consistent with the R-1 zoning district as well as the current development on the opposite side of the property line in Shorewood Forest. He stated the streets within Edgewood are proposed to be public streets. He stated as he has indicated they are located on U.S. Hwy 30 with an entrance/exit at this point. He stated this will have to be the subject of an approval from the Indiana Department of Transportation with regards to permitting with accel and decel lanes and so forth. He stated that by virtue of a court decree there is a cross over at this location so it will have a full access entrance plan on U.S. Hwy 30. He stated the sight distances at that location have been calculated. He stated the western sight distances approximately 2200 feet and the east sight distance is 1700 feet. He stated the National Traffic Safety Council and ITASKA have calculated stopping distance. He stated at 55 mph stopping distance ranges between 193 and 226 feet. He stated that they have between five and ten times the required stopping distance required for the sight distance calculations that he indicated to the Commission. He stated utilities for Edgewood will be, as he has indicated, sanitary sewer provided by Shorewood Forest Utilities and potable water will be provided by Indiana American Water Company. He stated there are two wetlands that are located on this property. He stated your petitioner has provided to TAC a wetland delineation report. He stated those two wetlands are located on the northern property line in this area that straddles the U.S. Hwy 30 right-of-way and their property. He stated this is the larger of the two wetlands and is only .4 acres in size. He stated the other one that is only .3 acres in size is located in this area, which is part of the open space for Edgewood and will be incorporated into the storm water management system. He stated Edgewood has decided to treat or address the wetlands located on the property in the most responsible manner and that is simply avoidance. He stated you will see that the lot depth on the northern property, lots 45 through lot 50 have very deep back yards that encompass that wetland. He stated on the north and on the south of the out parcel, the large open space area and storm water management facilities in that area have incorporated the southern wetland as well. He stated he would like to touch upon briefly storm water drainage. He stated at this stage it is a concept and tonight we are discussing a land use issue. He stated the large portion of the subdivision will be funneled to the new and existing low area, which will be enhance and enlarged to accommodate the storm water. He stated the storm water will be carried through a series of to be constructed or proposed storm sewers that will be connected to storm drains, catch basins within the streets and rights-of-way and the lots will be graded so as to funnel the storm water to the streets and so forth. He stated there is a small portion of the subdivision, generally the northern tier, the back yards, and a small portion of the northeast corner, which will flow to the northeast corner to a pond in this location. He stated in both instances and in both pond areas, the water will be detained and if needed outletted in a controlled manner equal to or less than its pre-development rate. He stated he and his client believe that this project is well suited in this area. He stated it is an infill project. He stated planners will tell you that infill projects are a good thing. He stated it fills out the available land for development. He stated an infill project by definition is the exact opposite of sprawl. He stated an infill project provides for a development that is able to be immediately served with the existing municipal governmental services without having to stretch those services to a distant development, whether it is at the fringe of the urban development or whether it is out in the sprawl. He stated an infill project is within the existing urban structure and they believe that this is exactly what this is. He stated the County’s Comprehensive Plan encourages that type of development. He stated it encourages this kind of development for a couple of reasons. He stated first because they think that this clusters homes. He stated there is a significant amount of open space within this property. He stated the open space is readily apparent in this area. He stated they can’t cluster homes like you would see in some larger developments for you would have a series of clusters and a series of open spaces. He stated this is only 24-acres in size so there is not a lot of creativity that you can do, but the concept is certainly there. He stated it is preserving the open space and it is clustering the homes in the best available land to allow for that to happen. He stated Mr. Jeff Bann is from DVG the design professionals with regards to this project.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Janet Saffran stated she lives at 432 Kingswood Drive. She stated her property backs up to the subdivision and she feels that it is too dense for that area. She stated they would like this to remain R-1. She stated it is their understanding that it is a designated wetland and there is only 12-acres of buildable land. She stated it also is very low and a lot of the houses along the fence line do have drainage problems. She stated she thinks that it will create even more drainage problems. She stated with the sewers there is going to have to be a lift station and it is her understanding that the lift station will probably go along the east side of the subdivision, which will create noise and sometimes a smell. She stated it had been brought up in several meetings before that they had questioned the ability of their utilities to handle the additional load from hooking up their sewers. She stated they feel that if they are going to build that if it would remain in R-1 it would be far more feasible and also because of the traffic on U.S. Hwy 30. She stated there is a light on the west and there is a light on the east. She stated that it does not give you much room in between it. She stated it will be very congested.

