PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
February 12, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Mike Herzog, Frank Mahnic, Bob Poparad, Commissioner Larry Sheets and Kevin Breitzke, President. Staff members present were Stephen P. Nigro, Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the January 8, 2003, minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Mr. Mahnic stated that last month we had the Annual Report put out by the Commission's staff. He stated that it was voted, over his objection, because he didn't have a chance to read it. He stated that this evening he would like to offer one thing to the people who are here and for the record. He stated this staff has done a very fine job. He stated he is not talking about this Commission. He stated he is talking about the people who work upstairs. He stated we contributed from the total receipts for permits, what was left over was $124,402 and that went into the General Fund. He stated we all know how strapped we are for money. He stated he thought compared to the previous year that was some $52,000 more. He stated that tells you that these people back here and upstairs do a hell of a job for us. He stated he does want the record to indicate that.

Pending Business:

Case 03-SE-1. Inspection Committee Report for Kankakee Valley REMC, 114 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 157, Wanatah, for a Special Exception to permit a utility substation, t be located on the West side of Baum's Bridge Road, between SR 8 and CR 850 S. in Pleasant Township, Porter County, Indiana.

At this time, Mr. Nigro read the Inspection Committee Report.



Mr. Mahnic moved to forward Case 03-SE-1 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Street name change of Sawdust Trail to Country Creek Trail in Country Creek Subdivision.

Nathan Grant stated he lives at 306 E. 1050 N., Chesterton. He stated for practical purposes of keeping things simple they would like to change the street name of Sawdust Trail to Country Creek Trail.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Nigro if this has been verified with 911 and other entities that have issues with street names.

Mr. Nigro stated he hasn't received any feedback from them on whether or not this would be a problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated what we can do is entertain a motion to make it contingent on.

Commissioner Sheets moved to approve the street name change from Sawdust Trail to Country Creek Trail contingent upon receiving a letter from 911 and any other entity that would need to know about this name change such as the Post Office. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-FP-1. Petition of Aberdeen Ltd. Partnership, 225 Aberdeen Drive, Suite D, Valparaiso, Indiana for a Twentieth Replat of Aberdeen, being a replat of Lots VC-17A1A and C-23A of the Thirteenth Replat at Aberdeen to be located at SR 2 and Division Road in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (22 lots on 4.412 acres.)

Barb Young stated she is the President of Benchmark Limited and they are the developers of Aberdeen. She stated the area that is highlighted in orange is the four acres that is the subject of this replat. She stated it was originally included in the Planned Residential Development and it was originally the site for multi-family. She stated that this site was subsequently moved to the area called the "Hills." She stated they are now proposing to create an expansion of the "Village" area with single-family residences. She stated it will be 22 lots on the four acres. She stated this does come to the Plan Commission with a recommendation from TAC.

Commissioner Sheets stated that he is glad to see that we are coming to the end of this.


Mr. Mahnic stated he has no problem with this.

Mr. Detert stated that he has no problem.

Mr. Burns stated that he sees no problem.

Mr. Herzog stated he has no problem or questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated it looks good to him.

Mr. Breitzke stated he was on TAC and they reviewed it. He stated Ms. Young said that they have been through twenty or so of these and he thinks that we are fine.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-FP-1. Commissioner Sheets seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-FP-2. Petition of Wittmer Family Trust, c/o Don Bengel, 73 E. Division Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Boynton Acres Subdivision to be located on the East side of Sturdy Road, between Division Road and CR 100 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 4 lots on 10 acres. Zoned RR.)

Don Bengel stated he is here on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Boynton who are purchasing this 10-acre parcel. He stated nothing is changed on the plat. He stated they made some changes on the road going in as a result of the primary plat hearing and Mr. Sheets comments. He stated this was forwarded from TAC and there is a letter from the Highway Department agreeing to a sum for the performance bond of $27,000.

Commissioner Sheets asked if there was anything changed.

Mr. Bengel stated no.

Commissioner Sheets stated he has no problem with this.

Mr. Mahnic asked if there were any variances with this.

Mr. Bengel stated they were granted a variance for the private road.

Mr. Mahnic asked if the road will be built to County Standards.

Mr. Bengel stated that it will have full depth and it will be 20-feet wide.


Commissioner Sheets moved to approve Case 03-FP-2. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 02-FP-16. Petition of Sweetwater Properties, LLC, P.O. Box 66, Crown Point, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Damon Run Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 60 lots on 40.377 acres. Zoned R-1 con't from 1-8-03.)

Mr. Breitzke stated that this case will not be heard this evening. He stated the petitioner has asked for a continuance.

Case 03-PUD-1. Petition of Jeff Ban, 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.

Attorney Schaefer stated she is going to pass out to each member proposed findings and recommendations that are required by State Statute and our Ordinance. She stated the Commission must make a written recommendation to the County Commissioners so she put together from our Ordinance and from State Statute all of the criteria which are required for the members to consider before either recommending or not recommending this PUD to the County Commissioners. She stated she is hoping that this will help everyone to focus on exactly what the Commission needs to consider each time. She stated some of the attorneys that regularly do appear here she faxed copies of this to them. She stated she has asked them to bring with them their version of how they meet all of these things that the Commission needs to consider before making or not making a favorable recommendation. She stated hopefully Mr. Leeth has brought his and you can compare it to what you are listening to and then make your own notations. She stated for discussion purposes she can put together whether it is recommended or not in proper form so that the Commissioners are fully informed when they make a decision.

Mr. Leeth stated he is here this evening on behalf of Edgewood Limited Liability Company who is the developer of


Edgewood Planned Unit Development. He stated with him is Jeff Ban from DBG. He stated they are the project engineer and design specialists with regard to the Planned Unit Development. He stated their purpose is one to return to the Commission. He stated if you recall on January 8, 2003, the Commission made a favorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to rezone the 24 acres to a Planned Unit Development. He stated they presented to you a document or a drawing that was on the board at that time and this was called a site improvement plan. He stated it looked a lot like a plat of subdivision. He stated the site improvement plan is a term of art that comes straight out of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. He stated they also submitted to the Commission at that time, on January 8, a Plan Unit Development District Ordinance and Written Commitments. He stated they followed the procedure and submitted those to Mr. Nigro. He stated Mr. Nigro set it for public hearing and then they went to TAC. He stated that they did all of the preliminary things. He stated they came before the Commission on January 8 and received the Commission's recommendation after the public hearing. He stated they moved on to the Board of Commissioner's. He stated when they arrived at the Board of Commissioner's on February 4 it was evident to all concern, particularly the County Attorney, Gwenn Rinkenberger and the three County Commissioners, that this Body didn't scrutinize the PUD District Ordinance and make the written criteria that your Counsel just mentioned. He stated the Commissioner's continued the matter and sent it back to the Plan Commission with hopes that they can return to the Commissioner's on February 18, which is a very short time frame. He stated in the interim, after February 4, when they appeared before the Board of Commissioners, two days later on February 6, he met with Ms. Rinkenberger and Attorney Schaefer. He stated they went through the process and he thinks that they were all in agreement as to what the process should be and how to make the necessary corrections. He stated following that on February 7 they appeared before TAC. He stated Mr. Breitzke was there as well as Mr. Nigro and they went through the Planned Unit Development. He stated that TAC made three suggested changes to the PUD District Ordinance and they have done that. He stated what they have handed out to the members with the packet tonight is the revisions that were just made at the suggestion of TAC to the District Ordinance and


to the Written Commitments. He stated also on February 7 he received a fax from Ms. Schaefer with regards to the Commission's suggested evaluation criteria. He stated with that he thinks that they are current sitting here this evening on the 12th of February. He stated he has provided to the Commission before the meeting began a packet of documents. He stated the first document is their suggestion as how they meet the fifteen enumerated criteria that comes right out of your Planned Unit Development Ordinance. He stated the Planned Unit District Ordinance, which is another term of art right from your PUD Ordinance. He stated this is the document that they asked and will be asking the Board of Commissioner's to adopt. He stated this is the document that by reference verifies or certifies and makes part of the ordinance that site improvement plan that the Commission saw, which shows the layout of the Planned Unit Development with the open space, the lots carved out with the streets etc. He stated this is referenced in this ordinance. He stated the County's PUD Ordinance also requires that they have the written commitment, which is kind of a sister document that goes with the PUD District Ordinance. He stated this has been provided to you. He stated the last thing that he has provided to you in the packet of handouts is the sanitary sewer service agreement. He stated, as you will recall from the public hearing on the 8th of January this project is surrounded on three sides by Shorewood Forest. He stated while they don't touch the south and the west borders of the property directly they are within close proximity in those two directions and they touch immediately and are contiguous to their development on the east side. He stated he thought it was important to provide to you this agreement because this agreement is dated June 19, 2002 but it was started nearly two years before that and in some circumstances discussions were even predated that. He stated there was a period of negotiations between Edgewood and Limited Liability Company, the petitioner tonight, and Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association and Shorewood Forest Utilities. He stated through all of that process and the many months and indeed years of negotiations they finally after public with the community and so forth they came up with a signed agreement. He stated that he wanted the Commission members to each have an individual copy. He stated it has been in the file forever, but he wanted the members to have a copy. He stated it is important to show


what this document does and how it identifies and protects Shorewood Forest and this is why they signed into and onto this agreement. He stated first it says in here in paragraph 7 in the agreement that the Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association and Shorewood Forest Utilities supports and urges adoption of this project. He stated it specifically describes this specific project and the number of lots, 50 lots, within the Planned Unit Development, as they have shown on their site improvement plan to the Commission at the public hearing. He stated it also says and places some restrictions on them. He stated on the eastern property line they have nine lots. He stated those nine lots are essentially the R-1 size lots. He stated they match identically the number of lots that are in Shorewood Forest on the opposite side of the property line. He stated this obviously was something that was done as a concession by his client to Shorewood Forest to get them to agree to this agreement. He stated there are also other things with regards to screening along that same property line. He stated the housing types are defined in the agreement. He stated they must be architecturally consistent with the drawings provided to them in their numerous meetings with Shorewood Forest. He stated Shorewood Forest Utilities has agreed to service the project. He stated those things are all set forth in this agreement from June of 2002. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the Commission is aware of just the level of detail negotiation that his client has gone through before they even came to the public hearing on January 8 to get the Commission's favorable recommendation on the PUD Ordinance.

Commissioner Sheets stated the Board of Commissioners, with their attorney, have received petitions for PUD's and they were not getting what the ordinance called for. He stated they finally caught up to the inaction and asked that it be corrected. He stated they appreciate Mr. Leeth and other attorneys getting involved as well as our own Plan Commission Attorney. He stated we have to do this to make it legal and the Commissioners have the opportunity to get in writing what took place here and they get a better feel of the PUD. He stated his question would be since Mr. Leeth provided the answers or response to the ordinance, since this was voted on last month in a favorable vote, can we just adopt this.


