PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
May 14, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 14, 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, Frank Mahnic, Bob Poparad and Kevin Breitzke, President. Members absent were Mike Herzog and Commissioner Larry Sheets. Staff members present were Stephen P. Nigro, Patricia S. Gibson and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the April 9, 2003 meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 03-P-5. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership, 225 Aberdeen Drive, Suite D, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Aberdeen Phase "I" to be located on Larwick Circle, between Division Road and CR 100 N. in Union Township and Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 44 lots on 13.411 acres. Property zoned PUD.)(con't from 4-9-03 mtg.)

Todd Leeth stated he appears before the Commission representing Valenti Development Corporation, which is the exclusive builder in the project that is the case pending before you, Phase "I" of Aberdeen. He stated as you will recall this was a Planned Unit Development, which ordinance was adopted by the Board of Commissioners. He stated they appear before you in support of the petition now, which is a primary plat and the subdivision portion of the phase for developing a Planned Unit Development. He stated the Planned Unit Development process starts here and goes to the Board of Commissioners and an ordinance is adopted and then under the ordinance they return to the Commission following the subdivision control ordinance, which is under the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction. He stated that process then requires them to look at the plat that they have shown you on the board presented and review it not necessarily with the zoning ordinance but with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Commissioners. He stated the primary plat conforms with the site improvement plan, which was the design and the drawings that was submitted to the Commission and the Board of Commissioners and adopted by them resulting in the PUD Ordinance. He stated with that the Commission is, in his opinion, duty bound, if it is in fact the same drawing to approve it as the primary plat and allow the process to proceed forward to final plat. He stated he will be happy to answer any questions from the Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated he would like to recognize Mark Thiros to speak.

Mark Thiros stated he lives at 287 Turnberry Court, Valparaiso. He stated he is directly opposite of where Phase I in Aberdeen will be placed. He stated he is here on behalf of all the residents of the "Villas" which are about 20 homesteads in the "Villas". He stated he would like to clarify any perceived misconception that there maybe that they as a group are in acquiescence to the proposed modification of the plan that was submitted by Benchmark. He stated there was a meeting that occurred on February 12, 2003 in front of the Plan Commission, which they had a couple of representatives at. He stated several of them were unable to attend. He stated he sent a letter to the Board and at that meeting the ordinance that was submitted by Benchmark apparently received a vote to proceed to the Board of Commissioners with an objection to the lot size. He stated then six days later on February 18, 2003 they were heard by the Board of Commissioners. He stated he represents to the Commission tonight that none of the neighbors received notice of that hearing and therefore they weren't present at the February 18, 2003 meeting for the Board of Commissioners. He stated he understands now that this has already been passed by the Board of Commissioners and the Ordinance is in effect. He stated any legal challenges that may light that ordinance or something that can't be addressed this evening. He stated he wants to let the Commission know that this is why some of the remonstrators were not present at that meeting. Hestated they are opposed to this plat because of the lot sizes of the lots that remain adjacent to the golf course. He stated as they have expressed several times before those should be within the PUD ordinance, which calls for 12,000 square foot lots. He stated it would appear to him based on his reading of the minutes of this Board previously that there seems to be some misconception as to what a PUD actually is. He stated it seems to be that Benchmark can come in here and write their own ordinance, when in fact, the County's ordinance, the law of Porter County says that if there is a PUD the minimum residential use requirements that must be met, one of which is a 12,000 square foot minimum square foot lot. He stated we are not here in opposition to this entire development. He stated they feel that the lots on the golf course should at least meet the County's ordinance. He stated they feel the Commission is duty bound to follow the County's law and that Barb Young or Benchmark does not have the unlimited authority to come in here and legislate to the Commission. He stated the Commission is the legislative Body, or the Commissioners are, and this is the purpose of all this and this is why they are here. He stated Ms. Young can't come in here and write her own ordinance. He stated there are guidelines, which you need to follow and they are asking that you follow those guidelines. He stated they appreciate the fact that there was some consideration given to the stand of trees there, which representation were made to them as purchasers of lots there that they wouldn't be developed in the first place. He stated there are a couple of lots by the end of those trees they ask that the Commission take into consideration that fact that those should be eliminated in this plan as well. He stated there are two things that they are asking for. He stated one the entire stand of trees be preserved and the lots adjacent to the golf course be kept at the appropriate size pursuant to the County's PUD ordinance.

Mr. Leeth stated there are a couple of clarifications that they need to make with regards to those comments. He stated first he would like to address the process with the PUD ordinance that resulted in Ordinance #03-01 being adopted January 21, 2003 by the Board of Commissioners. He stated following the Plan Commission recommendation on the PUD which was negative it was then moved and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. He stated that date and hearing is generally by the County's practice announced at the night of the Plan Commission's vote. He stated he suspects that was the case but he has not reviewed the minutes to find out if in fact that is the case. He stated this is generally the practice. He stated there is no requirement under State Law that this is a public hearing at the Board of Commissioners. He stated the State Law requires that for a rezoning the Commission, the advisory Body, make the public hearing record and forward it to the Legislative Body for final action. He stated this happened and resulted in the PUD ordinance. He stated the County's PUD enabling statute or ordinance that governs that process is now mute. He stated what we judge this plat by is the January 21 ordinance. He stated incorporated in that was a drawing that was presented to the Commission and to the Board of Commissioners. He stated this is not the primary plat. He stated that is under the County's enabling code. He stated it is called a site improvement plan. He stated it looks like a primary plat and for all intense purposes the name has changed. He stated the layout and the design of that development is the same. He stated this is his point to the Commission tonight. He stated what they have tonight is the primary plat, which is identical to the site improvement plan, that was approved by the Board of Commissioners. He stated the Commission's job then says that they review this primary plat based upon the Board of Commissioners, Ordinance 03-01 and the PUD ordinance. He stated it complies with that and therefore deserving of the Commissions approval.

Attorney Schaefer stated essentially what Mr. Leeth is saying is correct that we are no longer concerned with 17.24.100 at this point. She stated it has gone beyond that. She stated this Body did recommend that it not be approved, but the Commissioners did over ride this Body and did approve it. She stated he is correct on how it comes back to the Commission. She stated she thinks that Steve has some comments in his staff report, which perhaps he might address. She stated Mr. Leeth said that we are here to approve the plan that they had in the ordinance. She stated she gathers from Steve that this is not what is being presented.

Mr. Nigro stated the one comment that he has is that the written text of the developmental standards are deviated from what is perceived to be the standards from the R-3 zoning. He asked if they were alluding to the fact that the site improvement plan had it and for some reason or other there is not one in our file. He stated he is not saying it wasn't presented to the Commissioners but there is no mention of reduction of lot width from 80 feet down to 44 feet, or whatever the lot width is. He stated it is just a little over 44 feet. He stated he believes it is Ordinance No. 03-03 when it was passed and not 03-01.

Attorney Schaefer stated in that regard she would say that the Commission does have the authority to limit it to what it was originally presented in the ordinance. She stated if it is different now then it doesn't comport with the ordinance in her view.

Mr. Breitzke stated his question is we were not in receipt of the site improvement plan, which is required for the PUD.

Mr. Nigro stated he does not have a copy of that in the file. He stated he is sure that the members here did receive that site improvement plan.

Attorney Schaefer stated she thought that Mr. Nigro had indicated that it was different from what is being presented tonight from what was presented to the Board.

Mr. Nigro stated that they address that the lot sizes should be 8500 square feet. He stated that this was approved but there was no written text as far as the lot widths being less than 80 feet, which is the standard for the R-3 requirement. He asked if this is essentially asking for a variance to the ordinance that they just wrote.

Attorney Schaefer stated the ordinance as written is what is required and this is her opinion.

Mr. Burns asked if we could continue this case until we get this issue resolved.

Attorney Schaefer stated to have Mr. Leeth comment on this.



Mr. Leeth stated he agrees that and his earlier comments are consistent, that if the drawing that was presented to the Commission differs with what was presented at the Board of Commissioners and it was the basis of the PUD ordinance, then they do need to be continued and get the two to jive. He stated it is his understanding and the record from the last meeting suggested that they did jive. He stated that he was reviewing the minutes from the last meeting and it suggested to him that the plans were consistent.

Mr. Detert asked is it true what Mr. Nigro said that they made no mention of the lot sizes being less than what would normally be required if you didn't address that.

Mr. Leeth stated he doesn't know what the text of the ordinance is. He stated if you will recall the process the petitioner, who is not his client in this matter, prepares a preprinted form. He stated it has a list of, in the County's words not his, variances. He stated he doesn't know if that section was filled out if that was even adopted as part of the PUD ordinance. He stated it is clear in his understanding of the fact that the site improvement plan, the drawing, is the same as the one that has been proposed or has less lots. He stated he believes that the drawing that was circulated had more lots, but through the process with the Board of Commissioners they agreed to take out some lots. He stated this is what is shown on this primary plat, 44 lots.

Mr. Detert stated this plat that they have is essentially what you gave to the Commissioners or what they approved when they went before them.

Mr. Leeth stated he doesn't know because remember that wasn't his client, the petitioner, through that process. He stated he doesn't know if that happened.

Attorney Schaefer stated she thinks that probably the case should be continued so that the record of the meetings can be looked at.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 03-P-5 in order for the petitioner to get all the facts straightened out. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion.


Discussion:

Mr. Poparad asked if all of this is debating around the width of the lot.

Mr. Nigro stated this is the one thing that is not mentioned in the text that deviates from the R-3 standard.

Mr. Poparad stated that the drawing shows 61 feet and they have 44.3 feet.

Mr. Nigro stated the narrowest point that he saw on the plat was 44.03 feet and he thinks that it was on a corner lot.

Attorney Schaefer stated that the Commission can either deny it because it is not in conformance to the ordinance or you can continue it.

Mr. Mahnic stated he was not an advocate of the PUD as written and as a plat is presented or was presented. He stated he was the one who was asking for a denial. He stated the Commissioners have the power to override whatever the Commission says. He stated as far as he is concerned what they did is not take our recommendation and they approved the ordinance. He stated the ordinance included and he has the original copy of what was presented and it is the same as this copy here. He stated as far as he is concerned what they did was legal. He stated that he doesn't agree with it. He stated all he can say is that he sympathizes with the people that have the big homes and with Mr. Thiros and his neighbors. He stated the only problem he has with this is "if the Plan Commission certifies a favorable recommendation the Legislative Body, which is them, shall notify the Plan Commission in writing of the adoption of the PUD." He stated he didn't get any written notification. He stated someone could argue that the minutes of the meeting is notification. He stated he doesn't get those minutes. He stated maybe they came into the office but it was never forwarded to him. He stated they did what is right. He stated he doesn't know whether they followed the rule or if it is something he can hang his hat on and say they didn't follow the rule. He stated it states that the PUD ordinance proposal becomes effective on the 100 day after the day on which the Plan Commission


delivered it's certified recommendation to the Legislative Body or if the Plan Commission certifies an unfavorable recommendation and no recommendation the proposal is defeated. He stated this has to be done in writing and he hasn't seen anything like this. He stated he knows that we have had arguments over this before. He stated they say that copies of the minutes of the meeting are effective. He stated he doesn't know. He stated along what we are talking about in this motion he thinks that we should include to explore this. He stated if we are going to explore frontage then we should explore that and not that it comes back again. He stated there is nothing he can do about this ordinance. He stated he sympathizes with the people but there is nothing he can do about this. He stated that the people who have to take the burden of the argument are the three Commissioners.