Charles Kloese stated he lives at 429 W. U.S. Hwy 30. He stated they are on the north side of U.S. Hwy 30. He stated they are concerned with the density of the housing. He stated they would prefer it be kept as R-1. He stated 50 homes on 12-acres with a lot 60-feet by 100-feet or 60-feet by 95-feet to them seems like it is awful tight. He stated his garden is bigger than that. He stated the other concern that they have is the drainage that they are talking about in the northeast corner. He stated according to the prints that they have and that they looked at in the County Surveyors Office they plan on outletting this water into a drain that doesn’t exist anymore. He stated he will say that they have said that they will look into that and see what they can do about that. He stated he does want to make this a matter of record. He stated their drainage out of that pond or whatever you want to call it in the northeast corner does not exist. He stated they mentioned something earlier about the Property Owners Association would be maintaining the sidewalks and that. He stated according to what he has seen there are no sidewalks there.

Gerald Ruschak stated he lives at 433 Pickwood Place. He stated his property adjoins the eastern end of the proposed subdivision. He stated his main concerns are very similar with what Jan had mentioned about the drainage situation and also the transporting of wastewater. He stated he doesn’t know what they plan to do with regards to filling in that area. He stated that this area in awful low. He stated he has walked that area many times and you would probably have to bring in fill or something like that. He asked what kind of fill are they going to put in there. He stated this is certainly going to affect the drainage. He stated with regards to the wastewater, tying into the Shorewood utilities the lift stations are a big concern of his. He asked where are they going to place these lift station. He asked how big are the pumps and how noisy are they. He stated he is concerned about the noise. He stated he is concerned about the odor. He stated with regard to the comment that this gentleman made about the stopping distances on Rt. 30 at 55 mph. He stated he doesn’t think that this man has driven on Rt. 30 lately.

Greg Huls stated he lives at 448 Forestwood Drive. He stated this was Elmer Langrebe’s land. He stated he was personal friends with Elmer and he knows that Elmer would not have had anything to do with anything like this. He stated Elmer never wanted to have anything to do with Shorewood. He stated if Elmer saw this on the floor he would be rolling over in his grave right now. He stated Elmer loved his property on how it was because it was natural. He stated this is natural wetlands in that lower section. He asked how is it natural to have all the streets draining into this area that was once a natural wetland. He asked what is a natural wetland. He asked how is it still natural after you drain everything into it. He asked if this is still considered a wetland when you drain streets and sidewalks into it. He stated there are a lot of deer that use that area. He stated this is a big fawning area and there is a lot of deer that make their way through there because of the lakes that were built up on Shorewood already, this is about their only spot to come. He stated there is a lot of wildlife that hang out in there. He stated it is those natural wetlands that they are headed to. He stated that this is where they go. He stated the light that they put up in front of Shorewood main entrance and there is a light out by Welsh Oil. He asked where do you put another light. He asked where do you take up all of this extra traffic flow. He stated he doesn’t understand where that is going to come from. He asked how do you go from R-1 to R-50. He stated this is for single residents and now you are going to put 50 residents in there. He stated he is totally against this.

Gordon Kallio stated he lives at 431 Pickwick Place. He stated submitted a letter but for a better understanding of the development he would like to hold the letter. He stated he does stand behind his neighbors.

Milan Pentz stated he lives at 446 Forestwood Dr. He stated he would like to comment that he supports everything that the people against this have stated so far. He stated he would like the petitioner to explain one thing. He stated they talked about further screening and mounding. He stated they are going to have to put a mountain in if they want to protect the properties that are now there. He stated he lives right along that property line and there is probably at least 20-feet that his house is above that. He stated if they are going to put in screening and mounding in to protect it they are going to have to put in a mountain. He stated he thinks that the Committee here should look at the property before it makes any decisions on it.

Rob Rudakis stated he lives at 434 Kingswood. He stated he is on the east side of this development. He stated his lot is pie-shaped towards the back so he would have somewhere around 250-feet to 260-feet across the back fence line. He stated two of his concerns are basically what has been stated. He stated the last comment of being a drop off; it is literally a 20-feet to 30-feet of drop off. He stated this is a huge concern if they are going to fence this off or mound it off. He asked where are they going to bring it from and what is going to be left. He stated the other concern is the density. He stated we have R-1 developments everywhere. He stated these are 90-feet across. He stated depending how it is spaced he could have at least five in his back yard along.

