PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
October 8, 2003

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on October 8, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Porter County Administration Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Frank Mahnic and Kevin Breitzke. Staff members absent were Bob Poparad and Commissioner Dave Burrus. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Lily Schaefer and Mary Cable.

Mr. Thompson stated that there was some correspondence. He stated that besides the letters that were sent in for the continuance, Mike Herzog sent a letter to the County Commissioners resigning his position on the Plan Commission.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive reading of the minutes for the September 10, 2003 meeting and accept them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 6-0 voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 03-FP-14. Petition of William Rensberger, 1587 S. Calumet Road, Chesterton, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Dakota Creek Estates, to be located on the Southeast corner of SR 231 and Lake/Porter County Line Road in Boone Township. (To contain 3 lots on 10.355 acres. Zoned R-1.)

Mr. Rensberger stated that last month this was approved primarily subject to, there was a building line on Lot 2 and this being R-1, they were able to pull that building line off and that was the only change. He stated that there was a suggestion from the Plan Commission to try to make one drive between Lots 2 and 3. He stated that the property owner, Mr. Griffey, thought it would affect the value of the lots and they went back to TAC, and this being a state highway, they already have the driveway permits from the state and he has decided not to make it a joint driveway.

Mr. Mahnic stated that since this is a state road, it’s up to the state to issue the driveway permits, so it’s up to the state to determine whether it’s safe or unsafe in that position.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-14. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 6-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-15. Petition of William D. Jones, c/o Michael Cap, 18154 Harwood, Homewood, IL, seeking a replat of Lots 80, 81, 82 and


83 in Falling Waters subdivision, in Porter Township.

Mike Cap stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that the purpose of the replat is to widen the frontage width of the lot that contains an existing residence and the purpose of that is to incorporate existing driveways. He stated that the owner previously had thought that he would shorten their width up, but has since changed his mind, so what they’ve done is to widen out the front to incorporate the driveways, and then, as a consequence, they had to adjust the frontage width of the adjacent lots, as well.

Mr. Detert stated that this is going back to what was originally there, so it’s not really a change.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 03-FP-15. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a 6-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-16. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat approval for Charles Subdivision, located on the West side of CR 400 E., between CR 500 N. and CR 600 N., in Washington Township. (To contain 1 lot on 1.31 acres. Zoned RR.)

Steve Stofko stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that they went through TAC and made changes as requested.

Mr. Mahnic asked how this changed from the primary plat.

Mr. Stofko stated that nothing has changed from the secondary plat. He stated that the primary plat they had a couple of changes.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-16. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a 6-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-FP-17. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat approval for Renee Subdivision, to be located on the North side of CR 500 N., between CR 325 E. and CR 400 E. in Washington Township. (Zoned RR.)

Mr. Stofko stated that he is representing the petitioners in this matter. He stated that this is exactly as primary was provided, with the exception that they added a drainage easement in back, up front, in a low area to accommodate maintaining that as a low area for drainage purposes.

Mr. Detert moved to approve secondary plat for Case 03-FP-17. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a 6-0 roll call vote.

Case 03-Z-9. Petition of Bharat K. & Kanak B. Pithadia, c/o Todd Etzler, Burke, Costanza & Cuppy LLP, 57 Franklin St., Ste. 203, Valparaiso, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel from AG, Agriculture & Open Space, to C-2, Offices and Institutions, to be located on the Northeast corner of Sturdy Road and Division Road in Center Township.

Mr. Breitzke stated that this case has been continued at the petitioners’ request.

Public Hearings:

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

Case 03-Z-14. Petition of Dean Froberg, 5320 Willow Ave., Portage, Indiana, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single-Family Residential, to C-2, Offices & Institutions, located on the Northwest corner of CR 400 N. and CR 150 W., in Center Township.

And

Case 03-Z-15. Petition of Dean Froberg, 5320 Willow Ave., Portage, Indiana, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-3, Multi-Family, to be located on the Northwest corner of CR 400 N. and CR 150 W., in Center Township.