Attorney Schaefer stated you may do that. She stated if you are presented the findings and the recommendations by the attorney for the developer and you agree with them substantially, you can adopt the ones that they present. She stated you can also say in your discussion that you adopt them with the exception that under 1 (b) or so forth, you would like this change here or there. She stated that this makes it much clearer and describes in great detail what the plan is.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is still thinking about this because he just got this tonight. He stated he feels that this development that they have proposed here does not fit into the area over there. He stated we have large lots all around this place, large homes and now we are going to build small homes. He stated the density, as far as he is concerned, is very dense. He stated he knows that we are looking at the people who are golden agers and the empty nesters who like to have a little house. He stated as far as he is concerned we have to protect the people who have a big investment all around there. He stated these are very small homes. He stated these are possibly a home on a quarter acre of land. He stated in the center it is very dense. He stated it doesn't jive with him. He stated it says here that many of the lots don't meet minimum requirements for single-family residential requirements under PUD Development Ordinance. He stated this is what our staff tells us and he has to agree with that. He stated that they are not going to be in agreement with the side setbacks. He stated they are not going to be in compliance with the minimum size and lot width. He stated we are also going to have an unknown here for coverage. He stated you can't cover more than 35% of the lot. He stated he would like to approve the rezone but he doesn't like the layout.

Mr. Leeth stated as he addressed at the public hearing it is his opinion that this is not a dense development. He stated there are small lots without a doubt and this is true, but this is not a dense development. He stated that he believes the numbers that he quoted to the Commission at the public hearing suggested that if we use gross density this project could generate 95 lots. He stated this is misleading and he admits that. He stated that the rule of thumb is that a developer can develop approximately 75% of the gross density. He stated that 75% of 95 is 71 lots.


He stated that if you take that rule of thumb this project can generate approximately 70 or 71 lots. He stated they have 50 lots. He stated the reason that the lots are small is because there is an 11.91-acre open space wetland area. He stated the wetland is frankly .3 or .4 acres in size. He stated the open space that they are preserving around it is over 11 acres, nearly 12 acres in size. He stated that this area is clearly developable, but this client has chosen to set that aside. He stated for that they are asking the Commission to allow them to have smaller lots on the interior without adjoining the existing Shorewood Forest homes and this is part of the agreement with the Property Owners Association. He stated it is not a dense development. He stated that it is a Planned Unit Development that is allowed to have the flexibility. He stated the County's own Comprehensive Plan suggests this. He stated under your Land Use Plan is in a Conservation Development area. He stated in that the ordinance suggests that the Land Use Plan recommends that the county adopt incentives to encourage the clustering of homes and the preservation of open space. He stated that this is exactly what this plan is doing. He stated he doesn't believe that this is a dense development.

Attorney Schaefer stated as each member discusses the different aspects the purpose of this is that this is right out of our ordinance. She stated this is what everyone should be familiar with anyway if they are members of the Commission. She stated if we have comments to make you need to stick with the criteria, one through fifteen, and say this one isn't met because of this. She stated this way the record is clear as to what this Commission thinks about the development. She stated it is really important to do that instead of making a general statement. She stated we have to stick to what the criteria are and if we have comments we need to reference what they are.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has referenced his remarks to some of the things that our attorney put forth. He stated if he is looking at this and then at Shorewood it certainly doesn't fit into what Shorewood was developed. He stated that he does know you have the agreement between the Shorewood Homeowners Association and the developers, but if he doesn't have his say on to how he feels relative to these questions or his own questions before he got this, he feels that he is not satisfied.

Mr. Detert stated he understands where Mr. Mahnic is coming from but the other side of the coin is the market is driving these particular types of homes and you see them popping up all over. He stated in his opinion he thinks that they are compatible in a sense that this is what people really want who are empty nesters or people without children.

Mr. Bucko stated at the last meeting when this was before us he was in favor and he supported it simply because he felt it belonged and it followed the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated he hasn't seen or read one bit of what has been written down on this document here. He stated he has to understand and fully believe that he understands what is in this thing. He stated that he doesn't know if this is an issue here with the members of this Board.

Commissioner Sheets stated that the meeting was held in the month of January and the vote was 6-0 in favor of it. He stated they had a public hearing and he was not here, but he did read the minutes that everyone was in favor of it. He stated they were not in the favor of the plan but in favor of the rezoning. He stated he thinks that it was Mr. Mahnic's comments that at a later date there would be an opportunity to visit the plan. He stated they have to bring this plan forward. He stated when this first portion, the rezoning part, came before the Commissioners, there was a problem of not getting the proper information. He stated that this is not the first one, but the second one where we had a problem of getting the proper information. He stated that they thought they would send this document back, since the Commission already voted 6-0. He stated that they thought this would be a procedural question not one of opening a public hearing and say what we like and don't like about it, but so that we can adopt a procedure that is already in our ordinance and get it back to the Commissioners by the next meeting. He stated it is a legal question from the standpoint of the County Attorney.

Mr. Bucko stated he then has no problem.



Mr. Burns stated he has no problem.

Mr. Herzog stated he has no questions.

Mr. Biddinger stated in light of that last comment he is a little uncomfortable with all this paper being thrown at us, but for procedural he accepts that.

Commissioner Sheets stated that in hope out of due respect that you would not think that the Commissioner's and he in particular would shove anything down your throat. He stated if you have not voted on this and not had the public hearing and if the vote had not been 6-0 then it would have been handled in a different manner.

Attorney Schaefer stated the anticipation is that in the future when you first get it and when there is a public hearing you are going to have the same thing as Mr. Leeth has submitted. She stated the anticipation is when a public hearing is held is that the petitioners attorney is going to go through each one of these and summarize for you how the particular project meets everything and why they are saying what is said in there so it won't be like this one. She stated it will follow along so that the remonstrators can also comment if there are any and we can make coherent decision that anyone reading our minutes and what our vote was knows why we did it in relation to the ordinance.

Mr. Leeth stated the reason he went through the time-out-line with you at the beginning of this meeting was so the Commission would know the changes to the PUD District Ordinance that is in front of you were made on February 7. He stated you had a copy of the previous draft that was originally filed when the Plan Commission application was filed months ago. He stated the changes that were made that he passed out tonight were made at the request of TAC last Friday. He stated Ms. Schaefer suggested to us that we do the written findings and gave them their form last Friday. He stated that he couldn't prepare this and gotten to you any quicker then bringing it to you tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated one things that was brought up at TAC that was left out of the previous document were sidewalks. He stated they made extraordinary effort to reach out to the community around them and although there are still some issues we have to resolve with the preliminary plat that will come back to this Commission to review for the engineering and some of the drainage issues. He stated some of the issues that need to be covered in here such as having the sidewalks have been added.

Commissioner Sheets moved to forward Case 03-PUD-1 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated that this is a unique situation and we are trying to play catch to what we did before. He stated he would like to comment that in the future he would like to have these attorney recommendations before the meeting.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has a question on the motion. He stated we are talking rezone for the purpose of putting in a PUD. He stated we are not approving anything that you have as far as all the drawings that he has received or the brochures. He stated we are strictly talking recommendation for a rezone to the County Commissioners.

Mr. Leeth stated that this is correct, consistent with the PUD Ordinance that was presented.

Motion carried on unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing.

Case 02-P-14. Petition of Sweetwater Development, LLC, P.O. Box 66, Crown Point, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Damon Run Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 162 lots on 75 acres. Con't from 1-8-03.)

Todd Etzler stated he is with Burke, Costanza & Cuppy. He stated he has with him this evening, John Kremke of


Duneland Group who is our engineer. He stated they represent Sweetwater Properties. He stated they are here for primary plat approval on a subdivision, which is different than the Planned Unit Development issues that you have just listened to. He stated this doesn't have the discretion and all of the long list of findings of fact that you need to find in the Planned Unit Development issues. He stated they have submitted a subdivision primary plat for Damon Run shown here on the tripod. He stated this is a R-1 parcel approximately 75-acres, which contains several outlots which you see in green there. He stated this contains approximately 21 acres, plus or minus. He stated the entire subdivision contains 162 lots. He stated it is located in the north part of the county on the southeast quadrant of Meridian Road and CR 900 N. He stated is as you see what you may call a clustered development because the green areas that you see there have specific topographical aspects to it. He stated they have either environmental issues with them or topographical issues with them. He stated what they have done is left those places as open space in their subdivision. He stated with this parcel they have access to the parcel at two points. He stated one is off of Meridian Road to the west and one is off of CR 900 N. to the north. He stated at the request of TAC the developer has platted no access lines along portions of Meridian Road and CR 900 N. so that access to this subdivision may only take place along certain portions of the subdivision mainly where you see the present access place as shown with the proposed streets that they have in the subdivision. He stated the property will be served with water and with sewer. He stated a conservancy district will provide the sanitary sewer and they will be bringing that down Meridian Road. He stated they will have a force main sewer. He stated within the subdivision there will be a gravity fed sewer. He stated this property will not have the septic systems that are often found in subdivisions developed within the county. He stated the water will be provided by Indiana American Water Company so therefore they will not have wells throughout this property. He stated the open spaces that you see there also contain low areas. He stated the property has been designed in order that each of those open spaces will be to handle and detain the water that exists throughout the development and also will contain water as the property gets fully developed. He stated when he is finished here Mr. Kremke will discuss the details of how the storm drainage will work. He stated essentially the property to the west of that diagonal line, which is a ditch, will drain towards the west and everything else will be draining towards the east. He stated that ditch right now is an open swale that runs throughout the property. He stated they have through design discussions with TAC, put together a plan where that ditch will be relocated to the east portion of the parcel and will be partially swaled at the north part of the property and at the south part of the property and will be piped under ground in between each of those points. He stated Mr. Kremke will discuss the quality improvements that accrue to that swaling affect of the water and also discuss the flow that presently goes through the existing ditch is reduced through the relocated ditch. He stated this subdivision in a different form came before the Commission in 2002. He stated during those hearings there were several issues brought up by the public and the Plan Commission. He stated this new development here takes care of many of those issues. He stated the number of lots in the last subdivision was 191 lots. He stated this property has been reduced to 162 lots. He stated this is a significant reduction in the number of lots within the subdivision. He stated lot sizes throughout the subdivision have been increased. He stated there were some variances for many of the lots on side yard setbacks and front yard setbacks. He stated all of those variances have been removed. He stated they are no longer requesting any variances on side yard or front yard setbacks. He stated along CR 900 N. there were in the original design, a finger of 9 lots along CR 900 N. He stated they essentially in through here had shared driveways so there were about four or five drives that came off on CR 900 N. He stated at the request of this Body and TAC they have removed all nine of those lots. He stated there will be only one access now and there will not be the additional access points along there. He stated the removal of those lots also assisted in helping an issue that came up about having the neighborhood access that part, the green space, along the northwest part of the parcel. He stated this does have an area that is wet at times and there was a concern that the people in the subdivision would not have the ability to access that area because it is wet and there is no dry land. He stated in



the point where they took away those nine lots that is dry land. He stated Mr. Kremke will now discuss the storm water flow throughout the subdivision.