Mr. Leeth stated with regards to density it is difficult to measure density. He stated it is somewhat subjective. He stated the way he has always compared density is the utilization of gross density. He stated it is an inaccurate way to determine how many homes can fit on a piece of property because you take the four corners of the property and you come up with the acreage. He stated then you divide by the zoning classification. He stated this is the number of gross units that you can have on a particular piece of property. He stated this is not the number you can use when you actually develop a piece of property. He stated it is helpful to compare one development to another. He stated the gross density for this property is 95-units. He stated you accomplish that by taking the 24.21 acres, multiply it by the square feet per acre and you divide it by 11,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size under the County’s zoning ordinance. He stated this equals 95. He stated rule of thumb for developers is 25% of your land is dedicated to roads, open spaces, detention ponds and public improvements. He stated you take 25% of 95 and you have 71. He stated they have 50 lots in this development. He stated he can’t under any other way illustrate to the Commission that this is not a dense development. He stated what you have heard tonight is some of the lots, a majority, granted, are small. He stated on the interior of this development they have lots that are between 6000 and 6500 square feet in size. He stated by all major a small lot. He stated they have 11.91 acres in this development that is open space. He stated this is nearly half of the entire 24 acres that are open space. He stated this is exactly what the Comprehensive Plan is encouraging in infill projects. He stated this is exactly what the Planned Unit Development Ordinance encourages in Planned Unit Developments. He stated they will give you, Mr. Developer, an understanding, a credit on the size of the lots if you will do certain things for the enhancement of the community, provide for open space. He stated look at the size of the open space. He stated the wetland is in this wetland only. He stated they could develop to the four corners of the property. He stated they chose not to do that. He stated there is enhancement of this with colored concrete in the front area with a walking trail through here to make a pedestrian recreational area out of what is developable land. He asked if this was the best land in the 24-acres. He stated no but this is the encouraged purpose of the County’s ordinances. He stated they have small lot sizes. He stated this is not a dense development. He stated there was a suggestion that the number of wetlands was a significant number. He stated as he has indicated to you J.F. New and Associates from Walkerton, Indiana were contracted by his client to prepare a wetland delineation study. He stated in July of 2000 they visited the property and they performed their due diligence both prior to and after their onsite inspection. He stated that after reviewing the three criteria that are required for the wetlands, vegetation, soils and hydrology. He stated they determined that .7-acres of this property is jurisdictional wetland under the definitions of the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated he itemized those to you as .4 of that in the northern portion here and .3 in this small pocket on the southwest corner. He stated this is the professional delineation that has been provided to you. He stated there was suggestion that there were drainage problems. He stated at this stage of the ball game they are here talking about land use. He stated he highlighted to you what they anticipate to be the drainage plan when they get to that step. He stated frankly it is not this step and it is not even the next step when they take the Plan Commissions recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. He stated it is at the third step of the Planned Unit Development process that they have to show to you where the drainage goes, how it is going to be handle and how it will or will not affect the downstream property owners. He stated this will be at two steps removed from this hearing tonight. Mr. Leeth stated Mr. Bann has shared with him and he with you the plot that the lion’s share of the water is going to come south to that detention pond in the southwest corner and then through a 1977 easement offsite to Lake Louise. He stated this easement benefits this property and he is quite confident that for all of the developed properties they can funnel that water or bring that water south through that easement to Lake Louise. He stated ultimately, all of the water gets to the downstream receiving stream, which is Salt Creek. He stated the capacity of the sanitary sewer, as he has indicated to you, they negotiated with the Property Owners Association and that resulted in an agreement from June of 2002. He stated also, party to that same agreement was Shorewood Forest Utilities. He stated in this agreement Shorewood Forest Utilities have agreed to provide sanitary sewer service contingent upon the IURC granting them the right to service the territory. He stated before the utility company agreed to do that they commissioned a study by independent engineers as to the sewer capacity of their own sewer. He stated the results of that were they did have sufficient capacity to service the 50 units that they are proposing. He stated in fact, there was additional capacity to service other developments that Shorewood Forest themselves are considering. He stated this was done and they know what their capacity is and this is why they agreed, in writing, to legally be bound to service this project. At this time, Mr. Leeth asked Mr. Bann to address the concerns over the lift station.