Mr. Detert stated this might be a bit of a glitch if we don't get this in writing. He stated he would agree with continuing.

Mr. Leeth stated the location of where that drawing is going to be, in his opinion, you are going to find that in the Commission's records not in this case but in the previous PUD record.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this case will be continued until June 11, 2003 under pending business.

Case 03-FP-5. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Aaron Estates Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 W. between CR 750 S. and Hwy 8 in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 12 lots on 19.98 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger stated he is here representing Keith Freyenberger. He stated this subdivision was approved primarily by this Commission a month ago. He stated CR 400 W. is located here and SR 8 is here. He stated there is a perimeter drain tile being installed along the back of the lots to drain into a ditch up here that will carry all the storm water from the septic systems and they will all be tied into the perimeter drains. He stated they will all have well water and each lot will front on CR 400 W. He stated that lots are all one acre or more of usable soil.

Mr. Mahnic asked if there were any changes from the primary plat. He stated he didn't find any.

Mr. Rensberger stated there are no changes.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 03-FP-5 for primary plat. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-6. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Fieldstone Manor Subdivision, Phase 3, to be located on the South side of CR 250 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 12 lots on 21.52 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of Design Development Group the petitioner and developer of Fieldstone Manor Subdivision. He stated this is a subdivision that is located on CR 250 S. near CR 675 W. He stated Phase 3 is the third of four phases, which contains 12 lots on 21.5 acres. He stated the primary plat was approved by the Plan Commission on September 12, 2001. He stated they are now asking for final plat approval for this third of four phases. He stated the plat does conform in all respects with the primary plat that was approved earlier in 2001.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-FP-6 for secondary plat. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated that we need to get the storm works finished up on this. He stated there are erosion problems with the existing phases and at TAC they made the recommendation that the pond be finished off and seeded as well as other issues within the development as it exits now before we sign the plat.




Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Detert moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-6 contingent on getting the storm works finished, the pond be finished off and seeded as it exits now before the secondary plat is signed. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-7. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Fieldstone Manor Subdivision, Phase 4, to be located on the South side of CR 250 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 16 lots on 28 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of the developer and petitioner, Design Development Group, Fieldstone Manor Phase 4 is the last of four phases and is consistent in all respects with the primary plat that was approved on September 12, 2001 by this Body. He stated they are asking for final plat approval with the contingencies as before with the previous petition in Phase 3.

Mr. Detert moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-7 contingent on getting the storm works finished, the pond to be finished off and seeded as it exits now before the secondary plat is signed. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-8. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Wood Duck Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E. between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Bill Rensberger stated they received primary plat approval last month. He stated it is a 3 lot subdivision and there was a question from Mr. Sheets on road maintenance for this private drive. He stated they drafted an agreement for the three lot owners in this road maintenance agreement that will be recorded with the secondary plat. He stated the road maintenance will run with the land and if the lots sell they all agree to take on the responsibility to maintain the drive. He stated there is a one half-acre lot, three and a half acre lot and another three and a half acre lot. He stated they have done the road maintenance agreement a couple of times on minor subdivisions. He stated the minor subdivision ordinance has been in affect since 1995 so they don't really have a history on it. He stated they haven't had any problems on the ones that they have done to date.

Mr. Breitzke stated the driveway maintenance agreement that Mr. Rensberger is suggesting is something that typically recommends but it is not necessary on the minor subdivision plats. He stated however, when we come to major subdivisions we want to make it clear. He stated this is a private drive with all snow removal, pothole maintenance, drainage going back to the owners of the property. He stated the county plows won't be going down the street and the school buses typically don't go down the street, mail deliveries etc.

Mr. Mahnic asked if they are asking for two variances. He stated it says that the petitioner is seeking a variance for a private road and a less than 96-foot frontage.

Mr. Rensberger stated he is not asking for a variance for the 96-foot frontage. He stated he is asking for a variance not to build the road to county specifications. He stated he is planning on putting in a gravel road with a nice rock base.

Mr. Mahnic asked isn't it our recommendation from the Highway Department normally that if they build a private road it should be built to some specs that we have.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically they like the depth of the pavement to be ten inches deep. He stated this is a recommendation.

Mr. Rensberger stated also asphalt surface of a couple inches, which they may or not put on the asphalt surface at a later date.

Mr. Mahnic stated the problem he has with that is we get into these arguments eventually. He stated that the people who are in the subdivision will say they don't want to pay for snow removal or fixing it up by the berm. He stated the Commissioners will eventually get a request to turn a private road into a public road. He stated we, as citizens will end up paying for a public road that they will approve it. He stated he is not saying that this will happen here, but this is the problem that he has of not building to a standard road. He stated he knows that the standard for a private road is slightly less than the standard for a public road. He stated this is a case that we are going to ask for something again that we are not getting back for the County. He stated another thing it states, "No property owner shall assume any responsibility of property damage or bodily injury that may have happened on the 60-foot of ground as shown on Exhibit A." He asked what are they talking about.

Mr. Rensberger stated Exhibit A will be the subdivision plat. He stated what it is saying is that any liability that happens on the 60-foot easement will not be a liability to the property owner unless they are directly involved with it.

Mr. Mahnic asked whose liability will it be.

Mr. Rensberger stated the person who caused the accident.

Mr. Mahnic asked if this will revert back to the county.

Mr. Rensberger stated no.

Mr. Mahnic stated he doesn't want to take on a responsibility by recommending that and then find out later on someone sued someone and it ends up with the county with a lawsuit.

Mr. Rensberger stated it is saying that whoever causes the accident on that 60-foot easement is the person liable for it.

Mr. Mahnic stated he understands that but here is the problem. He stated we have had cases where the county got sued because someone ran off the road to the culvert and the culvert was just cleaned out or wasn't cleaned out and then they say it is a third party. He stated the County is responsible. He stated he doesn't want to get into a legal hassle and he knows very little about the law.

Mr. Detert asked if they had an attorney draw this up.

Mr. Rensberger stated that an attorney drew up the original one that he uses and he has been copying and modifying it since the original one was drawn.

Mr. Burns asked if they need a variance on lot 3.

Mr. Rensberger stated he doesn't believe he does. He stated there is a 60-foot easement and it is not a ten-acre parcel.

Mr. Burns asked if this is RR.

Mr. Rensberger stated it is RR.

Mr. Breitzke asked if they had 96-feet at the road.

Mr. Rensberger stated that he doesn't.

Mr. Breitzke stated you need the variance then.


Mr. Detert asked how long is it going to be before you asphalt.

Mr. Rensberger stated that the owner is not here and he is planning on building on the back lot eventually. He stated they will asphalt the first 50-feet right away and then after that gravel. He stated it might never be asphalt and he is not sure.

Mr. Detert stated this is the problem he has. He stated we have had complaints with subdivision where they had a gravel road dust rises in the summer and people can't open their windows. He stated we haven't had that in recent years but he can remember way back when we had a whole bunch of those. He stated he frankly would prefer that it be asphalt.

Mr. Rensberger stated there would only be three lots there.

Mr. Poparad stated this is a three-lot subdivision with a private road. He stated we are beating a dead horse here. He stated that if they want to install a road it is not our business to be honest. He stated he doesn't even know if we can require them to asphalt a private road. He stated we can recommend it but this is their road. He stated that is all we are approving is the three lots and an easement going back for a driveway.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are giving a variance for having a publicly improved road and awarding them the ability to develop three lots. He stated otherwise they would have to build this full width road. He stated it is an option if you want to do a contingency. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Poparad in that it might be over kill in this case but it is highly recommended to have at least the full depth of gravel of ten inches in there for the ten foot width of the road or whatever you make it.

Mr. Biddinger he thinks in perspective there are only three lots. He stated it is not like it is going to be high traffic area.

Mr. Detert stated if we are going to approve it there should be something in there that would give the County some authority to cause the developer to keep the dust down if we get that complaint.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-8 with the variance for having an easement for the private drive, a variance for a reduction in frontage on lot 3 and ten inches of stone for the road. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Mr. Breitzke stated that he is moving the agenda around just slightly. He stated he is moving Case 03-Z-5 to the first position.




Case 03-Z-5. Petition of Terry Hartley, 243 Westgate Dr., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-4, General Business to be located on the Northeast corner of SR 130 between CR 250 W. and SR 149 in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Millie Hartley stated she lives at 243 Westgate Dr., Valparaiso. She stated the parcel in question is vacant land. She stated the first 400 feet of the property is zoned C-4 now. She stated the back 130 feet is zoned residential. She stated that they would like the residential zoned C-4 also.

Clarence DeWitt stated he lives at 405 N. SR 149, Valparaiso. He asked what kind of a business was going to be put on that property.

Mrs. Hartley stated the back part of the property is zoned residential. She stated they have this for sale. She stated she believes it is a roofing business that wants to locate in there. She stated there would be an office in there.

Mr. DeWitt stated if this business goes in there they have those smelly roofing trucks. He stated is this something he is going to have to contend with.

Mr. Nigro stated that whoever buys the property will have to satisfy the screening and fencing requirements where a commercial use abuts a residential district. He stated whoever buys this property and wants to develop it in a commercial fashion they are going to have to come before our Technical Advisory Committee and that Body will make sure that what is implemented is required by our ordinance to be less detrimental to the neighbors property and their enjoyment of their property as a residential use.

Carol DeWitt stated she lives at 405 N. SR 149, Valparaiso. She stated she does not want this rezoned because it is residential right now and there are homes on either sides of that property. She stated she would like to see it left alone.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.


The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the Commission makes a recommendation to the County Commissioners and they will make the final decision.

Mr. Mahnic asked if we have an inspection report on this case.

Mr. Nigro stated that is for a special exception.

Mr. Mahnic asked if anyone went out to look at this property.

Mr. Nigro stated that there is nothing on the property. He stated the lady came in to see what the property is zoned and he looked at the zoning map and the zoning map only went up to a certain point leaving the northern 130 feet of this property zoned R-1. He stated technically the purchaser still could operate that business as long as they don't operate the business on the northern 130 feet. He stated they want to make a nice neat transaction in sales to the new property owner so they can utilize their property completely as a commercial parcel of land.

Mr. Mahnic stated he is concerned on what is around there and if it is all R-1 with the exception that part of that parcel is not R-1. He stated he is a little concerned on what can go in there.