John Kremke stated storm water is always one of the sensitive issues in development and he is going to spend some time giving some detail on the storm water system in Damon Run. He stated the storm water is going to be collected in the roads with curb and gutter conveyed to under ground pipes to two separate detention basins. He stated the larger detention basin again is up in the northwest corner about 15-acres in ground. He stated the secondary detention basin, which takes a small amount of the storm water from the development is located on the bottom. He stated it is roughly about 1.5 acres in ground. He stated the developer has elected in Damon Run to hold himself to much stricter design standards in terms of storm water release and water quality issues then the current standards and ordinances then the County called for. He stated such as the case in the north detention basin, which itself is primarily a wetland area. He stated it is about 15-acres and it accommodates a majority of the storm water in the development. He stated it is going to release the storm water in an existing storm pipe. He stated the significant meaning for that is that the storm water leaving that area, the amount of storm water is not going to change. He stated it is going to remain the same that it does because the outlet pipe is not going to change. He stated in fact, the outlet pipe permits the water to leave that portion of development at less than 7% of what is permitted in County ordinances. He stated the southern detention basin will release at the permitted 10-year rate. He stated the aggregate release from this subdivision is less than 40% of what is permitted to be released from the development. He stated another issue too, which is particular to this development, and again is a standard that the developer has held himself to, is increase storm water run off quality. He stated the development is going to adhere to NPDES Phase Two storm water quality best management practices. He stated those include but are not limited to grass line swales in the detention basins both to slow down the storm water and a lot of times for sediments to filter out the use of existing wetlands to filter sediments and impurities and also the establishment of special wetland vegetation in the relocated portion of the ditch. He stated another issue that is particular to this development is that the developer has discussed improving portions of the ditch, south of this property with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Loren Dzur. He stated they did meet with Mr. Dzur and discussed the cooperative effort to clean several hundred feet of the ditch off-site from this property on Mr. Dzur's property. He stated one of the reason's is to improve the flow and the other issue again is to plant some special vegetation in there that will help filter and clean impurities out of the storm water as it passes through there. He stated this is some of the significant benefits that this development will have on storm water in the area and it should result in an overall improvement for the entire neighborhood.

Mr. Etzler stated those items are the basis of the subdivision. He stated the subdivision, as he stated earlier, will have a water supply so there are no wells and it will also have sanitary sewer so there is no septic systems. He stated in the County's ordinance there is a permitted reduction in the size of the lots for providing those amenities. He stated he thinks that this Board has stated in the past that finding subdivisions and providing those amenities is superior to having well and septic. He stated there are two variances requested in this. He stated there is a variance to request the lot sizes for several of the lots, or many of the lots, but a reduced number from the last time, are smaller lots than are permitted under the ordinance. He stated also the front building lines they are requesting no less than 70-foot front building line on each of the properties. He stated in order to obtain a variance under the County's ordinance it requires them to show that there are certain impracticalities to the property that makes it impractical to construct under the ordinance terms and secondly show that the particular design considerations enhance the development. He stated what is shown here is having the 21± acres of open space. He stated this is one of those enhancements that they can provide and it is also one of those areas of impracticality that if the topography of that land does not permit you to build on it then they are clustering the development so they can still get the lots that are required in this property within the remaining buildable area. He stated those two variances are requested. He stated that the Commission can see that the subdivision will be a quality development. He stated they have significantly reduced the number of lots from the last time it came through.

J.F. Schrader stated he lives 978 Meridian Road. He stated everything is based on these two wetlands and he would like to know where the second one is. He stated he thinks that the subdivision plat is out of order. He stated there was a hearing on this subdivision in July of 2002, at which time the Board turned down the subdivision. He stated he thinks that they should wait twelve months before they have a rehearing on this subdivision. He stated he sees one wetland or holding pond and you are draining the subdivision everything west of the present. He stated the north arm of Damon Run is draining into that wetland. He stated that wetland drains, according to the watershed map, to the west and into Arm Three of Swanson Lamport Ditch. He stated in fact the whole subdivision, just about the whole green part of the subdivision, drains west. He stated they are draining it into this wetland, although the County spent $40,000 to alleviate drainage problems at the corner of Meridian and CR 900 N. He stated they are draining the water to the wrong water shed. He stated they are draining the water to the Damon Run water shed. He stated another point is they are putting in another 100-feet of six-foot tube to replace the North Arm of Damon Run. He stated he sees no permit from the Army Corps of Engineers from the Indiana Wetland Control Board for this change. He stated he thinks that before the Board acts on this subdivision they should see the fact that they are able to reroute that stream. He stated you just don't reroute a stream on the drop of a hat. He stated you have to get permits from IDEM and from the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated to put in 1100 feet of tube is going to create quite a congestion of water.

Robert Walstra stated that he lives at 700 Woodlawn Ave. He stated he has a farm on CR 900 N. He stated the culvert that they are talking about where are they going to have the protection on both ends of it, which is more or less going to be illegal anyhow, unless they get the permit from the Corps of Engineers. He stated to keep someone from accidentally getting in there you would have to have a safety gate that either the Fire Department or the Police Department would have a key to get in there in case of emergency's. He stated also he is against it because it is a natural habitat there. He stated there are plenty of deer in there and all kinds of wildlife. He stated they were talking about coming down Campbell Street or Meridian Road. He asked if they had the permit to go into the Chesterton sewer plant and does the sewer plant have enough volume to take care of this in the future. He stated the watershed is in the Swanson Lamport in the north side of it and it eventually gets into Damon Run. He stated this here would flood out Loren Dzur on the bottom where that retention pond is. He asked if the water is going to be drinkable because Mr. Dzur's cattle drinks out of the stream. He asked if they are going to provide water for his cattle down there.

Don Tracy stated he lives at 153 W. 850 N. Liberty Township. He stated the engineer uses percentages. He stated he says that they are allowed 70% of allowable drainage.

Mr. Breitzke stated that they said 7%.

Mr. Tracy asked if anyone knew what the legal limit is that is allowed for this. He stated to the Commission that they are going to be voting on this and they should know how much moisture that will be discharged. He stated they are in the same area as Fox Chase Farms. He stated Fox Chase Farms was never questioned. He stated their wetlands mound system, which was the latest thing under the sun at that time; they would discharge one acre-foot of water every eight days. He stated an acre-foot of water is 43,560 square feet one foot deep. He stated this is what Fox Chase Farms wetlands mound system is discharging. He stated this land has the same type of soil and the same type of wetlands. He asked why do they need a six-foot tile to get rid of water. He stated they are expecting one hell of a lot of water to come off of that piece of property. He stated he knows that sewage is neither the Commission's problem nor the Drainage Board's problem.

Loren Dzur stated he lives at 875 N. Meridian. He stated they did come out and talk about helping him open the ditch up, which is badly needs. He stated they are saying that they are going to have gravity flow of water on the runoff from the streets. He stated he wants to know is how are they going to flow that water in the back to the ponds when two-thirds of that is all lower than the pond up on the top. He stated that the pond below is not big enough to take the bottom share there. He asked what are they going to do with the wash water. He asked if the bath water, the wash water and the shower water was going to go into the septic or to Chesterton or pumped out on the lawns. He stated the bottom half next to Meridian has a tile out of there and the tile is plugging up. He stated if that row of houses along there all pump their sump water out the back it is all going to come down the hill onto him. He stated if they pump that water into the sewer and take it to Chesterton he will be free of it. He asked how were they going to drain the pond on the bottom. He asked where is that going to go.

Frank Sessa stated he lives at 300 Park Avenue, Chesterton. He stated their sewer treatment plant is being expanded and they have more than enough capacity to take in the sewage from Damon Run. He stated they are guaranteed 100,000 gallons to start with and in three years they have an option to take another 100,000 gallons and they will have another option further down the line if they want and need it. He stated there is plenty of capacity for their sewage and they are going to have Indiana American Water. He stated he believes that it is important that eventually there is going to be fire hydrants out in Liberty Township. He stated besides Damon Run there are a lot of new developments out in Damon Run. He stated he thinks it is important that city water and fire hydrants be extended into areas that are being developed with a fairly dense residential population. He stated he thinks that insurance rates are considerably lower when there are fire hydrants with good reason. He stated he knows that this is a change for people who are used to rural living. He stated at one point Mr. Dzur was concerned about the bypassing, when there was a previous plan, from the sewer treatment plant. He stated that this was no longer an issue. He stated after that meeting Mr. Dzur said well in affect really pesticides are a greater problem then sewer bypassing, which they are.

Mr. Etzler stated in August of 2002 there was a hearing and a determination at that time that the plan was not acceptable and was denied. He stated as he stated earlier this is different than a PUD, different than a rezoning, different than a variance or BZA proceeding. He stated under their subdivision ordinance under the State this Body is to discuss the problems with the plat and if there are problems with the plat they have the opportunity to come back and fix those problems. He stated in order to do that "findings of fact" should be entered in case of a denial of the subdivision so the developer can come back and fix all of those problems. He stated there is no time period for a subdivision under our State Statutes to come back and fix it. He stated the intent is to tell them what the problems are and have them fix it. He stated in the ordinance under State Law you can impose in terms of perhaps a BZA variance that the same type of variance cannot be requested in twelve months. He stated however, there is a second acceptance to this that applies to this proceeding. He stated if the plan comes in and it is substantially different from the one that they had before then the Plan Commission could hear them. He stated if they were to come back and simply put the old plan in and do it month after month and hopefully some day they will get the right number of people to come and vote for it. He stated there obviously would be a problem in doing that. He stated in this case they have a substantial reduction in the number of lots. He stated they have removed side yard and front yard setbacks. He stated that they have increased the size of lots. He stated this is a substantial different plan from what you took a look at in August. He stated Mr. Walstra asked about the natural habitats. He stated one of the amenities of this property is that they are preserving 21± acres for area that would have that type of natural habitat. He stated Mr. Walstra asked about the sewer plant volume and you heard the gentleman from Chesterton. He stated they have had correspondence with Chesterton from many months back and it is all indications that the capacity is there. He stated they made arrangements to reserve that capacity for this subdivision. He stated for sanitary sewer purposes capacity exists. He stated Mr. Tracy indicated that there were too many sewer plants in the area. He stated Mr. Tracy was referring to Fox Chase Farms. He stated this subdivision will be served by sanitary sewer. He stated they are not going to have private sewer plants out here. He stated this is a concern that they don't have to worry about. He stated Mr. Dzur asked about gray water, water from showers or other types of water coming from the household. He stated this will be displaced through the sanitary sewers, which will go through the Chesterton conservancy plants. He stated water from sump pumps are not permitted to be put into sanitary sewer systems. He stated that they will be let out just as in water in any other subdivision in any municipality or the county. He stated if they have sump pumps that will be let out on the yards. He stated it will become part of the general storm water flow that occurs in the subdivision and be handled in the methods that Mr. Kremke will talk about.