Jeff Bann stated the location of the sanitary lift station that is going to service this property was suggested by a remonstrator that it was going to be along the east property line somewhere. He stated that this is not the case. He stated the pump station is not going to be against the east property line. He stated in fact the pump station is going to be at the entry way on the west side of the entry drive. He stated it will be around fifteen feet deep. He stated it will be constructed with submersible pumps. He stated the pumps will be approximately 10-horse power. He stated they are still working on sizing those pumps. He stated they reason that they haven’t finalized that is because they are working with the Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association and their engineers that are studying and evaluating some of the land to the south for development and they need they need to feed us information in terms of total capacity sizes for that pump station. He stated as far as odor problems, pump stations do not have them. He stated if you go through Shorewood Forest and look at where their existing pump stations are located they are in front yards of people’s homes. He stated Section 26 of Shorewood Forest Development of the west side of their property this cul-de-sac as it comes into a “T” right at the “T” on the front yard of some of the lake front homes is a pump station that serves all of this development that is off of U.S. Hwy 30. He stated it takes that and puts it in a force main and pumps it up to the main driveway along U.S. 30. He stated the pipeline goes through their property and this is where they are going to intercept and have it pump into their pump station and then re-pump it into the force main that exists.

Mr. Leeth stated there was a question with regards to what is a natural wetland and what is an unnatural wetland. He stated a wetland has many definitions. He stated the acceptable definition of a wetland for our purposes is subject to the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated it requires three things to be a wetland. He stated it requires a certain type of plant or vegetation to be growing on the property. He stated it requires a certain kind of soil and it requires the presents of hydrology or water at or near the surface of the property. He stated if you have those three things then you have a jurisdictional wetland. He stated their development will not change the jurisdictional wetland of those portions of the property that have been delineated today. He stated in fact he would suspect that over the next decade or two decades and beyond their plan will probably foster the development and growth of the southern wetland. He stated by reserving it and preserving it over time those things tend to emerge. He stated what you need to know that they are not going to fill or damage or destroy any of those wetlands that currently exist today. He stated there was a question regarding a traffic light. He stated that they don’t believe that a traffic light is going to be located on U.S. Hwy 30 at their location. He stated as was testified by the remonstrance that there is a traffic light both east and west of this that provides for sufficient break in traffic to allow for the exiting of traffic from this development. He stated they don’t believe that the number of units in this development are going to, in the future, warrant traffic signalization. He stated if they do this is something that they can’t control. He stated it is something that the County can’t control. He stated this is something that is warranted and dictated by the Indiana Department of Transportation. He stated there was concern with regards to the screening to the east. He stated as he has indicated they have contractual obligation to Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association with regards to what they are doing along their eastern property line. He stated with regards to the mounding which is one of the thoughts of that contract they have the detail laid out on the landscaping plan as to how they are going to accomplish that type of screening. He stated there was also a question with regards to a property owner indicating that there were going to be five or six lots bordering the rear of his property. He stated this was only true when they had 16 lots along that east property line. He stated because his lot in Shorewood Forest is pie-shaped the back of his property was between 200 to 250 feet wide and when they had those 16 lots there were in fact five lots that touched the back property line of his. He stated this is not true today. He stated they have cut down the number of lots along the eastern property edge to the nine lots.

Ms. Saffran asked if she was correct in assuming that it is really only 12 acres of buildable land. She stated this was her understanding in the beginning.

John Nader stated he lives at 154 Spruce Court, Hebron and he owns lot 915 in Shorewood Forest. He stated it is interesting to watch someone shoehorn higher density homes into an aesthetically developed and secure area. He stated what he means by that is that there is an architectural standard throughout that development and right in the middle of that someone is going to try to shoehorn a bunch of stuff into it. He stated aesthetically it is a mess. He stated he understands the residents of Shorewood and their concern. He stated just drive by on U.S. 30 and take a look at it. He stated like the guy that told him instead of putting 24 homes on 12-acres that are buildable in that area to continue the continuity of the Shorewood section that doesn’t border this property on three sides. He asked why would you want to shoehorn that many units into a small patch like that. He stated he wants them to tell him it is all about making money. He stated he would like an answer to that clearly so that it makes sense to him. He stated to the developer to think what he was doing there as far as the aesthetics of being surrounded by three sides with homes with half-acre lots. He stated their option would be to continue the development that Shorewood has represented for twenty years in that area.

Mr. Pentz stated that he would like to comment on the traffic studies and the indication that there would be no need for a light there. He stated that there are many accidents at the light in front of Shorewood. He stated if anyone comes out of Shorewood can tell you that before you go through a green light you look both ways and listen for trucks. He stated it is traveled very heavily and at high speeds and trucks don’t have the time to react and stop even with the red light there.

Mr. Huls stated for the developer to talk to him more about the thirty-foot and how they are going to screen that area. He stated this is all sand and not clay.