Mr. Nigro stated on site is R-1 and C-4. He stated to the north is R-1 and to the south is C-4 and I-2, to the east is C-4 and R-1 and to the west is C-4 and RR, Rural Residential. He stated on site is vacant, on the north side is large lots and some vacant land. He stated on the south is vacant along with the gas station, to the east and to the west are pretty much large lot residences. He stated as you go further east down the road there are other industrial type and commercial uses.

Mr. Burns stated the concern he has is the same as Mr. Mahnic's. He stated the 130 feet that they want to rezone to C-4 is abutting an R-1 zone.

Mr. Nigro stated that is correct.

Mr. Burns asked where is the buffer.

Mr. Nigro stated it is required by our ordinance that they create a buffer with green space and fencing.

Mr. Poparad stated if we don't rezone the whole parcel she can still sell to her commercial costumer. He stated they can't use that last 130 feet.

Mr. Nigro stated that is correct.

Mr. Bucko stated in reference to the R-1 what buts up to the R-1 today that we want to change to C-4.

Mr. Nigro stated go parallel to the northern property line and come south 130 feet and that is where the change is zoning comes from. He stated to the south is C-4 and to the north of that is R-1. Mr. Nigro stated the break in zoning doesn't take place at the property line. He stated it takes place 130 feet south of the north property line. He stated what they would like to do is have it cleaned up so that the whole parcel is zoned C-4.

Mr. Detert stated if he was standing in the middle of this lot he understands that behind him would be R-1. He asked what is on each side of it.

Mr. Nigro stated that the zoning is C-4.

Mr. Detert asked if this was on each side.

Mr. Nigro stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked Mrs. DeWitt what their property is zoned. He asked her if her property is beside this parcel.

Mrs. DeWitt stated she is to the west.

Mr. DeWitt stated that they are R-1 zone.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to make a recommendation to continue this case till we get a sketch or a drawing so the Commission can see what we have before we make some kind of decision that will affect some people out there. He stated if we deny it she will have to wait another year. He stated she has a chance to sell her property so let's do the right thing.

Mr. Poparad moved to continue Case 03-Z-5 until the June 11, 2003 meeting. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-PUD-3. Petition of Accent Homes, Inc. & New Crown Development, Inc., c/o Todd Etzler, Burke, Costanza and Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin Street, Ste 203, Valparaiso, 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 Southwest corner of McCool Road and CR 750 N. in Portage Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Todd Etzler stated he is here with John Kremke from Duneland Group Engineers representing Accent Homes and New Crown Development. He stated this is a public hearing on a concept plan rezoning for a first stage of a Planned Unit Development. He stated this is a parcel in the north part of the county about 127 acres. He stated it is bounded on the east by McCool Road, on the west CR 450 W. and on the north and south by CR 700 N. and CR 750 N. He stated immediately to the east of this is the unincorporated South Haven Subdivision and neighborhoods. He stated north of this parcel is zoned commercial and on the other sides it is zoned R-1. He stated the parcel itself is zoned R-1. He stated they are looking this evening for a recommendation to the County Commissioners for approval of a Planned Unit Development. He stated it is a residential Planned Unit Development with some mixed uses in it. He stated right now the property has 420 lots on it. He stated in terms of mix use they have 361 single family detached homes. He stated those lots vary in size from 6000 to over 11000 square feet. He stated because of the variance in size of lots they are able to put various different types of homes on this parcel. He stated he would like to say that this parcel came in front of this Body several years ago where they wanted some manufactured homes. He stated they read in the paper that there are rumors going around that this is the same development or a trailer park going in here. He stated he would like to put your cares to ease that this is an onsite built homes. He stated every one of these homes will be built onsite. He stated that there are no trailers coming out here. He stated that the subdivision will be consistent with the Growth Management Plan that the County has adopted. He stated that in your packets you received a copy of the newly recommended Planned Unit Development Plan Commission recommendation findings of fact. He stated in that he has sited the County's Growth Management Plan concerning the uses that you are looking for in new developments within the county. He stated the Growth Management Plan states, "Porter County shall promote the development pattern that is compact in nature and focus near existing cities and towns." He stated bullet points listed within the Growth Management Plan indicate you should focus development near existing cities and towns. He stated it states, "Encourage development that is contiguous to existing development. Encourage a mix of uses within new developments and establish standards that promote buffering and transition areas between different land uses." He stated this situation will permit that because they have a very similar size subdivision immediately to the east know as unincorporated South Haven. He stated those lots are around 8,000 to 9,000 square feet is what he is told. He stated these lots fit within that same average size and also the homes that will be built in this subdivision are somewhere between 1100 square feet to 2000 square feet on site built homes. He stated the types of homes that will be placed on here are ranches, bi-levels, tri-levels and some duplexes in the northern part of the parcel. He stated in the Growth Management Plan Porter County looked at future desired uses. He stated you have a map on the Growth Management Plan shown as figure 25. He stated this area is shown on that map as what is called an "Urban Fringe Development Area." He stated this means that the urban fringe areas are located adjacent to existing cities and towns. He stated these proposed are primarily for residential growth of a density comparable to that of adjoining urban areas. He stated they have the City of Portage immediately to the west and north and the unincorporated South Haven to the east. He stated recommended densities in such subdivision in the urban fringe development are between four dwelling units per acre and six units per acre for single-family developments and up to ten dwelling units per acre for multi-family dwellings. He stated that their density in here when you do the gross density is about 3.8 units per acre. He stated if you are looking for a similar type development there is a development in Portage called Brookview, which is developed by the same developers. He stated this will be comparable in nature to that same development. He stated under the Planned Unit Development ordinance we are requested to provide that utilities are available and the Growth Management Plan indicates that where you are putting a development such as this into a Urban Fringe Development it is best and it is highly recommended that you have utilities that are available that are municipal or some other privately provided utilities. He stated storm drainage in this development is very well served. He stated that the Twin Creek Conservancy District has a very large detention area in the northeast corner of this parcel. He stated this is the blank parcel with the arrow in it. He stated this was sized by Twin Creek Conservancy to hold, not only what the existing development, but all additional amount of development in this area. He stated that they are not going to take up any additional development space. He stated they are also going to increase that detention area to handle their water. He stated their water for this entire subdivision will be collected and run to the northeast corner and placed within that detention area. He stated right now it looks like a large green grassy field. He stated it has a ditch area running through it. He stated it is primarily pretty dry. He stated there will not be septic systems in this. He stated they will have sanitary sewer provided by South Haven Sewer Works. He stated water will be provided by Indiana American Water Company. He stated they have been in front of Twin Creeks and South Haven and they all have capacity to approve this development for use of their facilities. He stated as he has mentioned, they are west of McCool Road. He stated all of the roads that pass through here are relatively large roads. He stated they did do a traffic study prepared by Duneland Group and this was supplied to the staff and TAC. He stated this is rated under the INDOT ratings as a level of service "A" or "B". He stated typical services are rated by INDOT for this type of service as "C" or "D". He stated they are above that right now. He stated they have very good traffic flow throughout the project. He stated as you can see this development has seven entrances off of each of the roads that surround it. He stated they do not have a situation where they have a single entrance or only two entrances. He stated that they have entrances throughout. He stated this development is not placing a large burden on any single road. He stated the traffic will obviously take the path of shortest distance. He stated several of the entrances will include monument signage to identify the subdivision. He stated at the request of TAC CR 750 N. on top will be widened by the developer all the way across. He stated not only the portion where their development exists but also all the way to the west to McCool Road. He stated they will work with the Highway Department on getting that put together on getting contracts and widening that to specifications required by the County. He stated that another issue that the PUD ordinance requires of a Planned Unit Development is that it provides certain amenities. He stated this area is very fortunate in that it is adequately served by open areas or recreational areas. He stated on the northwest corner is the South Haven Little League park. He stated on the immediate southeast corner is the Porter County Library. He stated further south about one-half mile is the Portage Township Field of Dreams Park, which is a very large grassy park. He stated in terms of non-active green space there is the Twin Creeks Conservancy District in the northeast corner. He stated it is not going to be used by the neighborhood or active recreation, however, when we do look at open space in an area that is served by some open space in that area. He stated as part of the amenities, instead of putting parks within the subdivision they will provide in-kind services or monetary funds for the improvement for the little league park. He stated it can use some drainage work, dugouts and some various buildings. He stated they are also willing to discuss other monetary donations to the County for use in this area in terms of cash or in-kind services. He stated in terms of some of the extras that have been placed within this subdivision because there are these activities centers in the northwest and southeast corners they are providing sidewalks on the outside of the subdivision in order to access those points from within the subdivision and the surrounding areas. He stated the sidewalks will not be your normal four-foot sidewalks required under the ordinance. He stated they are increasing the size to be five-foot sidewalks so that they can better handle bike traffic and children's bike traffic for children who may be going to the park or the library. He stated the Twin Creeks Conservancy area has on the south border of the conservancy area has a berm that berms the detention areas. He stated there is a plan to include vegetation and trees along that berm. He stated this is a request from the Twin Creeks people to help screen the residential from the detention area. He stated it will make it look much nicer than just a grassy berm. He stated again these will be stick built on site homes.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Cecil Rose stated he is speaking on behalf of his parents. He stated that they live on 424 W. 700 N. He stated their biggest concern is why so small lots. He stated everything in the area that is being built is on nice size lots with nice size homes.

Lavinia Pullen was not in the audience.

Barbara Kester stated she lives at 791 McCool Road. She stated she just moved into the area because she loves to bird watch. She stated if this subdivision goes in she will have no birds to look at. She stated there would be no eagle to look at either. She stated there would be no deer to look at. She stated that this is a beautiful place even though it looks like plain old woods. She stated she comes from a city south of Chicago. She stated they didn't have all of this. She stated she enjoys it and she hopes it don't develop.

Greg Wleklinski stated he lives at 719 McCool Road. He stated it is peaceful out there. He stated he grew up in the city. He stated he enjoys the area very much.

Tracy Wood stated she lives at 425 W. 750 N. She stated they live directly north of the area that they want to develop. She stated one of the reasons why they bought their home is because it is a quiet area. She stated they said that there is going to be 361 single homes. She asked where are the other 60 lots going to be. She asked why does there have to be so many homes in there. She asked how is the community going to handle that many more families. She stated the schools are overcrowded. She stated it is a volunteer fire department that services South Haven. She stated Porter County Police Department services South Haven. She stated the roads are a concern.


She stated Mr. Etzler said that he didn't think the roads would be an issue. She stated she is not sure what the stipulation is on that. She stated most homes have at least one vehicle per family and some have two to four vehicles per family. She stated you are talking about having another 600 vehicles on the roads. She is concerned about the entrance onto CR 750 that lines up with a road that dead ends off of Rt. 6. She stated they have a fear that this road is going to be opened and this is within 50-feet of her front door.