Mr. Kremke stated Mr. Schrader where the second basin is. He stated this area is the larger basin and the other basin is right down here. He stated he also brought up an issue about drainage direction being changed years ago. He stated he is not quite sure on what that means other than they have evidence in terms of topography and physical features on the site that the drainage is going the way it has gone for a significant amount of time. He stated it seems to be some misunderstanding about the rerouted ditch and the 1100-foot of six-foot pipe. He stated the size of that pipe is not determined by the runoff from their subdivision. He stated as he has explained the water is released from this development at an incredibly smaller rate than it currently does. He stated the size of the culvert is almost solely dependent upon approximately 335-acres of upstream drainage basin away from this development. He stated this drainage basin actually extends south of Hwy 6 about one-half mile. He stated in order to be responsible to accommodate that offsite water that pipe has to be sized as such. He stated it is not at all in any way dependent upon the runoff from this subdivision. He stated it is a completely separate issue. He stated Mr. Walstra talked about the six-foot culvert and that protection and erosion. He stated the installation of any culvert calls for erosion control and protection. He stated that is good engineering practice. He stated you mentioned riprap washing through. He stated riprap is not always the best solution. He stated there are many other better engineering practices to control the erosion and that will be part of that design. He stated Mr. Walstra also brought up the detention basin water quality and some other issues specifically related to Mr. Dzur. He stated he thought he addressed those already but he will repeat them again. He stated in terms of a potential flood to Mr. Dzur, again, they are committing here at this public meeting to clean several hundred feet of ditch through Mr. Dzur's property, which will improve the water flow. He stated they also committed at this meeting publicly to improve water quality throughout those best management practices that he has already described. He stated Mr. Tracy brought up the six-foot culvert. He stated again he has addressed that. He stated the actual discharge figures have been presented to staff and have been reviewed by TAC. He stated they use percentages at this meeting simply because it is much less technical and it is easier for people to understand. He stated Mr. Dzur's property is right here. He stated Mr. Dzur wants to know how the water that is going to run off these back yards are going to get into the detention basin. He stated in order to put this pipe in there is going to be significant amount of over grading and excavation. He stated the water will be intercepted in lot grading and swales and drain into that detention basin so it won't run directly onto Mr. Dzur as it currently does. He stated Mr. Dzur asked how the south drainage basin gets released. He stated this will get released over into this ditch. He stated it gets piped over to the rerouted portion of the ditch, which they will continue to clean this ditch for several hundred feet through Mr. Dzur's property.

Mr. Tracy asked how big is the detention that is going to be at the end of the tile and how deep is it.

Mr. Walstra stated with all that traffic that they are going to have in there and say they only have one car per household and probably more of them will be going to work at one time and come home at one time. He stated the school buses are there and there is going to be so much traffic. He stated that you only have one, more or less, access going out of there that goes up Meridian to Rt. 6. He stated they have a lot of accidents with the traffic that they have there now. He stated they have the train that stops there. He stated he has sat there for twenty minutes waiting for the train to go by. He stated school buses are his main concern with all of the children on there. He stated they are going to have an officer at the exits there during school bus time to direct traffic.



Mr. Dzure stated he has a comment about the tile that they took out of there. He stated the county put that in and it went out to CR 900 N. then east and then to the south into that little ditch. He stated if you are moving that ditch where is the next step out. He asked how deep is that damn going to be that is next to him.

Mr. Schrader stated Mr. Sessa said that Chesterton has plenty of volume for the sewer plant yet the Town of Chesterton doesn't have their storm sewers and their sanitary sewers separated yet. He stated at this time they are still bypassing the plant into the Calumet River. He stated they claim that the new plant that they are building going to take care of this and when are they intending to separate the storm sewers and their sanitary sewers. He stated he thinks that they only have one small portion separated so far. He stated now let's get back to the subdivision. He stated accordingly what Mr. Kremke said and what he has picked up so far the water east of the present north arm of Damon Run is going to go into that little wetland at the bottom. He asked if this was correct. He stated this was his interpretation of it. He stated the wetland at the bottom is not going to hold very much water. He stated he and Mr. Dzur discussed the other day that after you see the water down there at the bottom of that subdivision with the flow from up around SR 49 it will be 12 to 18 inches deep over the entire land. He stated there is going to be a lot of water. He stated then we go up to the wetland where Mr. Dzur was talking about there. He stated there is a tile in there about in the middle of that wetland and the tile runs north. He stated it is a standpipe in there, which was supposed to maintain the water in the wetland. He stated someone cut a hole in the bottom of the standpipe and drained the entire wetland. He stated the water runs north under the lowest part of the wetland on the northwest corner. He stated it runs up to CR 900 N. down CR 900 N. then goes in to the north arm of Damon Run. He stated that is draining water onto the Swanson Lamport watershed into the Damon Run Lamport watershed. He stated it should never run there. He stated you have another wetland down in the southwest corner and that drains down to Arm Three of the Swanson Lamport Ditch through Mr. Dzur's property. He stated there has been no discussion about that because it is not in the Damon Run water shed. He stated it is in the Swanson Lamport water shed. He stated there was a tube across the road at Meridian Road, which drained across the road and into a tile line, which is now in disrepair. He stated it drained to Arm Three of the Swanson Lamport Ditch and it also drained the corner of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road. He stated that no one is addressing this. He stated he thinks Mr. Herzog addressed it the last time about people on the west side of Meridian Road being flooded. He stated this is still there and you are still going to get water out of this subdivision across the road and these people are still going to be flooded. He stated this has not been addressed.

Mr. Kremke stated Mr. Tracy wanted some physical features about this southern detention basin. He stated that this detention basin is approximately a little over an acre of surface and it is about four foot deep in total. H stated Mr. Dzur asked how big was the damn. He stated actually it is not a damn. He stated it starts at the ground surface and is excavated out. He stated it is actually excavated into the ground. He stated Mr. Walstra talked about traffic. He stated they submitted a traffic study done by a traffic engineer. He stated our State or any Department of Transportation designs our highways for levels of between "A" and "E." He stated "A" being the best and "E" being the worst. He stated they typically design our highways at a level of service of "C" or "D." He stated that they are in the middle or toward the lower end of the spectrum. He stated they gage those for a twenty- year life. He stated they calculated the level of service on this intersection of current numbers. He stated that intersection has a level of service a "B" and it is better than our State designs our highways. He stated their entrances on the development have level of service of "A", which is the best you can get. He stated Mr. Dzur and Mr. Walstra both had some questions about this tile. He stated there is a standpipe in this corner of the property that outlets the pipe up to CR 900 N. and then cross's down the road. He stated that this is going to stay in place as he stated in the opening statement. He stated this tile is going to stay there and they are going to utilize it because the nice thing about it is that it holds the water back at a slower rate than is permissible. He stated it is not going to be removed and it is going to be utilized so that the affect of runoff from this north drainage basin is not going to be greater than the pipe allows. He stated Mr. Schrader brought up Chesterton volume and not accepting sewers. He stated that he doesn't think any of us here are qualified to answer that. He stated Chesterton has agreed to service this property and are currently upgrading the treatment plant. He stated they do have plenty of capacity to service this property with sanitary sewer. He stated regarding this southwest wetland if you could see the topographic layout of this property this is a significant portion of this property that drains and it is just a hole in the ground with a tile. He stated obviously the tile goes somewhere because the water builds up and it releases. He stated that what this development does is it impedes the flow of much of that water when it gets there. He stated there is no development occurring there. He stated this development stops a significant portion of that water that drains into that wetland so that the affect is going to be an improvement. He stated this property has been professionally delineated by not one, but two professional delineators. He stated they did locate another wetland up in this portion what they call lot 111. He stated that wetland is being protected.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated when this came before us six months ago he voted against this. He stated he thinks that six others voted against it and one voted in favor of it. He stated none of the things that bothered us at that time came up but he does want to bring them up. He stated he thinks that this plan is a lot better than that one. He stated the homes on CR 900 N. are no longer going to be bothering the Sanders and their farming operation across the street. He stated the density has been greatly reduced and he understands the cost to bring sewer and water in from Chesterton that the developer has a right to make a profit, pay that bill but yet make a profit. He stated he remembers their discussion about drainage to the south and he asked the developer to meet with the gentleman to the south and at that time the developer never committed to cleaning the ditch. He stated now they have made that commitment in a public meeting as part of the record and he thinks that is good. He stated there may need to be some more dialog between the developer and the property owner to the south. He stated he thinks the fact that the developer is bringing water and sewer down there goes well for everybody. He stated he wishes he had municipal water and sewer, but he doesn't. He stated his questions are this. He asked who is going to maintain the ditches and standpipes and the tiles that exists now. He asked what kind of a system do you have in place.

Mr. Kremke stated they have already been to the Drainage Board a couple of time on the relocated ditch and this will become a regulated drain as will the small detention basin on the south. He stated the discussion with the Drainage Board is that they are willing to accept that as a regulated drain. He stated the Property Owners Association will maintain the rest of the drainage in the development including the standpipe and the wetland to the north.

Commissioner Sheets stated one of the problems that we had at the very first meeting was the water going to the west. He asked if Mr. Kremke could say it one more time on how they are going to improve that situation.

Mr. Kremke stated the improvement for the water going to the west is that currently a significantly larger portion of the property…in fact Mr. Dzur demonstrated that a portion of this as well as this currently goes into that property. He stated as part of developing a site we all know the drainage patterns and contours get changed. He stated such as roads are built, excavation happens. He stated much of that water is now collected in a road rather than draining in this direction to that pipe. He stated the amount of water draining in there is drastically reduced as a result of all of the excavation and construction on the roads.

Commissioner Sheets asked if this water was going across the road and causing water problems for the fellow on the west side.

Mr. Kremke stated from all the evidence and all the things that they have heard from a lot of people is this water does cross to the west side yet the property owner that had the problem is way up north here.

Mr. Poparad stated he is a little bit further South and it is a little square house. He stated he has seen water all the way up to his doorstep.

Mr. Kremke stated that it is right on the corner.

Mr. Poparad stated that it is a little further south from this subdivision.

Commissioner Sheets asked how they were going to solve this.

Mr. Kremke stated they will be solving it by reducing the amount of water that goes to him drastically. He stated this property is significantly lower than everybody around him. He stated the parcel has some particular issues itself but the thing they could do for this parcel is reduce how much water goes to him. He stated this is what they are doing.

Commissioner Sheets in his opinion they have addressed it but he thinks he raised the question about worrying about water coming onto his property. He stated he appreciates what the developer has done with the changes from last July to now. He stated he thinks that they made very drastic changes and he thanks them for it.

Mr. Poparad asked if there is going to be any more water on Loren then what currently exists.

Mr. Kremke stated actually Mr. Dzur will have less water.

Mr. Poparad stated the homes on the back on the south side, is this where the ditch is that you are talking about.

Mr. Kremke stated currently, if you can see the lines, the ditch does this. He stated it is going to be relocated along the perimeter.

Mr. Poparad asked if this was going to become a legal drain.

Mr. Kremke stated yes.



Mr. Poparad asked if there will be an assessment on the homeowners.