Mr. Leeth stated there are more than 12-acres of buildable area on this land. He stated this is the short answer to Ms. Saffran’s question. He stated as he has indicated there are certain portions of the land that are dedicated for delineated wetlands. He stated there are certain portions of the land for whatever reason that are probably not the best areas to build a home. He stated there are areas of this land that are within rights-of-way. He stated those are the limitations of the property. He stated he doesn’t know where the 12-acre number came from but it is inaccurate. He stated he thinks that the renderings that they provided in the project overview shows you a very aesthetically pleasing home. He stated their restrictive covenants will provide for architectural review. He stated this review will dictate and guarantee that they can live up to their agreement with the Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association that the homes and style of homes will be consistent with the renderings that they are showing you and what they showed them last year. He stated the Shorewood Forest Property Owners have restrictive covenants as well. He stated they believe in every instance they will have restrictive covenants that exceed theirs. He stated in Shorewood Forest the homes are required to be greater than 1750 feet. He stated Edgewood’s restrictive covenants will be greater than that. He stated they have the architectural review to require that. He stated to suggest that they shoehorned in 50 units is simply a mischaracterization. He stated they can develop the property. He stated they can maximize the use of the land to the fullest extent. He asked would they get 50-units in there. He stated maybe and maybe not. He stated the answer is the County’s ordinances are encouraging this type of development. He asked why are they doing that. He stated because it is the right thing to do. He stated open space is exchanged for smaller lots. He stated this is the concept of clustering. He stated this is the concept that they are presenting to you as a Planned Unit Development. He stated there was another concern with regard to a traffic light and the suggestion was made that there would be a need for a traffic light at their intersection. He stated today there isn’t. He stated if they receive approval tonight and they go through the Board of Commissioners meeting and through the Plan Commission and start developing this project there still won’t be the need for a traffic light there. He stated traffic lights are only installed when the Department of Transportation conducts a traffic study and one is warranted. He asked what determines that. He stated the number of accidents at an existing location, the traffic counts on the different streets and all of those things go into the Department of Transportation’s calculations and determinations as to whether or not a traffic light is warranted. He stated they can’t tell you, your staff won’t know, the public doesn’t know and the Department of Transportation doesn’t know if there is a traffic light going to be warranted there when 50-lots are developed out when this plan is approved and built. He stated in fact the Department of Transportation won’t know for a number of years after all 50 homes are built and occupied. He stated they don’t believe that one will be. He stated if there is one there it will be built, designed and installed by the Indiana Department of Transportation. He stated there was a question in regards to the screening. He stated he is going to ask Mr. Bann to address this.

Mr. Bann stated the suggestion was made that there is a drop of about 30-feet of the existing east property line of Shorewood to their property. He stated the proposal from Edgewood Drive, which their main roadway running north and south through the development, from the backyards of their proposed adjacent lots to the centerline of their proposed road they are looking at approximately ten feet of existing topography changes. He stated they have submitted a set of preliminary engineering drawings that consists of plan profile sheets to date that does show a certain amount of fill that will be going in to raise that roadway. He stated the difference in elevation from the driveway apron and the garage to street level isn’t so severe you can’t get up in icy conditions. He stated they do realize that there will be condition that they are going to have to take a look at from an engineering detail standpoint. He stated they have not completed that process. He stated there may be retaining walls that are required in certain locations. He stated there may be a little bit of cutting and filling along the lots. He stated they will have excess spoil material that will be created from onsite excavation activities dug from trenches for sanitary sewer lines, storm sewers and water mains. He stated they will also be digging around a wetland for storm water management. He stated they will have excess fill onsite. He stated they have not completed the dirt balancing process that determines how much excess fill or how much fill you are going to need. He stated that the art of development is to take what property is existing, carve the roads and the homes so that you move as little dirt as possible. He stated this is what they try to do. He stated drainage wise you always want to have the streets lower than the houses so everything feeds to the streets where the storm sewers collect the storm water and this is what they have done. He stated there is a little hill right here that as they go around the pond there will be some cutting and they will use some of that dirt for fill. He stated he doesn’t see a 30-foot fall and this is an actual survey topography that was generated by their surveying crews. He stated there is about a 10 to 15-foot fall from the east property line of Shorewood to their sand line of Edgewood Drive.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Mahnic stated there are a number of items he would like to bring up. He stated normally for a rezone we listen to why they want it rezoned. He stated here they submitted some plans that he hasn’t read yet nor looked at. He stated this is more than he thinks is expected because all they are asking for is a rezone. He stated this is all we should be considering, although it is very good to have this in front of him and he wishes he had the time to look at it. He stated he looked at this briefly. He stated here is what is going to happen if this is approved by the Commission. He stated it will go to the Commissioners. He stated only that it gets rezoned to put a PUD in. He stated once this is approved all of this including engineer drawings will come back to the Commission and this is when we will scrutinize it and say we don’t like your plan. He stated he doesn’t like the density in there. He stated the fact that they are going to hide the high density in the middle so no one else can see it and that is the plan that they have and it may not get approved. He stated it will be looked at again for the wetlands and where the water goes and to make sure the water doesn’t run down hill to the next subdivision. He stated the only thing that he is looking at now is whether or not he wants to consider a PUD in a relatively dense piece of land developed for empty nesters. He stated the ordinance will come before the Plan Commission at a later time. He stated if this rezone is approved any future development of this parcel will have to meet residential requirements in the R-3 zoning area. He stated we will get another shot at this. He stated if he votes against approving this, the Commissioners have the right to say they want it in. He stated the Plan Commission doesn’t have the final say. He stated that the Plan Commission just makes a recommendation. He stated this is heard at TAC. He stated there are a number of things in here that TAC recommended. He stated TAC forwarded this to the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. He stated TAC looks at drainage, the roads, the width of the roads and things like that. He stated they checked the road names, the name of the subdivision to make sure that there is no conflict there. He stated this will need Drainage Board approval. He stated when this comes to us we look at this and we determine whether it is a rezone and have they convinced us to what they are going to put in here is really a rezone. He stated if this is approved by the Commissioners, it will come to the Plan Commission as a primary plat. He stated at that time, they will have to have an ordinance in place that this is what they will do and this is the law. He stated this is different than a regular subdivision. He stated they make an ordinance with the County that they will agree to this law. He stated it is the law.