Joe Sasak stated he lives 422 W. 750 N. He asked if this development was going to generate real estate taxes or personal property tax and if so how much. He stated he has been to the Planning Commission twice and he has looked at blueprints. He stated nowhere did he see a sketch of what this development was going to look like. He stated he owns from CR 750 from the roadway 15-foot easement on the south side. He stated he owns 40-feet of the land south of that easement and his neighbor over here also owns 40-feet south of there. He stated he couldn't tell how far north this development was going to go. He stated his last concern is the same concern that Tracy has and that is if this unit is built is that gravel road on the western edge of their property going to widened into a road where it would extend to Rt. 6, which is called June Road.

Dennis Wilkens stated that he lives at 417 W. 750 N. He stated he has two concerns. He asked why did this entire project have to be passed in one lump group. He asked why can't they go in phases and start with the stick built houses and let the neighbors see what kind of developer you are and what kind of houses are you going to put up. He asked why do they want to put duplexes on that property. He stated there are no duplexes anywhere near that property. He stated they are all single-family residences. He stated if you read the paper you will see all the services cut by the County, especially the Sheriffs Department. He stated he is a police officer in Portage and they have to take their prisoners to the County now. He stated he thinks that the County has a lot more budget cuts down the road that may or may not be able to handle a lot of these utilities and the problems that this type of development is going to bring.

Willliam Cronch stated he lives at 699 N. Wolf Road. He stated one thing that he doesn't like about this that you will be seeing the backs of everyone's houses as you pass by. He stated he will be looking at the backs of everyone's houses from where he lives. He stated they are all facing the inside instead of facing CR 700 N.

Gary Finney stated he lives at 717 N. McCool Road. He stated this is right about here where the three entrances will be feeding the highway or McCool Road. He stated the point of it is they are talking about but if they think Field of Dreams is going to satisfy every kid that is going to come out of a 400 plus unit subdivision it is not going to happen. He stated South Haven right now doesn't have enough activity or places for teenagers to go or for the preteens to go. He stated you are going to add 420 more homes to a problem already there. He stated Paul Saylor, from what he was told, has no plans to increase his sewers, but yet they are going to add 420 more homes. He stated he grew up in Black Oak. He stated he bought out here fifteen years ago and he was tickled to death because he has a long front yard. He stated they eventually came in and put in a ten foot ditch in there so now his 90-foot yard is now 80-feet. He stated now you are going to put in a roadway in there and you are going to take more. He asked how much more of his property is he going to loose to the roadway. He asked why was this put in such a small newspaper. He stated it was in the Chesterton paper. He stated none of them knew about this ahead of time to come here and voice their complaints. He stated now they are going to tell them what a great thing that this is. He stated if it is so great how come Portage, Chesterton or Valpo didn't jump on this. He stated the point of it is you people already look down your nose at South Haven.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the law requires them to publish in a paper that is published in the County. He stated that the Chesterton Tribune is the only paper that is published for the County. He stated the Vidette Times and Post Tribune is published elsewhere.

Mr. Finney stated if it was such a good thing how come no one else has jumped on the bandwagon for this thing. He asked where are these kids going to go that are coming in with 420 families. He stated that they have a Boys and


Girls Club that is overcrowded now. He stated that you have the park over there and the little league field. He stated they still don't have places for kids to go.

David Lyons stated he lives on CR 400 W. Pinewood Drive. He stated the first entrance right here is directly in front of his house. He asked what is going to happen to the wildlife. He stated all of Portage and Valpo's wildlife is going into the streets and into the homes. He stated there are deer, an eagle and foxes that live there. He asked where are they going to go. He asked where are the kids going to go. He stated they have a park but do you know what that park is. He stated a softball park for grown up kids. He stated it is for adults who go there and drink beer and play baseball. He stated little kids don't play there. He stated the kids go across the street with their family or their dads and have the little motorcycles with their helmets and kneepads. He stated this is where they play. He stated they have a little baseball park made out right across the street from his house. He stated this is where the kids play. He asked where are the kids going to play when they take all of that away from them. He asked "Didn't you like to walk in the woods when you were a kid?" He stated the kids don't have anything but a street. He stated now they are going to put this in there. He stated they already have gang problems. He stated Portage School is already crying because it is so crowded. He asked where are they going to go. He asked if they are going to put in streetlights and who will pay for them.

Robert DeBinardi stated he lives on 718-1 Imperial Street. He stated he doesn't think the school system can handle this. He stated they will put more taxes on the people who live there. He stated this isn't right.

Rich Boyles stated he lives at 399 Pinewood. He stated his big concern is the roads. He stated South Haven has the worst roads in the County. He stated that the roads cannot handle all the traffic that will be there.

Robert Gilmore stated all of his questions have been asked.

Carole Osterkamp stated she lives at 689 McCool Road. She stated her question is concerning the Conservancy


District. She stated the people who live in South Haven paid dearly for that big pond over the last few years. She stated it doesn't seem to hold too much water. She stated that it seems to her that it may have been built for something else in mind. She stated probably this subdivision. She asked if there were any funds coming from this subdivision going to help reimburse some of them for the big bucks they put into this pond the past couple of years. She asked if the sewer works will have to raise their rates to produce infrastructure for this new subdivision.

Roger Templeman stated that he lives at 713 McCool Road. He stated from what he noticed a lot of these lots are going to run about 60 feet by 100 feet, which is a very small lot. He asked why do they have to have the variances to build if they are selling the homes. He asked how many duplexes are there. He stated they also said that the sewage would be handle. He stated that right now with the drains that they have, if you go down CR 700 you will see the water pumping up out of the street. He stated this is how well their sewage works. He stated he noticed that down McCool the developer put in lots about the same size as the lots that they have. He stated if they want to build there they should have lots all that size. He stated they don't want duplexes.

Teresa Moehl stated she lives at 421 W. 750 N. She asked if Portage Township School been notified of this. She asked if they are expanding the retention pond or adding another one. She asked if they are expanding this which direction is this going.

Frank Brown stated he lives at 681 McCool Road. He stated all of questions have been asked.

Mary Violes stated she lives at 399 Pinewood. She stated they were told that there was an initial hearing for this proposal on April 9 and it was published in the Chesterton paper. She stated that there were only 44 people in all of South Haven notified of this meeting tonight.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a letter from Dwayne Schwager who is against this petition. Letter is in the primary plat file.

Mr. Etzler stated the duplexes will be up in the northeast corner.

At this time, John Kremke from the Duneland Group pointed on the plat where the duplexes will be built.

Mr. Etzler stated that total number of 118 units in the duplexes. He stated as he said in the beginning this project was designed this way to conform with the County's Growth Management Plan. He stated this is an urban density area. He stated the Growth Management recommends between 4 and 7 units per acre. He stated this one as a whole has a density of 3.8. He stated some lots are smaller and some lots are larger. He stated this development is comparable to what is out there and as a matter of fact it is a little less dense. He stated these developers have developed in the Portage area. He stated Brookview is a very similar type subdivision. He stated that this subdivision went very well. He stated the owners are very happy there. He stated they have looked at some other developments in this area where they tried to build 3000 square foot homes in a single subdivision. He stated they would spec a home at that size and then it ends up where the rest of the homes in the subdivision are significantly smaller. He stated it appears that the market will not accept homes that are this large in this specific area. He stated being consistent with the Growth Management Plan and being consistent with the areas around this subdivision this is not a situation where this is a trailer park coming in here. He stated in terms of the neighbors using this land for bird watching or for deer watching, playing baseball on the land, this is owned by a private person and they are allowed to use their land as they wish. He stated the neighbors have had a great advantage for several years to have access to this land to use it for baseball games, but the property owner has a right to develop their land also. He stated the comments that this is corn country and it is an agricultural area, it may have been in the past. He stated the unincorporated South Haven area shows that it is no longer that. He stated it is a residential area. He stated the Growth Management Plan targets this as an Urban Residential Development area. He stated there was a question on whether the schools or the fire department have been notified. He stated yes they have and they have received notice of what type of development was going in here. He stated the schools have indicated that they can handle what is necessary. He stated he doesn't know what the County plans on doing with June Road. He stated this doesn't impact that road. He stated he thinks that there are a limited number of people that use that road. He stated the people in this subdivision most likely will not be using this road. He stated John Kremke will be talking about the roads. He stated they are very fortunate to have access points on all four roads bounding this property, therefore they are not sending 420 lots worth of traffic out onto one or two streets. He stated with all of these accesses from a traffic engineers point, this is a dream subdivision. He stated they have access to several different points. He stated no one has to use the same point to get out. He stated this is the reason that the level of service is graded as an "A" or "B" level of service as opposed to the common "C" or "D" level of service. He stated the development is going up to the south side of CR 750 N. He stated they will be developing this in phases. He stated this is just the rezone portion. He stated they still have to come back for primary plat approval. He stated they will be bringing that in several phases. He stated there will probably be four or five phases over a period of years. He stated the neighbors will be able to see how this is going. He stated each time they will want to start a new phase they have to have another meeting with this Plan Commission. He stated as for the County's fiscal situation and them causing more grief for the County, he doesn't think the number of residents in the county is what is causing the County's fiscal situation. He stated this is adding 400 or so units of residential real property tax paying units. He stated right now he doesn't know exactly what the taxes are on this property. He stated it is probably less than $10,0000 a year. He stated they look at the houses after being built having a tax bill of $1500 to $2500 each lot. He stated you are looking at a great increase in the amount of taxes that are going into the County. He stated this is not going to be a drain on the tax situation in the County. He stated Mr. Cronch asked why are all of the backs of the houses along the four exterior roads facing the roads. He stated the reason is that is what is requested of them. He stated they actually have as requested by TAC "no access" points along the entire outside of this so that there cannot be driveways from the exterior lots exiting out onto those four roads. He stated the County does not want that and from a traffic standpoint they don't want 30 or 40 driveways coming out on CR 700. He stated this is why the houses are facing the interior of the subdivision as oppose to the exterior of the subdivision. He stated he doesn't recall saying that this subdivision does not have any kids in it. He stated they fully expect that the families will have kids. He stated the Portage Township Park is as he said and he concurs with Mr. Finney, is a very large park of open space with some playground equipment. He stated this is the reason why they suggested that they will provide in services to help improve the Little League Park. He stated they have suggested to the Boys and Girls Club something to assist the already existing entities that are out there in this area. He stated they have provided for that type of encouragement financially. He stated they are required to publish in the Times newspaper and the Chesterton Tribune. He stated they did both of those. He stated the Chesterton Tribune is a fine paper and he thinks that a lot of people do get that paper. He stated he wasn't trying to get around anyone by publishing in the Chesterton Tribune. He stated once again Mr. Finney indicated that he doesn't want a trailer park here. He stated these are stick built on site homes. He stated these are not manufactured homes, not trailers nor doublewides coming on here. He stated concerning the entrances on McCool Road, the access points, those have been engineered to line up with the roads on the east side of McCool Road. He stated each of those roads has an intersection. He stated none of those roads goes directly into someone else's property. He stated in terms of the cost of utilities, South Haven Water Works, they have been assured that they have capacity. He stated secondly in order to keep their rates low they need to add users. He stated all the owners in this subdivision will be paying service fees also. He stated they are putting in all the sanitary in their development. He stated South Haven Sewer Works is not coming in with the service fees of these other people putting in the pipes here. He stated the developer is putting them in. He stated they grant them to the sewer department and they then get to use those and they pay to use their services. He stated the neighborhood will have streetlights throughout the subdivision. He stated as for Portage High School and the quality of their education they fully expect that everyone living here will probably go to Portage also. He stated he doesn't think that this is going to affect the drop out rate or affect crime in the area. He stated there are some engineering issues on roads and Mr. Kremke will respond to that.