Mr. Kremke stated yes if it is a legal drain there must be.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Breitzke if they would clean it once and awhile.

Mr. Breitzke stated he will get to that in just a minute.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is the one who voted in favor of this project the last time. He stated the point is that he thought reducing the number of lots was a very positive thing. He stated he doesn't know what they could do about the piece of land that gets flooded continuously. He stated they have to wade in the water after they get out of their car to get to the house. He stated at present that is what is there. He stated hopefully this development is not going to contribute to more of it and hopefully they will help to reduce that. He stated he doesn't think that it is the developer's responsibility. He stated he does wish as a developer you could look at that and say you can help. He stated he does know that a lot of water comes down from the area of the Liberty Bible Church. He stated he is not saying from there but from that area. He stated it flows through this area. He stated the only problem is that you, he feels, cannot contribute more than goes off your land now. He stated he believes the drainage questions were answered to the satisfaction of the Drainage Board and to the satisfaction of TAC that you cannot outlet more water than goes through there now. He stated according to their engineering specs they say that they will reduce that. He stated this is appreciated. He stated there is one thing that he has a problem with. He stated he has the old drawing. He stated there are many things that they don't meet the standards on. He stated the secondary, which they are not discussing now, shows the changes, which he thinks they did a disfavor to a lot of people by not bringing in a new preliminary drawing. He stated if you did he is not in receipt of one. He stated they have now made the square footage all in compliance. He stated the only thing they have a problem with is a variance for the width. He stated the water is to his satisfaction. He stated the only thing is that he feels that possibly if he wants to give some relief you could squeeze a few less lots in there. He stated he does know that at one time you people brought up the fact that in order to make this financially feasible with the amount of money they are spending to bring the water and sewer in there you have to have so many homes in order to offset the cost of the development. He stated he feels that a variance would be in order if a motion comes up to give them what you need for Phase I.

Mr. Detert stated he has to agree with the comments that have been made. He stated this has been floating around here for a long time. He stated we now have a much better subdivision before us than we had before. He stated that he sat in at TAC for the two or three meetings of Damon Run. He stated he has faith in TAC and he thinks that everyone has worked very hard on this and he appreciates having a better subdivision now than what we had before.

Mr. Bucko stated the last this came before the Commission he was the one that pointed out the fact that he thought the development was purely stacking as many homes as they could get into it to make it work for them. He stated this has been substantially reduced. He stated he was very concerned about the homes along the north side and this has been reduced. He stated you have given the people some additional green space in there to enjoy and to help the wild life prosper. He stated the water coming across the road was one of the big issues that people found fault with and concern whether it would be more or less going across the road. He stated it sounds to him that it is going to be less. He stated he now found nothing wrong with the site and would tend to support it.

Mr. Burns stated he likes what he sees and they have made a lot of improvements and reduced the number of homes. He stated he agrees with all of the other comments. He stated he is in favor of it.

Mr. Herzog stated that he really does hope that the west side of the road doesn't get any more water on there. He stated there is a lot of water on this property that has to be dealt with and he has to put faith in TAC. He stated he doesn't want to see any more water on Loren's property or on the west side of the road.

Mr. Biddinger stated he still has a lot of concerns about runoff water. He stated when you increase on pervious surfaces in any region you tend to increase not only the water flow. He stated you decrease permeability and increase water flow. He stated he has to admit he has not seen this property and he was not in on the earlier meetings because he wasn't on the Commission. He stated he hopes that they take a good look at the drainage and if you can come up with anything to improve it beyond what you have he would strongly suggest that they keep their eyes open to those ideas.

Mr. Breitzke stated the Drainage Board indicated that they would take the portions of the drain that are in the subdivision and in the relocated pipe as part as an assessed drainage system. He stated however the Drainage Board has no easements beyond it. He stated that this is the trade-off they get in doing development. He stated they get easements given to them and they have access to the ditches. He stated if landowners want to give them easement that would be great because they could probably work out something in order to get onto the property. He stated they still need monies to work with. He stated they cannot buy the easement. He stated that they are not in a position. He stated the Swanson Lamport was brought up and a portion of that is regulated, however, that is not assessed. He stated they are looking into assessing that. He stated Damon Run for this portion actually has a fork down at the south end where they have less than a square mile of water. He stated they had the previous engineer go to the DNR and he was concerned on what is called Construction in a Floodway permit. He stated this is the agency that would be involved with this, however, they created the map that Mr. Schrader had that showed the two areas going in or entering in the subdivision. He stated herein lies the problem. He stated part of the design of this is to bypass water because the water needs to go through. He stated if you stop it up you start backing it up on the other people causing flooding. He stated this isn't water from the development we are largely talking about but the offsite water that needs to bypass. He stated in an attempt to manipulate that we can do more damage to people on the other side. He stated it is a bouncing act of trying to move water along efficiently. He stated sometimes we make an effort to slow it down but our expectation in the case of the subdivision is to deal with the water specific to the site development. He stated in this case the developer has made an effort to detain the water to help slow down the rate. He stated if anything it is improving the overall community situation. He stated this is by our ordinance and by our expectation. He stated the developer has gone beyond that. He stated additionally, the State will pass statutes later this year for storm water runoff. He stated their expectation during development that they will have the best management practices. He stated many of our developers have already been doing that type of thing to collect the silts and the type of things that would come out of the pavements and hopefully improve our water quality across the State and especially in Porter County. He stated he is a big advocate of public water supply for a lot of reasons. He stated the biggest one of being fire protection safety. He stated out in the country, even with a dry hydrant program, that he and Mike Herzog are involved with, throughout the region; we have a hard time without a pumper getting enough pressure out of any existing wells. He stated this will help the ISO or the insurance ratings for the area. He stated there is a benefit for the entire community around this to have public water supply. He stated additionally public wastewater is a good element to have too. He stated someone said something about gray water. He stated he believes it is illegal to expel rainwater in this day and age. He stated it use to be a popular practice then our bacteriologist got together and realized expelling clothes wash water for example had high bacterial counts. He stated sometimes higher than other types of apparatus that you use in your household. He stated there is a real concern. He stated the Health Department particularly, sees that kind of thing and also Indiana Department of Environmental Management are very concerned about people not disconnect. He stated there is no advantage to not running your wastewater through the sanitary sewer system.

Mr. Poparad stated he is assuming that this is going to have public streets. He asked if there are any fire hydrants inside the subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked if the fire hydrants would be down Meridian.

Mr. Breitzke stated he is adamant that they have fire hydrants if they have water there.

Mr. Poparad asked if the dotted green line is the ditch.

Mr. Kremke stated it is actually part ditch part pipe. He stated the reroute curves here and here.

Mr. Breitzke stated they will come back to the Drainage Board and they are already on the agenda for March to set assessment. He stated he also hopes that they keep talking about taking care of the ditch to the south and making some improvements in that.

Mr. Detert recognized Mr. Dzur to speak.

Mr. Dzur stated that he told them if they would dig it he would even help get rid of the brush.

Commissioner Sheets moved to approve Case 02-P-14 with variances on the lot width, a minimum of 70-feet at the building line and for lot area, where needed. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Herzog - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 03-Z-1. Petition of Cory Geck, 113 N. Wisconsin Street, Hobart, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from C-2, Offices & Institutions to C-4, General Business to be located on the North side of U.S. Hwy 20, between CR 300 E. and CR 375 E. in Pine Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Cory Geck stated the reason he wants to rezone the property is because what he wants to do with the property is to build a small car lot. He stated he wants to do an e-bay car lot. He stated it is not going to be a car lot like you would see just driving down the road. He stated he just needs a half a dozen cars on hand and just sell them through e-bay. He stated in order to get in the auto auction he has to be zoned C-4 to be able to get a dealers license.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

John Rukavina stated he lives at 353 E. Rt. 20. He stated he is against this petition. He stated his property is next door to this. He stated this is a dangerous spot because he is right on top of a hill. He stated there have been a lot of accidents there. He stated his daughter got hit just waiting to turn into the drive. He stated for someone going east bound to pull into that property they would have to stop for oncoming traffic going west.

At this time, Mr. Nigro read a letter from the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service stating that they are against this rezone. The letter is in the rezone file.

Mr. Geck stated he is not planning on dumping any kind of chemicals or anything short of washing some cars. He stated this is not going to be a big car lot business.

Mr. Rukavina stated he is under the impression that this is .85 of an acre. He stated isn't there an ordinance that says you have to have an acre for septic.

Mr. Geck stated this has had all of the soil tests and has been approved for septic.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated he certainly respects what our Park system when we have these types of requests come before us. He stated we always ask them and very seldom do they respond. He stated they don't get in the way of the development unless it really is significant detrimentally to them. He stated he would have a problem with this. He stated to Mr. Geck that he said it was .8 of an acre. He stated he thought he seen here where it says the site is 2.33 acres.

Mr. Nigro stated this is what the legal description that was submitted.

Commissioner Sheets asked if we were to rezone this would we rezone 2.33 acres.

Mr. Nigro stated unless they had the legal redrawn to reflect…

Commissioner Sheets stated we are talking about as it is presented today. He stated if it was rezoned to C-4 someone could come in and offer them a lot of money to do something else there. He stated this is his concern. He stated he doesn't want to interfere with a man trying to make a living but he does want to interfere with what the potential could be in a negative manner.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no comment at this time.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is not in favor of rezoning this for a couple of reasons. He stated he doesn't really know what will end up in C-4. He stated he lives just south of this in Jackson Township. He stated Rt. 20 is a road that he stays off of. He stated it is a very dangerous road and there are a lot of accidents there. He stated if there are no deceleration or acceleration lanes coming in and out of this property he is afraid we are looking for accidents. He it is very hazardous.

Mr. Detert stated he feels pretty much the same way that Mr. Mahnic and Commissioner Sheets does. He stated it would be inappropriate to go to C-4.

Mr. Bucko stated he concurs with everything that has been said so far. He stated it is unfortunate that it has to be a C-4 and it can't be handle under a C-2 zoning. He stated it would comply more with what is in place there, but he thinks that this is too much of a radical change.

Mr. Burns stated he agrees with all of the statements that everyone has made.

Mr. Herzog asked if this was a vacant lot right now.

Mr. Geck stated yes. He stated actually the majority of the 2.1 acres is in easements. He stated it is actually .89 acres.



Mr. Herzog asked what are your intentions. He asked if they were going to put up a pole barn.

Mr. Geck stated it would be a two and a half car garage and a bay sitting along side it with a small office up above the garage.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no comment.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to commend Mr. Geck for working towards his dealers' license. He stated however this is not the right place either. He stated it is certainly leaves it susceptible to a lot of future uses if we change it to C-4 regardless of how small the parcel is.

Commissioner Sheets moved to forward Case 03-Z-1 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Herzog - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes Breitzke- Yes

This case will be heard by the Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 1:30 p.m.