Mr. Detert stated what Mr. Mahnic said is exactly right. He stated the only thing we are looking at at this point is whether we want to leave it as R-1 or whether we want to go to a PUD. He stated the plans they have are not final. He stated they don’t even meet our ordinance according to the report he received from our Interim Director. He stated they may have to change some sizes if he understands this correctly. He stated he doesn’t quite follow why they don’t have a cul-de-sac at the end of Edgewood Drive. He stated he realizes this is a concept plan and the Commission isn’t voting on that at this time.

Mr. Bucko stated looking at this and being a pretty active part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan he in fact was one that was in favor of clustering homes rather than continuing sprawl whenever we can. He stated this is not the plot, this is not the density but a conceptual on a PUD and his feelings is that he thinks that it can be supported to be created as a Planned Unit Development. He stated he thinks that it is favorable.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problem with the rezoning but he would like to go on record that his concern is the number of homes.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has to say he has very similar comments. He stated he does have some concerns with the plan but then again we are not looking at the plan at this point. He stated the clustering idea and the concept idea of putting the homes in area conserving the wetlands he definitely agrees with. He stated he does have some questions especially on backfill issues along the east property line and preserving the trees. He stated they need to take a close look at what problems you can cause with backfilling. He stated this can cause some definite problems with the root systems of existing trees. He stated this is something that he urges the developer to take a look at and think about and make some plans around.

Mr. Breitzke stated the primary consideration here tonight is the compatibility of the proposed PUD with the surrounding land uses. He stated the book goes on to describe some other facets of that which eventually evolve into a primary plat. He stated this is the important thing to remember as Mr. Mahnic eloquently put it that we are here strictly to make a recommendation to the Commissioners. He stated also to give some kind of direction for the benefit of the surrounding area. He stated he has a history of being involved with all kinds of engineering and he has dealt with lift stations. He stated the modern lift stations have greatly improved as far as odor control, capacity, liability. He stated they have a lot of stop caps if they don’t perform. He stated there are some fine engineering firms involved with Shorewood Utilities. He stated namely Ness Engineering was involved and they may still be involved and they are very reputable from that standpoint. He stated he trusts whoever is engaged in the engineering that it will be a very reliable system and state of the art. He stated this is what we require and the State requires. He stated the technology has greatly improved. He stated that he has the same issues with the cut and fill and how they are going to balance it out. He stated he does applaud any effort to create some kind of space, recreational space or set aside for purposes other than lawns for the betterment of the community.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 03-PUD-1 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes

Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on February 4, 2003 at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. Detert moved to continue having one Plan Commission meeting per month and a second meeting could be held on the fourth Wednesday if necessary. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest: Stephen P. Nigro
Interim Director/Zoning Inspector