Mr. Kremke stated as for the Twin Creeks Conservancy District, they have met with them several times and the engineers reviewed the plans that they provided them. He stated what they directed them to do is to instead of routing the storm water through the collection system of South Haven they have asked them to take it into the detention basin in order to alleviate the water from this property that goes through the development away from the backyards and the collection system of South Haven. He stated as he has said they will be expanding the detention basin and the expansion will occur south toward their property. He stated each and every one of these homeowners will pay into the Twin Creeks Conservancy fund, even as he does because he has a home in South Haven as well and he pays into that fund. He stated someone had asked how much of his road would be taken to widen McCool Road. He stated none will be taken. He stated this developer is required to dedicate additional right-of-way on the fringes of his property, which they are doing and there will be no improvements on McCool Road that will affect any of the property owners to the east at all. He stated in fact McCool Road will not be widened. He stated there will acceleration and deceleration tapers made on the entrances of this development to facilitate better right turn in. He stated he will address the lot sizes real quickly. He stated he has with him the subdivision plats for South Haven. He stated having lived there his entire life he is intimately familiar with the lot sizes. He stated most of the lots in South Haven are about 8,000 or 9,000 square feet. He stated there is a large section of about 6,000 square foot lots and then a section of about 10,000 square foot lots. He stated the majority are 8,000 or 9,000 square feet. He stated the majority of their lots in the proposed subdivision are between 8,000 and 11,000 square feet with a few 6,000 square foot lots and some that are larger, 12,000 to 15,000 square feet. He stated the lots sizes are very comparable, in fact on an average exceed the lot sizes in South Haven. He stated that's all he can do concerning the traffic is repeat what Mr. Etzler said. He stated the


State of Indiana designs their roads for level of service "C' or "D". He stated roads and intersections are graded in Indiana that goes from level of service "A" to "E" with "A" being the best and "E" being the worst. He stated even with the additional traffic generated by this development all of the intersections still have a level of service "D" or "A", which means they exceed current INDOT design standards and INDOT designs their roads at levels of "C" or "D" and they expect those roads to have that capacity for 20 years. He stated these roads greatly exceed even Indiana's standards for design even once the development is in.

Mr. Lyons stated he has an intersection right here by his house. He stated he has one going this way and then they are going to put one right in front of his house. He asked where do they get saying that he is not going to have that much traffic here. He stated he has Pinewood on the right hand side of him. He stated that his house faces McCool Road.

Mr. Finney stated in this project that they have going on they are going to an outside area that is not even inclusive in their plans for their kids pleasure. He stated why don't they take a couple of lots out of there and put a park in the subdivision for the kids in there. He stated what you are doing is giving them multiple family homes, multiple family residence opposed to single-family residence. He stated he still can't believe and maybe he overlooked it, that this is going to be something that doesn't undermine his property value. He stated he can't understand why they are so adamant about getting this out of an R-1.

Greg Theland stated he lives at 2855 Hearthstone in Valparaiso. He stated he doesn't live near this area but one thing he sees is that they have three roads heading east/west, which look like they are straight as an arrow about a half mile wide and the whole width of the subdivision. He stated plus you have one north/south that goes the whole length of the subdivision. He stated they have no bends except at the end where the feeders come in from the streets. He stated the only thing that he can see is with cars on both sides they are going to end up with probably 15-feet between and then you are going to have


High school kids going through there. He stated then you are going to have little kids in there. He stated his biggest concern is that you have no breaks and you have no stops. He stated there is no way you have the motorists slow down in that area. He stated you need something like curves, bends, twists or something to get the motorists to slow down so they don't run over half the kids in there.

Mr. Sasak asked where is the entrance way on CR 750 in relation to June Road. He stated the gentleman stated that the subdivision is going all the way up to CR 750. He stated according to his plat survey of his property there is a 15-foot utility easement or County easement. He stated he owns 40-feet south of that easement and so does his neighbor. He asked what happens to their 40-feet of property.

Ms. Lyon asked why is there a need for so many homes. She stated with the steel mills closing there are a lot of family's that are relocating and they have to put their homes up for sale. She stated now you are offering these new homes. She asked what are the chances for these people to sell their homes. She asked what will the price of these homes be. She asked what was the response of the School Board in Portage Township. She asked if this is not approved for the PUD can they put this many houses on this property.

Mr. Cronch asked will there be sidewalks all through this or will they be on one side of the road. He asked will there be sidewalks on just the perimeter of this.

Gina Jolly stated she lives at 709 McCool Road. She stated they were saying that the schools are going to benefit from the extra kids in the facility. She stated she has a six year old that is in kindergarten and a 13 year old that is in 7th Grade. She stated all of those classes are very high staffed with kids. She stated some of the classes are lucky to have an assistant with the teachers. She stated they don't have the room and now that everybody else is getting bigger and the families are growing, it is going to be the same way, as we get older they are going to have bigger classrooms. She stated she is not against this. She stated she would like to have a school and fix up what we have before we start adding and taking away from what we have.

Mrs. Boyles stated she would like to know if all those roads were taken off of that acreage how big would those lots be.

Mr. Wilkens stated as far as Brookview goes and he takes it that it was this company that put those there, and if they are at the north end it is nothing but a slum now. He stated they have two and a half acres here and this is something they don't want to see is duplexes with garbage in the back like you see in Portage.

There was a remonstrator that wanted to submit a petition at this time.

Mr. Breitzke stated to the remonstrator that Attorney Schaefer instructed the Commission that this cannot be submitted at this time. He stated the proper time to submit this is at the Commissioners meeting.

Mr. Nigro stated that this will be heard on June 3 at 1:30 p.m. by the County Commissioners.

Mr. Osterkamp stated he is concerned about the driveways on McCool Road that is already there. He stated the homes in this new subdivision will not have any problems backing out of their driveways like they do on McCool Road. He stated traffic is terrible now trying to back out onto McCool Road. He stated if they go through with this and he is not totally against this, they should put in a third lane on McCool Road for the people to back out of their driveways.

A remonstrator stated he thinks that it is totally unnecessary to have a PUD. He stated that's all they are going to do is construct single-family homes and duplexes.

Mr. Kremke stated concerning the intersection and the driveways, this is something that we all are concerned about as well as the County Highway and the rest of TAC. He stated this is the reason why this development is designed the way it is. He stated the roads on McCool line up with the existing intersections rather than coming out whether they may on the site across from people's driveways. He stated they can then have a control type of traffic situation at intersections rather than roads and driveways trying to compete with one another. He stated Mr. Finney talked about putting in a park in the subdivision. He stated Mr. Finney also stated that the parks in the rest of the neighborhood are in poor repair and not well maintained at all. He stated it doesn't make sense to put in another park when the existing park isn't well maintained. He stated they offered to improve what is there and make it usable for the people in South Haven as well as the new residents rather than just make more that has to be maintained. He stated there is still a lot of misconception that this development is going to be a lot of multi-family. He stated it is not and there is going to be a very small fraction of duplexes. He stated there was a question on the entrance to CR 750 N. in relationship to June Road. He stated he doesn't know and there was no thought given to June Road. He stated there was no intention on the developers part or the County's to connect this road to June Road. He stated he can't answer that question. He stated as for the Township Schools, Portage Township Schools has had to make continuous adjustment over the last 15 years as development has occurred in Portage. He stated he has had an opportunity to speak to the administrators about this and they have been aware of this actually since the trailer park's proposal. He stated they are planning for growth south of Rt. 6 both in Portage and the County to accommodate new students. He stated the lot sizes do not include the roads. He stated the roads are completely separate of the lot sizes. He stated there was some illusion that these lots are very shallow 100 feet deep. He stated that this is not true. He stated the lots across the street are 108 and 115 feet deep. He stated none of the lots are that shallow. He stated that they are at least 125 feet to 150 feet in depth.

Mr. Etzler stated the issue on CR 750 N., the title work that they have received on the property, doesn't indicate that there is anyone who owns property that they are looking to rezone or plan their development on. He stated there are easements he assumes for the road up there. He stated he is not aware of a 40-foot strip of land running along the northern part of their land. He stated their land is bounded by the four roads that is shown there with the exception of the cut outs of the three areas there. He stated they can take a look at that and if someone owns land within their area this is a serious issue and needs to be looked at. He stated this is something that you can't deal with at a later date. He stated there will be sidewalks within the interior. He stated everyone of those roads have sidewalks on them. He stated the plans show that and in addition the outside along the southeast on McCool and on CR 700 N. and there is also sidewalks that go out in each area all the way out to each of the roads. He stated there will be sidewalks and street lights in this area. He stated the safety of the people within this subdivision is well taken care of. He stated there was a question on why this development is designed the way that it is. He stated the market is looked at in that area and these homes fit the market and the lot sizes fit the market and the lot sizes fit the Growth Management Plan. He stated the homes throughout the development will vary. He stated there will be many price points throughout the subdivision. He stated they will generally go between $120,000 to $180,000.

Mr. Kremke stated traffic control is going to be accomplished in a number of ways. He stated one of those is lining up with existing streets to help the flow of traffic and not compete with driveways. He stated it is going to be controlled by some curves and curves themselves do not slow down traffic. He stated traffic control will be established by stop signs. He stated there are only two streets that pass through the subdivision. He stated people must stop to make turns to pass through the development. He stated this was done on purpose to slow things down.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated that there are too many lots in this area. He stated there is R-1 on all four sides. He stated he is concerned about the amount of traffic it will create. He stated he doesn't think this is a good fit for a PUD.

Mr. Poparad stated that one of the questions that were asked and they never answered was the capacity of the South Haven plant. He asked if they had IDEM approval to dump this many homes in there.



Mr. Kremke stated that they have IUSC approval to do that.

Mr. Poparad stated that is not the question he asked. He asked if they had IDEM approval that the capacity of the plant will handle this development.

Mr. Kremke stated that they do not have IDEM approval but the studies of the plant have shown that it can more than handle this. He stated the plant has actually double the capacity that it is now.

Mr. Poparad stated he is well familiar with the plan. He asked if they had IDEM approval.

Mr. Kremke stated no. He stated this is premature stage to have IDEM approval.

Mr. Poparad stated he agrees with Mr. Burns that this is a little bit too dense.

Mr. Bucko stated he has some concerns about the density. He stated he does understand that what we see today is something entirely different then we could ever come up with when you go through the stages. He stated this is only a rezoning to a PUD are we in fact guaranteeing him that he is going to have 420 lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Bucko stated if that is the case then he does not approve of this.