Case 03-P-1. Petition of Richard Lahey, 2603 Camilla Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Vintage View Subdivision to be located on the Northwest corner of CR 400 E. and CR 500 N. between CR 300 E. and CR 400 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 5 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of the petitioner Richard Lahey and Nicholas Ditoro. He stated they are developing Vintage View Subdivision. He stated he has provided a copy of the primary plat on the board before you. He stated the property is 10 acres in size and is located at the Northwest corner of CR 500 N., which is the southern boundary of the property in this area, and CR 400 E., in this area. He stated the subdivision is currently zoned RR and this plat before complies with that. He stated each of the five lots in the 10-acre parcel is approximately 1¾ acres in size and it far exceeds the one-acre minimum lot requirement under the County's RR zoning requirement. He stated TAC has reviewed the plat at their December 20, 2002 meeting and at the January 10, 2003 meeting to clarify and clean up some items that were carried over. He stated TAC then forwarded this to the Plan Commission. He stated at that time there was discussion with regards to drainage. He stated there is no need for a detention pond on the subdivision or related to the subdivision. He stated that is largely due to the fact that the property is currently vacant and in row crop. He stated the streets in the subdivision are the existing local roads, the county roads. He stated TAC has adopted and the plat shows the grouping of driveways. He stated this was a suggestion made by the Highway Department by Mr. Schelling in his Highway report. He stated the plat conforms to that request. He stated with regards to septic systems, a certified soil scientists have tested each of the five lots. He stated those reports have been submitted to the Porter County Health Department and have been given preliminary approval for septic system on each of the five lots. He stated there is a negotiated subsurface drain easement that relates to the perimeter tiles for those and the property owner to the west. He stated this document has been executed, recorded and is of record and will benefit these five lots. He stated while it is a major subdivision under the ordinance it is somewhat of a minor development in far as scope and impact in the community.

No one spoke in favor of this development.

Steven Johnson stated he lives at 380 E. 500 N. He stated he would like to say that he appreciates the gentleman involved in this development for contacting him early on. He stated he thought that was very upfront. He stated one thing that they do find to be a little disturbing is that this is referred to as a subdivision. He stated he likes to know what classifies this as a subdivision. He stated to them it looks more or less to be five pieces of row front property divided up and sold. He stated the next issue was the amount of driveways on that stretch of roadway. He stated he misunderstood or did not hear clearly the amount of access roads or drives that will be on CR 500 N. He stated he is not clear if there is going to be five, which are one per lot, or if there are going to be two. He stated they also feel that stretch of road at that end, if there are in fact going to be five drives, it is proven to be in the past somewhat of a dangerous piece of roadway. He stated there is a blind hill there with a stop sign at the end. He stated one would think that stop sign would cause traffic to slow down but they don't realize there is a stop sign there until they are at the top of the hill and they have to decelerate quite rapidly. He stated his concern is the amount of driveways in that very short section. He stated he also thinks that there is a minimum lot size requirement. He stated it seems that it has been popular to section this off into long skinny lots. He stated to him that is somewhat deceiving. He stated he is sure the lot requirements are to space housing out, at least in their area. He stated it seems to him that historically people have always only been able to build so far away from the road due to utility costs. He stated they're long skinny lots and he doesn't think the lot sizes are causing houses to be spaced like one would think they would be. He stated we heard tonight how the Board was concerned with a certain development and how that fits into the area. He stated he would like to know how this subdivision fits into the surrounding area. He stated most of the houses right now are on any where from five to ten acres or even greater. He stated another concern would be increase drainage. He stated if in fact it is an increased drainage can the culverts under CR 400 E., where that water is going to flow to, can it handle the increase in drainage. He stated further on down that water drains underneath CR 500 N. could this handle the increase in water that could possibly come through.

Mr. Leeth stated Mr. Johnson is correct. He stated this doesn't look like a subdivision in the urban sense of the word, but it is clearly a subdivision by definition under the Subdivision Control Ordinance. He stated by definition of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, which is ordinance that they are following tonight, any division of land for the purpose of development or sale in the future from one parcel into two, is a subdivision. He stated if this is the case then you have to go through the process of plating that subdivision. He stated as you well know, you have a minor subdivision ordinance that allows for a parcel to be divided into no more than four lots. He stated this parcel was the subject of an earlier division, which takes it outside of the minor subdivision ordinance and it has five lots. He stated they are here under the more formal traditional subdivision process. He stated there is a "no access" easement along the entire frontage of all of the lots within the subdivision with the exception of lots 4 and 5 at this property line have access points. He stated over on lots 2 and 3, on their joint property line, there is a 20-foot opening in each of those spots for each of those four lots to allow for access to CR 500 N. He stated the idea that Mr. Schelling had with the Highway Department is to group those driveways together to eliminate the number of potential conflict points along the county road. He stated lot 1 has its 20-feet here. He stated there is an anticipated potential future development down to the west and the thought is if that happens somewhat consistent with this then the most easterly lot in that subdivision will have their driveway to the far east, to pair up with lot 1. He stated this is being developed with very similar types of development and homes. He stated there are many larger homes throughout the area. He stated it is an area in somewhat of a transition from rural residential and agricultural uses. He stated if you are at the intersection of CR 400 E. and CR 500 N. you are struck with the vastness of the agricultural. He stated if you approach that intersection from SR 49 you will see a large number of homes as you come up through CR 500 N. traveling east bound. He stated this area in that particular sense fits very well with this type of development. He stated the lots far exceed the minimum requirements. He stated the increase drainage, as he has indicated, the property is currently in row crop. He stated row crop tends to shed water at a quick rate, not as quick as pavement, driveway and rooftops. He stated a home, no matter what size, when you clunk it on a lot that is an acre and three-quarters in size, that property has a sufficient amount of additional detention just simply built into the fact that you are taking the property out of row crop and putting it into a yard turf. He stated the turf itself has the ability to hold back water. He stated this creates the hold back or detention naturally and alleviates the need for a formal detention pond that you would typically see. He stated this is not uncommon with minor subdivisions that have four lots under your code.

Mr. Johnson stated are there any type of restrictions on the types of houses that will be allowed to be put in. He stated as he understands what they are going to see is two drives. He stated he would like to commend the developer because this was one of the two biggest issues.

Mr. Leeth stated there will restrictive covenants and they are part of the record. He stated they provide for architectural review, minimum standards and not anything different or very customary to what you would typically find in a more formal subdivision setting.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated they meet the ordinance and you responded to the County Engineer. He stated he has no problems with it.

Mr. Poparad stated he has no comment at this time.

Mr. Mahnic asked if they are asking for a variance.

Mr. Leeth stated no.

Mr. Mahnic stated he has no problem.

Mr. Bucko stated he sees no problem.

Mr. Burns stated he has no problem with this.

Mr. Herzog stated they meet all of the requirements and he sees no problem.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated it has been the practice to try to pair the driveways for mail delivery, school bus stops and that kind of thing. He stated they are not the same driveway. He stated they will be in proximity so people will be slowing down in about the same place. He stated this pulls it further from the intersection. He stated there is no access onto CR 400 E. He stated they really watch these areas for the drainage and try to control the runoffs. He stated they were satisfied that the developer is going to do additional erosion control measures and address many of the other things that we need to deal with.


Mr. Herzog stated he would like to recognize Mr. Johnson to speak.

Mr. Johnson asked if he could get a list of the covenants.

Mr. Breitzke stated after final plat when they are available.

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

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Herzog - Yes Mahnic - Yes
Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 02-PUD-1. Petition of Benchmark Ltd., LLC, 225 Aberdeen Drive, Valparaiso, Indiana for a review and recommendation for Aberdeen, Phase I, PUD Ordinance, located West of CR 250 W. and South of CR 100 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke stated the Board is getting two copies and one is for the procedure from our Attorney and the petitioner is also handing out a response. He stated this is what we will be working from on the PUD Ordinance.

Barbara Young stated she is President of Benchmark Limited and they are developers of Aberdeen. She stated if you thought the procedure was confusing when Mr. Leeth was up here it is even more confusing with Aberdeen. She stated this area, which they referred to as Phase I of Aberdeen, is a total of 13 acres. She stated they were here before the Commission on their request to bring in 7 acres of the total 13 acres into the PUD. She stated it did go from the Plan Commission to the Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. She stated the County Commissioners have approved the rezone to PUD. She stated now the entire 13 acres is PUD. She stated what they are here tonight for a public hearing on is the PUD Ordinance, which sets the standards for the PUD. She stated they have mailed the Commission, along with the site development plan, the proposed ordinance that incorporates all the development standards. She stated that would be the ordinance, she believes, that would go to the County Commissioners after tonight hearing. She stated as you look at that ordinance and as you evaluate the standards you need to look at the documents that both the Commission's attorney and she have given you tonight in terms of the criteria. She stated the ordinance that goes to the County Commissioners looks like this. She stated also the site development plan becomes part of the ordinance. She stated in this particular case they have already incorporated into the site development plan all of the requirements of the preliminary plan. She stated this is such a small PUD. She stated it is really part of the larger Aberdeen community they went ahead and gave the Commission all of the details on the preliminary plan. She stated when this was presented to the County Commissioners they have incorporated into the plan that is before you tonight their recommendations with regards to the minimum lot size and they have incorporated a significant preservation easement, which addresses the wooded area which was the primary concern of the people that were here at the first hearing. She stated this is shown in the open space on the preliminary plan. She stated she believes and she would let Mr. Sheets correct her, this comes to the Commission in a format that the County Commissioners have already approved. She stated if we walk through the criteria for the Commissions consideration tonight the first item is: Is the proposed PUD compatible with the surrounding land uses. She stated they believe that it is in that everything on the east is already a PUD because it is Aberdeen. She stated everything that is to the northeast, which is the Links, is PUD and everything to the southwest has already been zoned to PUD for the Prairie. She stated that everything that is directly west is single family residential. She stated all of the homes within Phase I will be single family residential. She stated they do believe that this PUD is compatible with the surrounding area. She stated the format of the land of these lots is consistent with the current trends. She stated that significant difference between these lots and the lots in the RR area is that this is served by municipal utilities. She stated this has a water, sewer and storm water drainage system, which justify the smaller lots. She stated in addition to the fact that they have preserved so much open space throughout Aberdeen and including the additional preservation easement, which is now is Phase I. She stated the second requirement that the Commission has to consider tonight is the natural features of the site. She stated again they have incorporated this preservation easement. She stated this wooded area is the only portion of this that has any extra ordinary features. She stated the rest of it is pretty consistent of rural layout. She stated the one area that is unique is being preserved. She stated there is municipal water and sewer and she does have a copy of the letters from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management approving waste water sanitary line, water lines and a letter form David Hollenbeck stating that the Nature Words Conservancy District has adequate capacity to serve this area. She stated under the County's ordinance for each of those municipal utilities you get to reduce the lot size. She stated where it might a standard of 14000 square feet in R-3; this comes down to 12000 with water and sewer and an additional 1000 for storm water. She stated the fourth item that you are to consider is traffic. She stated that she has attached a letter from David Schelling. She stated he said in this letter that this Phase of Aberdeen in his mind is the most important Phase in Aberdeen that has been before the County. She stated Mr. Schelling said that the reason for this is because it will make the very important road connection of the Aberdeen Phase on CR 100 N. with the main part of Aberdeen. She stated Mr. Schelling goes on to say that this is critical for the emergency access in the convenience of the total development of Aberdeen. She stated that Mr. Schelling said that this is a natural connection that will help in the circulation of traffic throughout the area and allow route option in case of accidents or other emergency's and this connection fits with the existing streets and development of this area and can handle the traffic generated and through traffic. She stated the fifth element is setbacks. She stated they are proposing a 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setback and 25-foot rear yard setback. She stated those are consistent with the setbacks that they have in many of the others areas within Aberdeen and in fact the side yard setback is larger than the side yard setback that they have in the Highland Villas. She stated the rear yard setbacks are consistent with every area that backs up to the golf course. She stated all of the setbacks conform to the State Building Codes and Fire Codes. She stated in this area they are installing a separate storm water drainage line to connect all of the sump pumps so there will be no over the ground sump pump discharge and there will be no need for swales between the homes. She stated the sixth item is building coverage. She stated they are well within the R-3, 35% standard. She stated as far as the building separation, again the smaller lots have reduced setbacks and are in compliance with the State Building Codes, Fire Codes and they have municipal utilities. She stated number eight deals with vehicle and pedestrian circulation. She stated they have sidewalks throughout this phase as they do throughout the entire development. She stated she believes the vehicular traffic has already been addressed in Dave Schelling's letter. She stated parking is your standard residential off-street parking for single-family homes. She stated landscaping is incorporated into their restrictive covenants. She stated number eleven deals with the height/scale/materials for the improvements. She stated the R-3 standards are all complied with as well as the State Building Codes. She stated the only signage will be neighborhood signage, which they have incorporated in open spaces the same as they have throughout the rest of Aberdeen. She stated the street signage is as set forth in the preliminary plan. She stated number thirteen talks about the recreational area. She stated this Phase has incorporated part of Aberdeen. She stated they have full access to the swimming pool, the baseball and soccer fields, tennis courts and the full amenity package within Aberdeen and all the open spaces and same access to the golf course. She stated if you look at Aberdeen as a whole including the future development of the Prairie and the Links there are 516 acres in the total community and 252 acres are preserved in open space or recreational amenities. She stated fourteen deals with outdoor lighting. She stated this area will have street lights as does all of Aberdeen and those are maintained by the Homeowners Association. She stated all of the open spaces; pocket parks and recreational areas are owned by the Homeowners Association and maintained by the Homeowners Association.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Ronald Zdrojewski stated he lives at 87 N. 325 W. He stated he thinks that he has had the opportunity to attend the previous meeting when the proposal was placed before this Commission. He stated at that time he believes the Commission voted 8-1 against the proposal. He stated based on everything he has heard so far there has been no substantial material difference to what is being presented at this meeting as compared to the previous meeting. He stated the issue, at least the way he understands it, and in the previous meeting what was being asked for is a variance to the setbacks and to the lot sizes from the standard of 11,000 square feet. He stated he believes the setbacks also have specific standards that were required to be complied with. He stated under this plan they are still in the same situation. He stated the PUD requires 11,000 square feet. He stated this plan has roughly 8,000 square feet. He stated the setbacks do not comply with the PUD ordinance as well. He stated overall he sees no significant difference at what we are looking at here. He stated in terms of the consistency with the adjacent properties. He stated that tongue of 7 acres that protrudes out to the west, his property is directly to the north of that. He stated he is on a ten-acre parcel that is zoned R-1. He stated his septic field is directly to the north of the tongue that jets out approximately 100-feet away. He stated the size and character of his lot is inconsistent with the density and the variances requested by Aberdeen. He stated the lots directly to the west is a twenty-acre parcel zoned R-1. He stated the additional properties to the south all are zoned R-1. He stated he thinks that the PUD ordinance with the 11000 square feet certainly would be more consistent with that, but never the less the point is the properties adjacent, the densities and the zoning variance requested is indeed inconsistent with those adjacent properties to the west. He stated granted they are consistent with the Aberdeen portion more so than his properties. He stated during the last meeting he did present in writing some concerns and issues that he has never received a response from Aberdeen. He stated his property again is directly to the north of the tongue that jets out to the west. He stated again his septic system is there. He stated Aberdeen has been putting hundreds of tons of fill in that area in the last couple of years. He stated they have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to prevent water flow from moving onto his land to the north and also to the Hartwig land, which is directly to the west. He stated he asked for response on that and he has received nothing. He stated he also questioned the suitability of building with the considerable amount of backfill that they have been putting in that area for the last couple of years. He stated he has some questions there that this Board has in writing that he would've appreciated having an answer to prior to having to come to this meeting. He stated if this proposal would be to be approved in his mind what needs to be done is that he is requesting that item number 15 or 16 of the rules that the attorney passed out that they comply with the PUD ordinances with the lot sizes and the setbacks. He stated this is all he is asking for. He stated also he would be asking for if it is approved he would like some measurers taken so that under construction there would be a guarantee that the minimum runoff from the houses that they put in that area, with runoff to the north and onto his property and basically drown his septic system. He stated something needs to be done there. He stated his recommendation would be for this to be returned to the developer to comply with the existing PUD ordinances and if at that time it is approved they make the additional measures to assure that he won't have his septic system drowning.

Eric Mehlberger stated he lives at 295 Larwick Circle. He stated he has with him a preliminary plat that was given to him by Mark Thiros.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Mehlberger if he will be speaking for Mr. Thiros.

Mr. Mehlberger stated that he has a document from Mark Thiros that he would like read after he speaks. He stated that he tried to fax this to the Commission and their fax machine was busy since 5:00 p.m. He stated he lives approximately right here. He stated there is a lot here. H stated that this road is there now in gravel. He stated it was put in for this subdivision that they are connected to for the Parade of Homes that was going on here. He stated all of them when they built their homes here had used this gravel road from time to time throughout construction because of the of this road breaking down. He stated two temporary fences were put up blocking off the road and they were told that this was going to be developed in the future. He stated most of everyone in this subdivision back here is all for the road being connected going through. He stated what they do ask is there was a petition that was presented at the last December 3 meeting were they voted on the extra acreage to come into the PUD that this be developed according to the standards of compatible to the surrounding land. He stated the PUD calls for 12000 square foot lots. He stated this is 13 acres of land. He stated one-third of an acre lot. He stated that this is 39 homesites. He stated what they proposed was 47 home sites and cut it to this acreage here shown on the drawing as a fuzzy line and it removed a significant part of this acreage. He stated Benchmark has made a great effort to take this cul-de-sac out, sparing the trees. He stated they are only biting into this existing tree line. He stated they would hope that they would cut these lots out as well and protect this existing tree stand. He stated their other problem with this as platted currently is the variance that is requested down to 8500 square foot lots. He stated with the PUD it is 12000 square foot lots and then if we do give them the extra 1000 it is down to 11,000 square foot lots. He stated down here along the golf course what they are proposing is 8500 square foot lots, one right after the other, down the golf course. He stated if you look at Aberdeen on the golf course there is no small 8500 square foot lots anywhere in the subdivision. He stated also based upon the guide and principals and objectives under the Land Use category, the Board is suppose to establish standards to promote buffering and transition areas between different land uses. He stated they have the differing land uses. He stated if it is PUD we have a different land use there and at least hold them to the PUD standards if they develop this land. He stated they are not against this subdivision by any means. He stated they are against the packing of small homes and the small lots on the far reaches of Aberdeen. He stated earlier today she presented this replat to add on to the Village, which already exists in Aberdeen which is made for small homes. He stated all they ask that the Commission zone this for the PUD for 12000 square foot lots and allow for larger homes to be built on big lots.

At this time, Mr. Nigro read a letter from Mark Thiros. This letter is in the PUD ordinance file.

Ms. Young stated the hearing that we have had previously was on the rezoning and this issue has been resolved and the property has been rezoned. She stated they are not here tonight determining whether or not this should be PUD. She stated the only issue is what the PUD Ordinance should say. She stated while the ordinance talks about variances and this is one of the things your Commission is actually going to be revisiting, when you are doing a PUD it is really not a variance to change a development standard. She stated what you are doing in a PUD is establishing standards to offset things like the preservation of open space. She stated the idea of a PUD is to cluster the residential homes in one area so you are allowed to preserve open spaces in another area. She stated the whole idea of a PUD ordinance is to negotiate what are the appropriate uses, which is why you have to look at this in terms of the whole Aberdeen where half of the entire acreage is in open space. She stated if this entire development had been done as an R-1, Single Family Residential development, your most restrictive residential area, they could have had 1200 homes including the apartments, all of the condominiums, all of the duplexes, everything not only are platted but even the proposed Prairie. She stated there are less then 800 residences in this entire development. She stated they have significantly less density than your most stringent R-1 District in the entire development. She stated she never received a copy of Mr. Zdrojewski's letter. She stated she would have been happy to respond to it. She stated if he would like to provide her with that she would be happy to try to address those issues. She stated when you look at the lot sizes in comparison to the adjacent area in particular the adjacent areas surrounding the golf course, every lot that is colored shaded on this plat is a lot that is less than 11000 square feet. She stated all of these are along the golf course, all of these are along the golf course, Mark Thiros's lot is less than 11000 square feet. She stated there are twelve lots in the Highland Villas that are less than 11000 square feet. She stated obviously the lot size is compatible with their other neighborhoods. She stated these homes along the golf course are exactly the same kind of arrangement that they are proposing here. She stated this is consistent with what is in Aberdeen and is consistent on what they have done from day one. She stated the thing that they could do eliminate this preservation easement and do this entire phase with 11000 square feet and not have to come to the Commission for anything. She stated every single tree would be gone and they would have almost as many lots as they have now. She stated they could rework this include the preservation easement and go on with the lot sizes that the County Commissioners were comfortable with to accomplish that. She stated to change this plan now could in essence eliminate what they tried to accomplish by revising the plan.

Bob Palm stated this currently, the 7-acre parcel, flows to the west and to the north. He stated because of the proposed road construction and the regarding of this area almost all the entire 7-acre is coming back to this retention area. He stated any drainage problems to the north or to the west will be greatly alleviated. He stated as far as the septic system in this area he doesn't see this as any type of concern or problem. He stated as far as buildable sites all these lots will be very good building sites, soils and drainage. He stated as you can see here the street construction here and the grading of these lots it is all coming back to the streets. He stated the storm sewers will connect to the retention basin here. He stated they also submitted to IDEM and the Soil & Conservation Water District erosion control plans for the entire addition.