Mr. Biddinger stated that he has a couple of concerns. He stated one of the things that were mentioned quite frequently is the fact that you are using green space and justifying outside the jurisdiction of this piece of property. He stated that has a couple of concerns because first you don't have any control of that property and number two it is very easy if a similar development came in the neighborhood on another parcel and they can say that they are using that as green space too. He stated that the idea of the PUD is too allow a couple of exceptions to an R-3 zoning. He stated usually you ask for something in trade for that. He stated often times we will allow a little higher density but in trade of that it requires a little bit more green space, maybe setting aside a quarter or a third of the property as a park or recreational area in trade for density that is much higher. He stated this is his impression and his feeling on the PUD. He stated another comment that he will make to the public is what you are seeing on the board over here is by no stretch of the imagination the final plan of what will happen. He stated that there are two more steps before construction will be allowed. He stated there are two more plans that will come through and a couple of changes for corrections, additions or modifications to be made to this plan.

Mr. Detert stated he has some of the same concerns about density and traffic. He stated to put this many homes in there on smaller lots will compound the problem with multi-family. He stated he thinks that it is pretty serious. He stated one thing that they did indicate if he read their papers here it did indicate that there was going to be sidewalks throughout the subdivision and yet you talked about having them just around the perimeter.

Mr. Etzler stated that there will sidewalks throughout in addition to the exterior.

Mr. Detert stated he thinks that it is still too dense. He stated he is really not in favor of it.

Mr. Mahnic stated he knows that a number of people stated that they did not receive notice. He stated by definition concerned citizens are people that live adjacent, more or less, to the development. He stated if somebody who lives adjacent to the development didn't receive a notice then there is a possibility that the meeting will have to be held all over again. He stated it would be nice to know if our office has received a copy of the certification from everyone around the subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is considered their notice if they are here.

Mr. Mahnic stated the variances have to be listed. He stated any time you deviate from an R-3 it states in the ordinance that you have to list them. He stated it states in the ordinance under "Variances from Development Requirements" that "In establishing the particular PUD district the County Legislative Body shall have the authority to grant variances." He stated that you heard this from the previous case. He stated variances must be specifically set forth in the PUD ordinance. He stated he hasn't seen the PUD ordinance and when it does come it needs to have a total listing. He stated that this does not look like an ordinance to him. He stated he has not seen the PUD listings. He stated he is sure that over here there must be at least 80% of the home sites that do not meet the requirements of the R-3. He stated he has also learned from the previous argument that if we are going to grant variances we here have to recommend them to the Legislative Body otherwise they are just going to "carte blanche" approve them. He stated according to this he would like to see before he takes any direction, this thing should be developed from what he sees and what he hears as an R-1 which is what it is zoned properly. He stated he lives in a subdivision with 87 homes in it. He stated each home is a minimum of one and one-half acre. He stated they have a number of places that are common ground. He stated that when a developer puts this in he doesn't expect him to say that they can use the adjacent one. He stated he thinks that there is enough room here that they can make a sensible PUD and still put in a recreational area. He stated due to the fact that he lives in an 87 home development he knows every person in his development. He stated they have the speed sign over there and the sheriff to tell these people to slow down. He stated they have only outlet in their subdivision and one main road and three cul-de-sacs. He stated he doesn't like the fact that there are long roads here. He stated our job here is to look at the safety of the area. He asked is it safe and are we preserving the integrity of the adjacent homeowners and their property. He stated he can't do anything with the birds, deer and other wild life. He stated when a developer buys something we can't stop him from chasing our animals out. He stated we do think of these things too.

Mr. Detert asked if the same person was going build all the homes in here.

Mr. Kremke stated he can't say 100% yes.

Mr. Detert stated the reason he is asking is because he has some familiarity from years back with the gentleman that is trying to develop this and he does build adequate homes. He stated he doesn't build large homes.

Mr. Breitzke stated he is in general agreement with the density of the subdivision without giving something back to the community. He stated at TAC they had talk about recreation space and something possibly that could be contributed to the South Haven community as a whole. He stated he still hasn't seen what their plan is just suggestions of what they might do. He stated as you approach the Commissioners you need to be more specific about how long this is going to continue if you are going to support the Little League and their facilities, the Library and the Boys and Girls Club. He stated he likes to see neighborhood parks for all the kids to use. He stated as we develop with subdivisions there is no requirement for recreation space. He stated we can kind of negotiate and suggest that through a PUD process. He stated the density is still very high. He stated with the utility issue as with all utility's the developer builds everything and turns it over after it is approved and inspected by the Government unit or the utility. He stated they pay for all of the water utility service, the hydrants etc. until they are accepted by the utility. He stated they build all the roads and all the storm drainage works until they are accepted by the county or the conservancy district. He stated that they did a fairly good storm drainage management plan in this. He stated concerning the schools, we as a Plan Commission because the way the ordinances are written can't consider schools as oppose to development. He stated right or wrong we can't consider the size of the school. He stated one thing to keep in mind in a development of any size it takes years to build it out. He stated for a 400-unit development he doesn't think he would be wrong in saying that it would take at least ten years to build out and likely twenty years.

Mr. Poparad stated that they touched on fire hydrants. He stated he assumes that there will be fire hydrants.

Mr. Kremke stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked who will pay for the rental.



Mr. Kremke stated there will be a POA.

Attorney Schaefer stated the Commission can go off their proposed recommendations to the Commissioners or 17.24.100 of the ordinance. She stated we need to present a written recommendation listing our findings on all fifteen of the items that is mentioned in here.

Mr. Etzler asked if it would be appropriate if they would ask for a continuance.

Mr. Breitzke stated they certainly have the option to continue.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 03-PUD-3 until the June 11, 2003 meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this will not be going to the Commissioners on June 3. He stated this is continued until the next regular Plan Commission meeting on June 11, 2003. He stated the public hearing will be closed.

Case 03-Z-6. Petition of Len Ellis, 2755 Sager Road, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-3, Shopping Center District to be located on the East side of Sager Road, between Martinal Road and Division Road in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Lee Ellis stated he is representing his father Len Ellis. He stated that he discovered today that he might have inadvertently missed at least one individual in sending out public notice.

Mr. Breitzke asked if the party that was not notified was here tonight. He asked who is the individual that was not notified.

Mr. Ellis stated Mr. and Mrs. Jamie Ford.

Mr. Detert asked if the "Fords" were here.

Mr. Ford stated that they are here and may not be alone. He stated that there may be more people who were not notified.

Mr. Nigro asked Mr. Ellis if he felt confident we can proceed just with the fact that if he did miss someone else then the rezone would be null and void.

Attorney Schaefer stated that technically the Statutes are very clear that you have to publicly notify everyone.

Mr. Breitzke stated to the "Fords" that if you waive the issue of notice then we could have the public hearing tonight for the benefit of all the people who are here or we will just continue it.

Mrs. Ford stated they will waive the notice but she wants the Commission to know that she does believe that there are others that were not notified and are within 150 feet.

Mr. Poparad stated that this is the problem. He stated if one has been missed how many others were missed.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Ellis that it is up to him whether he wants to proceed or not.

Mr. Ellis stated this was not intentionally done. He stated the plat maps were very hard to read. He stated he would like to continue this until the next hearing.

Attorney Schaefer stated to Mr. Ellis that he needs to notify those people who were not notified. She stated that if you are here this evening and are not at the June 11 meeting it is your own fault for not being there.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 03-Z-6 to the June 11 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 03-P-8. Petition of Hampton Downs, LLC c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Hampton Downs Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 500 N. between CR 250 W. and CR 175 W. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 39 lots on 20 acres. Zoned R-1)




Todd Leeth stated he is here on behalf of the petitioner, Hampton Downs LLC who is the developer of Hampton Downs Subdivision. He stated the proposed subdivision contains 20 acres and 39 lots. He stated the property is on the board and the Commission has a copy of the plat. He stated the southern boundary and frontage for this subdivision is CR 500 N. He stated CR 250 W. is located in this area one property removed. He stated the property is zoned R-1 under the County's Ordinance and zoning maps. He stated the property is the current homestead for Mr. and Mrs. Mammarella. He stated they will be residing in the subdivision on lot 4 in their current home in that area in the southern portion of the subdivision. He stated the subdivision design will provide for public streets and they are providing curb and gutter throughout the subdivision. He stated they have connectivity to the north with a road to stub to provide for connectivity should that land and land further to the north develop. He stated there will be the thoroughfare that is anticipated by the Subdivision ordinance. He stated they are providing for the standard entrance plan detail that is shown on the plat and is the entrance plan at the entrance to the subdivision on CR 500 N., which provides for the appropriate lanes in acceleration and deceleration tapers. He stated this entrance plan has been approved and reviewed by TAC and Mr. Schelling who is from the Highway Department. He stated utilities for the subdivision will be provided by South Haven Sewer Works. He stated this project first appeared at TAC in August of 2002. He stated there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of debate over that period of time primarily related to bringing in the availability of servicing this property by the South Haven Sewer Works. He stated at that time back in 2002 it was not in the service territory for that utility. He stated on March 12, 2003, just recently, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission granted South Haven Certificate of Territorial Authority, which allows South Haven to service this property. He stated there is currently service in the right-of-way today. He stated there is municipal potable water approximately one-half mile away. He stated this is not anticipated to be extended to this developmental. He stated they are anticipating the use of private wells for potable water for drinking for the residents of the subdivision. He stated detention is always a concern in any subdivision. He stated this subdivision has proposed two detention ponds. He stated one will be in the northwest corner and one in the southeast corner. He stated the primary detention will be handled in the northwest corner approximately 151/2 acres of the 20 acres flows naturally now to that area. He stated there will be a new detention pond in this area. He stated this will capture over three-quarters of the water, detain it and then release it in a controlled manner to the west and to the north as the undeveloped land goes now. He stated the balance of the subdivision or roughly the southern quarter flows to the roadside ditch today. He stated this water will be captured and detained in the detention pond in the southeast corner and again released to its natural flow to the roadside ditch after it has been detained and released in a controlled manner. He stated the method of conveying storm water throughout the subdivision he has indicated that the streets will have curb and gutter. He stated this is a part of the storm water management system. He stated the water will be collected in the streets and then captured in storm inlets with storm sewers and carried to the detention ponds, detained and then outletted back into the community after detention in a controlled manner. He stated TAC has reviewed the storm water management system when they forwarded this to the Commission at that time. He stated there is one variance that they are seeking tonight. He stated the subdivision control ordinance allows for a reduction in lot width from 100 feet in the R-1 district to 80 feet in the R-1 district if you provide both sewer and water. He stated as he has indicated it is their intention to provide only sanitary sewer and not have the water though that is a possibility to bring that to this subdivision. He stated they would like to seek a variance to have the lot width reduction to the 80 feet width that they have shown on the primary plat. He stated with this one exception this subdivision meets all of the criteria of the subdivision control ordinance.

No one spoke in favor of this subdivision.

Keith Gesse stated he lives at 238 W. 550 N. He stated this subdivision has been kind of a secret to the neighbors as far as what they have known about it. He stated the first time he saw of this was on April 14. He stated he read in the TAC minutes and it was stated by the surveyor that they had approved this and they didn't see this and didn't know anything about this. He stated this disturbed them quite a bit. He stated he read further and seen that the water was going to come out of the northwest corner and that the parcel removed, the undeveloped parcel, is his. He stated it is farm ground. He stated he has lived there since 1969 and has farmed this with his dad. He stated now he farms this by himself. He stated he doesn't feel that the unnatural water flow that will be created is proper. He stated it is increasing the water that comes down that way. He stated there has always been water flowing down that way. He stated that he has some pictures he would like to submit to the Commission. He stated some of them are just of the land and the pitch of the land. He stated the type of soil is heavy clay. He stated the water runs very quickly to an area, which shows where that water has to get out onto CR 250 into the small culvert. He stated most of that water does end up on CR 250 and has to get out that culvert. He stated it does take a while for it to get out. He stated this is just the natural flow that it is now. He stated it has always gone that way and the increase of water bothers him a lot. He stated he feels the project could be a much better project if that water was run to the road and not into a detention pond. He stated this is all clay and it will hold water. He stated he also read in the TAC minutes that Mr. Bengel had stated that this retention pond will be dry most of the time. He stated that he doesn't believe this. He stated that he believes that this is going to be a pond that will hold water because it is a clay base and it will not do its job. He stated it will silt up. He stated everything is going to end up in this pond. He stated gas from a car, antifreeze, a sewer problem, oil and anything from the street is going to end up in this pond. He stated this pond will dump it on him. He stated he also feels that there is a water issue with as many homes in this community as there is going to be and as close together as they are going to be. He stated that well water is a problem for that many wells and he sees fire safety a problem.

Leslie Gesse stated she lives at 238 W. 550 N. She stated she backs her husband and she has the same concerns that he does. She stated where the water will be naturally draining isn't just undeveloped property. She stated it is their home and where they live. She stated this is their future. She stated she doesn't think 38 to 40 homes on a landlocked piece of property is planned well as it should be.

Paul Gesse stated he lives at 543 N. 250 W. He stated his property is on the north side and he has lived here for 40 years and he looses about 2 to 3 acres of ground right now without anything there because of water being stalled there. He asked if there were any recreational facilities planned in this. He stated this type of homes certainly with the tax base that it will have, will not support the schools or fire department. He stated this doesn't fit with the rest of the community. He stated he learned through the grapevine about this about three weeks ago until he got the letter. He stated he doesn't appreciate this at all. He stated if people are going to do stuff they should talk to you about it. He stated today in his mailbox he found a letter from Bengel and it didn't even go through the Post Office. He stated he doesn't know how it got there.

Kurt Kennelly stated he lives at 231 W. 500 N. He stated he has a horse farm there. He stated he keeps ten to twenty horses. He stated he has them well secured and fenced in. He stated he has no way to fence out a whole bunch of kids. He stated this is not a farm community type of development and this is what the area seems to be. He stated that there are cattle on three sides of them. He stated this looks like starter homes with a lot of children. He stated this will cause him severe problems with his animals. He asked if they will build some kind of a fence to keep them out. He stated his horses can't get out but he can't stop people from getting in.

Walter Williams stated he lives at 514 N. 250 W. He stated he owns ten acres parallel to this section over here. He stated his concern is what is going to accumulate in that pond and run through the ditch and through his property.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a letter from George and Carol Denapos who live at 218 W. 500 N. Letter is in the primary plat file.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a letter from Ralph and Lois O'Keefe who live at 522 N. 175 W.


Mr. Leeth stated the comments from the public he will try to address in order. He stated Keith Gesse indicated that he was concerned that this was a secret process. He stated nothing can be further from the truth. He stated this is why they are here tonight. He stated the process is they have to come before TAC early on and comply with the technical requirements of this drawing to make sure that it has the standard detail and requirements that the ordinance dictates. He stated once that happens then they invite the neighborhood to come. He stated they present their petition before the Commission in hopes that they complied with the statute, the County's ordinance, and receive the Commission's approval. He stated the neighbors, the community comes before the Commission and review their comments, make their public comments in opposition or in favor and this is the very nature of the public process that they are now in, which is the first step of the public process of dividing the property. He stated there was no intent to be secretive in any regard with regard to the process. He stated they were simply following what the law requires. He stated the issue of drainage was addressed by many. He stated Mr. Gesse continued that they were going to increase the water to the neighboring properties. He stated this is not true. He stated they are not going to increase the amount of flow of that water off the property. He stated this is exactly what the detention ponds are there for. He stated before any storm water leaves the four corners of the subdivision it must be detained and released at a controlled rate and that rate has been by Mr. Bengel the project engineer and reviewed by TAC, which contains engineers as well who have reviewed those calculations. He stated this result in the increased water being detained back so that the water flow offsite is at or lower than the undeveloped current rate of flow from that property today. He stated Mr. Gesse also suggested that it would be better to redirect the flow from the northwest corner and bring more water to the south. He stated his understanding of that is that this would be poor design to redirect the flow of water from where it naturally flows now. He stated as he just said they detain back the water and release it at its current or lesser rate. He stated if they redirect that water than while Mr. Gesse's property down stream from the north may have a decrease flow of water somebody in the south is going to have an increased flow of water beyond what is currently there and naturally occurring now. He stated this is generally perceived as a bad idea in design of storm water managements. He stated they are not using anyone else's property to serve as detention for this subdivision. He stated Mrs. Gesse commented that she did not feel that this subdivision was planned very well or as good as it should be. He stated he doesn't have any alternatives or response to that because he doesn't know how it could be designed any better. He stated there were no suggestions made but the Plan Commission's job is to review to see if this plan complies with the requirements of the ordinance and if it does then it is deserving of the County's approval. He stated he believes that it does. He stated it provides for the good flow of circulation of traffic. He stated as he has indicated the storm water management has been handled in an efficient and responsible manner and it meets with the requirements of the ordinance. He stated Mr. Paul Gesse raised several issues. He stated one was drainage and he has addressed that and some other responses. He stated Mr. Gesse asked if there were any recreational areas. He stated these are large lots even though it is an R-1 subdivision. He stated there are no recreational facilities located within this subdivision or planned for this subdivision. He stated there was a question of the homes and the values of the homes would not support services that would be provided by Government. He stated this is not a criteria for the subdivision control ordinance and they haven't determined what the value of the homes are going to be within the subdivision. He stated this is a premature statement or conclusion to be drawn by the proposal before the Commission tonight. He stated there was a suggestion by more than one but Mr. Gesse also indicated that he did not believe that this type of development fit within the community. He stated he differs with that conclusion. He stated not only is this zoned R-1 and is developed in accordance with that, say for that one exception. He stated there are other developments in close proximity of differing sizes. He stated he believes in the community as a whole it fits within that community and that is consistent with the zoning and is probably why it has its zoning today. He stated the last comment of Mr. Gesse was more editorial rather than required in a response and he will leave that one lie as it is. Mr. Kennelly owns property to the east and was concerned with liability issues with regards to fencing out the children that might reside within this subdivision. He stated this is not a unique situation in any development. He stated within this subdivision there may be pools and other potential attractive nuisances. He stated that each property owner is responsible for maintaining his or her own property in a safe manor. He stated children are a fact of life and frankly he thinks we should encourage raising our children in rural environments and in subdivision just as the one that is being proposed. He stated Mr. Kennelly stated he did not think this fit within the community and he felt that the density was too much. He stated with regards to the density issue, again each of the lots within this subdivision are 13,000 square feet or greater which meets the zoning requirements under the County's zoning ordinance and the subdivision control ordinance. He stated they are not asking a variance in regards to lot size. He stated as to density they meet the County's code 100%. He stated that Mr. Williams was concerned with drainage but raised an additional concern with regards to water quality. He stated today in undeveloped state there is potential for animal feces to contaminate the surface water along with pesticides, insecticides etc. He stated the installation of detention ponds actually can help water quality in some regards, but again he thinks that he has addressed this previously in his responses many of concerns with regard to the amount of water that would flow from this subdivision. He stated Mr. Williams also talked about the fact that he did not feel that the R-1 was appropriate here or that they were having too many lots. He stated as he has indicated, they are not asking for lot size variances. He stated all of the lots conform with the requirements of the R-1 District with sanitary sewer installed. He stated there were comments in regards to home values and the sizes of the homes. He stated that they have not indicated whatsoever the size of the homes or the value of the homes in the subdivision. He stated the petitioner is going to live within the subdivision. He stated they live on the land there now and they have owned it since 1976. He stated he can't imagine that they would be very anxious to allow construction in this subdivision that would hamper the home values and adversely affect their own home value.

Mrs. Keith stated she wants to know that if the drainage problems does fail after a period of time she does have water in her field and she does have kids in her field she would like it put into the record that drainage system or a tile in her field will be put in at the landowners expense or whoever decides to put in the subdivision and a field tile will be put in to stop the flooding in her field.

Keith Gesse stated when he talked about redirecting the water the plan to talk to him was never there. He stated this is the secret thing. He stated he was never approached for his approval on anything. He stated this is what he was trying to say. He stated all of this has happened without him. He stated he is going to have to live with this in the future. He stated when he talked about redirecting the water he was talking about spending the money to pipe it to the road so he wouldn't have to live with a detention pond in the corner of his field the rest of his life or if he wanted to build a house he would have to deal with the detention pond and the water that comes out of it. He stated it flows towards him and it is going to interrupt his life and it is a fact that if this goes in that will interrupt his life and part of his world.

Leslie Gesse stated when her husband Keith went to the Plan Commission office to read the minutes from the April 14 TAC meeting it was stated in those minutes that Mr. Bengel had spoke with her husband Keith and her father-in-law, Paul, and that they had given approval for this proposal. She stated this is the reason it passed the TAC meeting. She asked if anyone could address this.

Mr. Kennelly stated that he saw a set of plans for this two hours ago. He stated he thinks as neighbors they have a fair chance to look at this to see what is really going in there and how this is laid out. He stated they don't really have much knowledge other than a quick picture of what they see of what is suppose to happen.

Paul Gesse stated the water that is going to run north there is no way that it can get out of there. He stated even with the retention pond releasing the water at a slower amount. He stated that this water is going to be in their field because the road blocks the water after a certain level. He stated he has lived there for forty years and that corner and a couple of acres there with any kind of rain there is water sitting there. He stated this retention pond is not going to do any good.