Mr. Mehlberger stated his home borders this subdivision and his neighbor's house, their lots are nowhere near 8500 square feet. He stated 8500 square feet is 30% less than what is required by the PUD. He stated earlier today the Commission was talking about another subdivision for a PUD that wants to come in with minimum lots sizes. He stated if you are not going to uphold the PUD to the 12,000 square feet lot sizes then why is it in there.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to explain very briefly. He stated a PUD is a brand new ordinance. He stated the basic or threshold is to start with something. He stated that doesn't mean that they can't create their own ordinance. He stated in fact, this is what they do. He stated they create trade-offs. He stated in this case a preservation easement of trees in place of larger lots. He stated you have to understand, this is not a subdivision and there is not a specific ordinance. He stated they are basically writing their own ordinance. He stated also this hearing is only a recommendation. He stated this will go to the Commissioners for a formal approval or disapproval. He stated then it will come back to the Commission as a plat considerate of the construction issues, such as the drainage issues, etc. in addition to what we are already discussing. He stated this case is two public meetings away from being finished.

Mr. Mehlberger asked what is geographically stopping them from increasing these lots sizes here down the course and making them 11000 square foot. He stated there is nothing there besides money, which is the only reason they are asking for this square footage. He stated as neighboring properties here and here all meet the minimum requirement he sees no reason why we shouldn't at least have these here. He stated there is protection here for these people from viewing smaller density homes. He asked why are we allowing small density one right after another here.

Mr. Zdrojewski stated there is no way when that seven acre area is built up that they water will not shed off the roads and go off to the back and move into his property to the north and also the natural drainage goes to the west and then into a pond, which is on his property. He stated he disagrees with the comments there. He stated he is confused with the concept of the PUD. He stated it almost sounds like an open license to develop your own standard and do darn well what you please being inconsistent with the surrounding area. He stated they certainly with that type of density are inconsistent with his property to the north.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he appreciates what Mr. Zdrojewski is saying but State Statute permits it and likewise as a county we have to permit PUD's.

Mr. Mehlberger stated that Barb mentioned that they could make everything 12,000 square feet and take every tree down. He stated they could also leave things materially the same and open it up to bigger lot sizes and make something aesthetically appealing that appeals not only to Aberdeen but also satisfies the needs of people in the rural area adjacent to it. He stated he thinks that there is a compromise but we are not there yet.

Ms. Young stated the lots are consistent with the entire project of Aberdeen and the overall density of


Aberdeen is R-1. She stated that there are 800 units on 516 acres.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Sheets stated first of all the Commissioners voted in favor of this because they felt that, after a lot of discussion, it was better to develop this land within the PUD and have those advantages of Aberdeen. He stated this was one of the things that the Commissioners looked at. He stated what he heard from the neighbors to the east was that they wanted the tree stand and they didn't want small stuff. He stated they wanted the trees left alone. He stated he thinks that there was some discussion to have that stay there. He stated it was part of a compromise, if he remembers correctly. He stated he can't remember it all, but there were other things that the Commissioners took into consideration. He stated he is aware of Ron's concern about water coming across the road. He stated to Mr. Palm, when Ron said there was fill going in there, and if there is fill and you do raise the level then he has a reason to be concerned. He stated all he is saying to the developer is that he doesn't want to get a phone call from Ron that there is a lot of water coming across the way because you people raised the elevation and it causing more problems. He stated to Mr. Palm that Mr. Palm has been in this business a long time and he has done a lot of work around here and he knows better and he doesn't have a problem with him. He stated that Mr. Palm has credibility. He stated he doesn't know whether Ron knows of Mr. Palm's credibility. He stated he wouldn't attack it. He stated he would be concerned if he got a call from Ron and he said there was water coming across here and those people didn't do what they said they were going to do. He stated this is something that he wants them to be aware of. He stated we tried working with those people and he thought they did. He stated if he remembers that portion correctly, all those trees for the people looking from the east to the west. He stated again he would say that the Commissioners felt that these seven acres would better utilize within a PUD rather than outside a PUD.

Mr. Poparad stated he thinks that the young man pegged it right. He stated they could leave the trees and make the lots a little bigger and keep peace in the family but we know what they are all after. He stated that all being said if they want to bulldoze the trees down like they just said, he could care less. He stated not to come in front of him and say, "Well if you don't do this, we'll do this." He stated he doesn't care if you want to bulldoze the whole place up. He stated not to threaten him. He stated he thinks that they are right. He stated it is 12000 square feet. He stated that is just the way life is. He stated just because they want a variance…

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Poparad that it isn't a variance. He stated it is an ordinance…

Mr. Poparad stated the lots facing the golf course open them up to the bigger sizes and the ones on the back side shrink down.

Mr. Breitzke stated to bear in mind that we need to stick with these fifteen points that the attorney highlighted and make remarks.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Breitzke why he was asking his opinion.

Mr. Breitzke stated pertaining to these remarks.

Mr. Poparad stated he has spent ten years on the Plan Commission to the north so he has been through this. He stated he has to be honest. He stated he doesn't appreciate this either or situation. He stated if you don't do this then we'll bulldoze the trees down and cut down the preservation area.

Mr. Mahnic stated he was not in favor of the way this subdivision or this land was laid out at the last meeting. He stated he felt very sorry for the people that are adjacent to this and who do have bigger homes and have to look upon this. He stated he will be the first to tell you that these are not variances. He stated these are something other than what we consider our standard. He stated he does know that in a PUD you can come forward and say that you would like to do this but would like to get something back. He stated four of the forty-four lots meet the requirements of 80 feet. He stated 90% do not meet this. He stated on the other hand, when you go to the square footage only 5, 85%, do not meet what we would consider our standard. He stated he could see somebody coming in and say they needed 50% or 25% percent, but here they are asking for just about the whole place doesn't have to meet the requirements that we ask for. He stated they are not variances. He stated they are your proposal. He stated he is looking at your proposal against what we are suppose to have as far as a standard. He stated they are too far out. He stated he could see if they were coming in with 25%. He stated we have done this in the past. He stated we are basically looking at something that he considers a little bit too far. He stated he is not an attorney, but he doesn't think the intent of the ordinance was to do this. He stated he thinks that the intent was to say use a little common sense and within reason ask for these changes. He stated he is not in favor of this right now.

Mr. Detert stated he has no comment.

Mr. Bucko stated in relationship to the lot sizes going down the golf course and in relationship to the shaded areas he sees large space areas separating the few lots that are in…He asked to show where the shaded area is. He stated these lots here, whatever this area is named…

Ms. Young stated this is called the "Highland Villa's."

Mr. Bucko stated they are sparsely spaced as compared to this as far as being small sized lots. He stated these are sprinkled all over. He stated he thinks that this is a major impact. He stated he agrees with Frank on this. He stated he doesn't know how many more lots you would have to take out to get a little bit better. He stated he thinks that it is good that they took out the cul-de-sac. He stated giving away four lots and keeping this much of a densely area along the golf course side just isn't quite enough. He stated he doesn't think it is appropriate in this area.

Mr. Burns stated he also has a problem with the lot sizes.



Mr. Herzog stated this is a good area to do your transition with lot sizes to try to coincide with the outlying property. He stated he thinks that they could be larger lots to blend in a little bit better. He stated he has one question for Ms. Young. He stated that part of this is in Union Township. He asked if there was going to be any consideration with emergency services on how that is handled.

Ms. Young stated they have not had any discussions.

Mr. Herzog stated he would like to see that addressed. He stated he knows that Valparaiso covers the majority of it.

Mr. Breitzke stated this was brought up at TAC. He stated they need to contact both Fire Departments.

Mr. Herzog stated he thinks that EMS may also be involved with this with two different stations covering two separate townships. He stated this gets into a dispatching situation that can cause some problems out there. He stated this needs to be addressed with 911 also.

Mr. Biddinger stated he wants to commend you for at least working with the concerns that came out on the earlier Board meeting. He stated he admires the developer for trying to conserve that area. He stated he also has concerns about this area being on the edge of Aberdeen being a transition between Aberdeen and the outlying R-1 areas. He stated he has concerns on the lot sizes. He stated he does realize that the access on this side with Aberdeen is a more limited access because you are traveling through the Aberdeen region rather than to the outlying areas. He stated that in his mind is part of a consideration as well.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like our attorney to address what we need to deal with here.

Attorney Schaefer stated what we were trying to explain at the beginning of the meeting is that they need and the State Law requires a written recommendation with reasons one way or the other. She stated this is why she asked Ms. Young to prepare her proposal as to the fifteen factors that the Plan Commission is suppose to address. She stated her sheet for the members with the fifteen factors as well. She stated she doesn't think it is sufficient to simply say to the Commissioners "the lots are too small." She stated then the Commissioners are going to say "what did the professional planners of this county think about all of these other things." She stated you have to address each one of these whether you think they have been met or haven't. She stated you can't just throw out the whole thing because you don't like one thing. She stated this doesn't give them any guidance. She stated then they are back to square one. She stated legally it does not follow the State Statute.

Mr. Herzog stated our guidelines do address the difference between zonings to have a decrease or an increase, say for instance, R-1 to RR to Agriculture if he understands what is written in our books properly.

Attorney Schaefer stated what the Commission is to consider by our ordinance are fifteen factors found on page 266. She stated the Commission is suppose to be considering everything and telling the Commissioners which of these fifteen things listed on this page you find to be inadequate. She stated otherwise the Commissioners can't legislate on behalf of the rest of the County if they don't know where the Commission is coming from. She stated it makes for harder work, but unless you want to be in litigation.

Mr. Mahnic stated we as a Body have a meeting. He stated the minutes are there and we have spoken whatever our opinion is. He asked doesn't someone within the Plan Commission have to put this all together and say what they met or didn't meet. He stated he can't see why he needs to go and take this home and spend a lot of time digesting this and send this in.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion with the attorney on what is to be done with the fifteen factors for the PUD.

Mr. Breitzke stated from what he has heard there is only one point here that seems to be a sticking point for most of the members and that is dealing with density. He stated this is number 1 (b) on the factor list. He stated the other issues compatible surrounding lands is a residential use in a residential area.

Mr. Poparad asked if this carries weight.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is a recommendation to the County Commissioners.

At this time, the Commission members went through the fifteen factors.

Commissioner Sheets moved to forward Case 02-PUD-1 to the Board of Commissioners with objection to the lot size and acceptance of all the other portions of the ordinance. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Herzog - Yes Mahnic - No
Poparad - Yes Sheets - Yes Breitzke - Yes


Mr. Breitzke stated we need some volunteers to work on some amendments to the PUD ordinance. He stated we would like to tighten this up a little bit. He asked for volunteers.

The volunteers are Mr. Bucko, Mr. Detert and Mr. Breitzke.

Mr. Breitzke stated we need to put some people together for the Directors search committee. He asked for volunteers for that.

Mr. Detert stated we had Commissioner Sheets, Mr. Breitzke and himself on the original committee. He stated that he assumes that would remain intact since they haven't found one.

Commissioner Sheets stated he did volunteer for that committee.

Mr. Detert stated that he thinks that we should maybe add one more volunteer to that committee.


Mr. Bucko stated he would volunteer for this.

Mr. Biddinger stated he would volunteer for this also.

The Interviewing Committee consists of Mr. Biddinger, Mr. Bucko, Mr. Detert,