Mr. Leeth stated Mrs. O'Keefe wants a commitment for the drain tile should the storm water management system fail in the future. He stated this is not a commitment that the petitioner is willing to make. He stated the subdivision has been, as he understand it, submitted to the Drainage Board and the drainage system within the subdivision will be a regulated drain and assessments made. He stated each of the lot owners will pay property taxes into a reserve account basically with the Drainage Board to resolve any drainage problems in the future. He stated as far as the petitioner is concerned there is no such commitment that is acceptable to the petitioner. He stated he is not aware of the comments or promises that were made to Mr. Gesse. He stated he is not going to say that the TAC minutes don't have such a statement but he has read three separate TAC minutes relating to this project and he doesn't see it in his quick review concerning a reference Mr. Bengel made to you or to anyone ones "approved" of this subdivision. He stated he doesn't recall this happening. He stated all he knows is what the legal process requires. He stated the legal process requires public notice. He stated this has been given and no one has suggested that it hasn't. He stated the comments that are received tonight are indicative of the concerns of the community and he believes that the ordinance provides for a way to address those concerns. He stated they have done this by properly designing the subdivision, handling the storm water in a responsible manner and have complied in all respects with the subdivision control ordinance except the variance on lot width that he addressed earlier.

Mr. O'Keefe stated asked how they were going to hook onto the sewer.

Mr. Leeth stated first of all there is an existing force main in the right-of-way now and as he understands it and the opportunity to tape to the west is in close proximity to this subdivision. He stated exactly where and how that is going to be tapped and service is a matter of discussion at this point between the utility and the private property owners and the developer. He stated this hasn't actually been resolved as to where the tap will be. He stated again South Haven has provided them a letter that is in the file indicating the ability to service capacity of their plant and the IURC has granted the authority for them to service the subdivision.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad asked if they have IDEM approval.

Mr. Leeth stated no they don't.

Mr. Poparad asked if we are putting the cart before the horse here or is he missing something. He stated this is the second one tonight that needs IDEM approval for the sewers and they expect us to give them the okay when all the permits are not in place and there is no guarantee that you are going to get an IDEM permit. He asked if there was a force main on this parcel.

Mr. Leeth stated yes there is. He stated there is an existing for main in the right-of-way today.

Mr. Poparad asked if they had IDEM approval to tie into a forced main. He stated he was told that this was forbidden and under extreme circumstances will you be allowed to tie two force mains together. He asked if this was a fair statement.

Mr. Leeth stated he believes that this is a fair statement. He asked Mr. Bengel if he could address the question with regards to where the tap might be.

Mr. Poparad stated it doesn't matter where it is. He stated it is just the fact of tying two force mains together.

Mr. Bengel stated this not exactly the case. He stated first of all they have to have IDEM approval before they build...

Mr. Poparad stated he agrees 100%. He stated it is putting the cart before the horse. He stated you want us to do this based on you might get IDEM's approval.

Mr. Bengel stated that it is he opinion that there is no problem getting IDEM's approval.


Mr. Poparad stated to Mr. Bengel that they want the Commission's approval for something that might not happen.

Mr. Bengel stated it is his opinion that they will not have a problem getting IDEM's approval. He stated you can't tap into a force main and that is something that is not permitted.

Mr. Poparad stated he can get another engineer sitting over here that would disagree.

Mr. Bengel stated either they hook onto the existing force main or they go back to CR 250.

Mr. Poparad asked if there was a manhole down there.

Mr. Bengel stated there is a big force main that runs down like this.

Mr. Poparad stated he questions why not submit to IDEM first and then walk in here with a permit to show you have permission.

Attorney Schaefer stated she thinks that this is a very common misconception of Boards of Zoning Appeals and Plan Commissions is that you want to see everything approved. She stated the fact of the matter is it is impossible. She stated if they don't get IDEM approval they are dead and they are in violation of the law. She stated all of these agencies require an approved plat from this Body.

Mr. Poparad stated he doesn't know if that is a true statement for IDEM.

Attorney Schaefer stated for most of them it is.

Mr. Poparad stated South Haven seems to be out attracting customers so they've expanded their territory and this is all fine and good. He stated he happens to agree with some of the people in the audience. He stated at CR 700 and SR 149 in a heavy rain you can see the sewage shooting out of the ground. He stated he questions the value of the letter from South Haven saying they have adequate capacity.


Mr. Breitzke stated our ordinance calls for at preliminary stages a conceptual plat. He stated they come back at final plat and then they do the construction drawings based on the number of lots, the street configuration and design with the blessings of the Plan Commission. He stated until they have those blessings they can't do a design. He stated there are significant changes that can take place and they often do.

Mr. Poparad stated part of the process is the IDEM permit.

Mr. Breitzke stated if there was a preliminary way to approach IDEM or INDEP but they like to have the whole plat before them because they don't want portions of things or preliminary things. He stated they want that final plat. He stated they won't even give a conditional. He stated he doesn't disagree with Mr. Poparad. He stated he wishes the State would give some kind of conditional approval but they simple don't and that is there policy.

Attorney Schaefer stated besides whatever you vote on it is presumed as part of it and they have to meet all of the technical requirements. She stated this is not an enforcement Body for all these other agencies. She stated this is a Planning Body to look at whether the concept is a good concept. She stated they still have to come back.

Mr. Leeth stated the County's ordinance addresses the very issue on what his client, the petitioner, has to show to the Commission. He stated this is in Section 16.16.020 D, which are the requirements. He stated "D" is the "Engineering Feasibility Report." At this time, Mr. Leeth read from the ordinance. He stated they comply with the ordinance.

Mr. Detert stated he has one comment about sewer capacities. He stated utilities will write you a letter that they have it. He stated many years ago we challenged a large subdivision and they never came up with documentation that they could handle it but yet the developer had a letter saying they could.

Mr. Leeth stated that the ordinance doesn't really address it. He stated the utility gives the letter and then we comply with the ordinance. He stated he would like to tell you on behalf of the petitioner tonight. He stated this matter was under some very intense opposition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. He stated both the City of Valparaiso and the City of Portage were in opposition to South Haven servicing large areas including this property. He stated through that process engineers from both the utility from the City of Portage and the City of Valpo submitted testimony to the IURC the office of the Utility Consumer Councilor, which is a Body representing the public. He stated they also have on the public payroll down in Indianapolis engineers. He stated they also submitted testimony. He stated the dust all settled on March 12 the IURC felt that they had the capacity to service this property and they issued an order granting Certificate of Territorial Authority to allow South Haven to service this property.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Leeth he appreciates him mentioning that. He stated it was pretty intense.

Mr. Mahnic stated he was going to make a motion if and when we approved this it should all be based with the resolution of the sewer problem that is being brought up. He stated Mr. Leeth pretty much defined that but he thinks the motion should contain that in there. He stated in the last meeting at TAC there are six or eight items and some are small items that have to be met. He asked if they had a road agreement and Drainage Board approval.

Mr. Leeth stated the road agreement has been submitted to Mr. Nigro at the Plan Commission office.

Mr. Bengel stated that they have to go back for final action to the Drainage Board.

Mr. Mahnic stated that there was question to the size of the inlets.

Mr. Bengel stated this was a construction item on the final phase.

Mr. Mahnic stated that the building line on lot 34 was missing or not shown.



Mr. Bengel stated that they added it.

Mr. Mahnic stated they show that they have 40 lots but they don't show a lot 40.

Mr. Bengel stated they have 39 lots.

Mr. Bengel stated the reason they reduced it to 39 is because they met out there with the utility company...

Mr. Mahnic stated one thing that disturbs him is in the minutes it says, "Mr. Schelling stated that he doesn't want to see the right-of-way tied up with sewer lines. He stated that this whole subdivision is tied to that issue and he doesn't like it."

Mr. Leeth stated this is a construction item rather than a platting item. He stated as he has indicated, they don't know where they are tapping in.

Mr. Mahnic stated what concerns him is that Mr. Schelling is a pretty good engineer and if he is upset with that we should be able to get that resolved to Mr. Schelling's satisfaction. He stated as far as he is concerned we are going to approve this but he would like to see that Mr. Schelling is happy on what happens here.

Mr. Leeth stated that the law is going to dictate to us where they can put the sewer.

Mr. Breitzke stated one comment he is making is that they are asking for a variance of 80 feet for several lots. He stated normally you would be require to have 100 feet if you have both water and sewer. He stated you don't have potable water supply here. He stated it would have been a nice amenity for the subdivision. He stated he doesn't know the reason why we are giving a variance to so many lots especially when we don't have a water supply to the lots. He stated he is concerned that another development is going to come through and ask for the same thing in consideration of that. He stated he is guarded about this. He stated conceptually maybe it isn't bad but we are deviating from the ordinance with a lot of lots. He stated this bothers him somewhat. He stated also the issue was more with the existing force main and with the introduction with an additional force main in the right-of-way this was an issue that they discussed a little bit at length. He stated it is a construction or final plat issue. He stated the Highway Engineer was very concerned about having two mains, especially considering capacity issues and a real necessity of having two mains in the right-of-way. He stated the August 9 minutes, which Mr. Gesse was referring to, says, "Mr. Breitzke stated that we need to see more of a pond design. He stated he is concerned about the outlets and where they end up going. He stated there are a lot of private properties involved. Mr. Bengel stated that it is going to the west. He stated they have good relations with the two Gesse's."

Mr. Bucko stated he does see a problem with the variances there. He stated if you have force mains coming down CR 500 N. and apparently it joins up with another force main somewhere else to the west, you are eventually going to have development that is going to continue to increase. He stated you are going to be setting precedence by giving a variance like this to allow for less than 100 foot lots. He stated the sewers with something this dense is zoned for that and he thinks that it is better for the land as a whole to have the sewers there because you are not dumping septic systems into the ground. He stated this is probably a plus. He stated he is against the variance. He asked if the water that is normally flowing south coming back to this pond or some of the water that normally going to be going north into the big pond.

Mr. Bengel stated all the water that goes south will continue to go south. He stated the water that goes north will continue to go north.

Mr. Bucko stated he just has a problem of hauling water from one area of the place to another portion of the area and then that gets dumped out onto farmlands that didn't have that water. He stated he is against supporting this because of the variances.

Mr. Burns stated he has the same concern about the variance mainly because the adjacent property is classified as R-1 but it is not being used as R-1 but open space with a lot of large parcels. He stated to make it smaller than the 100-foot parcel is too dense for the area. He asked what size pipe would you have to run to CR 250 W. if you were going to divert the drainage underground to 250 W.

Mr. Bengel stated right now with their preliminary design it would be 21-inch pipe.

Mr. Burns asked what distance would that be him him.

Mr. Bengel stated it would be about 1000 feet.

Mr. Burns stated that is really cost prohibited for them to do that.

Mr. Bengel stated he offered to Mr. Gesse and they did talk about this in the Plan Commission office. He stated he asked Mr. Gesse if he was interested in having a swale put in around the edge of the field instead of the natural flow. He stated Mr. Gesse said he was not interested.

Mr. Burns stated he is concerned about both parties, the Gesse's and the O'Keefe's.

Mr. Bengel stated he hopes the minutes don't say that he had their approval. He stated he spoke with Mr. Gesse after several TAC meetings and then at the Plan Commission by accident and they discussed this. He stated they never approved anything.

Mr. Burns asked if this would correct the problem if they put a ditch down the side.

Mr. Bengel stated this can be a plus.