William Ferngren stated that he is representing the petitioner in this matter and the developer of this property, 400 N. LLC, Mr. Jake Wagner, who is the principal and is primarily responsible for the development of this property. He stated that the first thing I’d like to do is bring this to your attention (holding up a flyer). He stated that this has been circulated in the mailboxes all surrounding this property, and I’d like to dispel the incorrect information on this, first and foremost. He stated it basically is all incorrect except the petitioner’s name, which is Dean Froberg. He stated that I’d like to point out to you that the intent is nothing like what’s been set forth on this petition. He stated that I’m not certain who circulated this petition, but again, the information is wrong, and I believe to a certain extent misleading. He stated that it includes the name of Mr. Thompson at the bottom, almost giving the impression that this, in fact, came from Mr. Thompson’s office, which, judging by his reaction, I’m certain that it did not. He stated that the property that we’re speaking of this evening is a 150-acre parcel overall, located at Froberg Road, or 150 W., and CR 400 N. in this area. He stated that Windsor Park is located just to the East of this development. He stated that this is a little bit larger scale of the project, and the project consists of three very distinct components, that are all kind of wrapped together. He stated that what it consists of is three components, which is approximately 120 acres of single-family residential lots, large lots, between 2.5 and 4.5 acres in size. He stated that this section here, which is approximately 20 acres (sic), which is the subject of the rezone petition tonight from R-1 to R-3, and this section down in the corner, which is approximately 2 acres in size, requesting a rezone from R-1 to C-2, as well. He stated that the next placard that I have here is a little bit more indicative of what the subdivision that we’re proposing, including the rezones, includes. He stated that it shows the entry off of 150 W. and off of 400 N. meandering through the single-family lot development, one single entrance off of Froberg Road into this single-family attached unit development, then at the entrance to be determined at some other time for the commercial section down in the corner. He stated that the present zoning of all this property is R-1, but the three components, single-family lots, single-family attached units and commercial are very interdependent on each other. He stated that first is the R-1 rezone. He stated that it is about 27 acres of property and a little history on how we got to this particular development plan. He stated that initially the property was discovered, investors fell in love with it, and decided how can we make this a development that works for us. He stated that they looked at a myriad of different plans, but there is one interesting feature – many interesting features – but one important feature is Pepper Creek, which runs through here, which is kind of a natural break between the two parcels. He stated that there is really no way to provide connection across in this fashion. He stated that the soils aren’t necessarily the greatest and otherwise you’d end up with access road in through this way or single-family development lots all along the front of Froberg and 400. He stated that many months of planning, a lot of meetings, land planners, engineers, a developer came up with what we really feel is the best use of this property. He stated that this dividing point, this break, is a very natural distinction between the two and creates really a transitional development away from other properties zoned commercial and multi-family. He stated that it provides somewhat of a buffer between the single-family lots and the multi-family attached units and then the commercial zoning. He stated that the intended use of this property is a multi-family, single-family, it’s a single-family attached unit, so what that would be is a core unit building that would have four single units, each of them independently for sale. He stated that the estimated value of those varies, but they are not rental units, it’s not apartments as is indicated on this memorandum that was passed around – that’s wrong. He stated that these are going to be units for sale to individual owners and estimated value initially is in excess of $200,000 per unit, so four units in each building, $200,000 each, is an estimated improvement per building in excess of $800,000. He stated that this is clearly not the type of use that’s been expressed on the memorandum circulated by the adjacent property owners. He stated that the purpose of this type of a development is an active adult type of development and that would be somebody who, their kids are grown, they don’t want to maintain the large lot up here, but it gives them the opportunity to own their own unit, have a nicely landscaped project, and have all the unique opportunities associated with home ownership without having to mow 2 acres of property. He stated that it’s a project that was studied in great detail by Mr. Wagner. He stated that demographic studies have shown that this use and this use are compatible, this is very desirable and it’s needed in this area, as well as this particular large lot single-family subdivision. He stated that I’d like to point out that this – I haven’t had the opportunity to speak with except with a couple of folks here tonight – but this is not correct, and, again, there are not going to be 200 apartment units on this property. He stated that phone calls were being made yesterday and the first words out of whoever was calling’s mouth was, do you want to have 200 apartment units right across the street from Windsor Trail (sic), and that’s not just not true. He stated that that’s not the intent, that’s not what is going to ultimately be on this property. He stated that it never was intended to be on this property. He stated that there is property down on our Southeast corner, approximately two acres in size that we’re seeking to be rezoned to C-2 from R-1, which would be the offices and institutions type of permitted use. He stated that I think it’s important to note that directly across the street from our proposed commercial site is property zoned C-2 already and both on the North and the South side of Vale Park Road. He stated that this is present, existing zoning, right across the street, the same thing that we’re looking for. He stated that it’s a good fit. He stated that we’ve met with some office staff of the County, we’ve talked with Commissioners, showed them the land use plan for the County, contrasted that. He stated that it’s an arterial collector street and it’s going to be an extension of Vale Park Road, ultimately, through, so it’s a natural fit for this commercially zoned property and we are seeking the same thing that’s directly across the street and the same use is permitted by that property directly across the street. He stated that one of the other reasons for this transition is somewhat protectionist in nature, because we know that this is zoned C-3 or C-2 here, but we don’t know what’s going to be there. He stated that if this is zoned C-2, the owners of this property control what’s going to be there and this provides a buffer…this type of use provides another transition and buffer to protect the property values of these people, so it’s somewhat of a transition for the commercial to the multi-family attached into the single-family dwelling area, and, again, it’s protectionist in nature somewhat, because while we can control here, we can’t control here, and it’s a use that’s consistent with the property in the area. He stated that there are other parcels in the area that are zoned industrial and commercial. He stated that this property in between the railroads is all zoned industrial. He stated that in this area here there is industrial property. He stated that there’s R-3 property here. He stated that this is C-4 down at the intersection of 130 and 149, which is an even more intense use than anything we are looking to do in this particular area. He stated that it’s unfortunate that misinformation was disseminated and nobody contacted the petitioners and asked, what are you really doing? He stated that they said it’s 200 units, it’s 20 acres of apartments; it’s simply not true. He stated that I think we’ve dispelled that tonight and shown you many months of drawings, we met again with the County staff to show that this isn’t a 200-apartment complex. He stated that, instead, this is an attached single-family units where $200,000 plus living units, certainly not a rental situation that I believe most of these people in Windsor Park were contemplating being there. He stated that I think the plan that’s before you is an appropriate plan, it’s a good plan and it’s an excellent land use plan, many months of discussing this with land use planners, engineers and County staff have arrived at this plan. He stated that I think it will allow for solid development in this location, and certainly one that is consistent with the area, overall, as far as zoning and uses that are available to property owners in this area. He stated, with that, I’d like to ask Jake Wagner to explain a little bit about the product.

Jake Wagner stated that I’ve developed and built houses in the Valparaiso and Center Township, Porter County area for some 25 years now and maybe some of you are familiar with my work. He stated I think back a little bit when they suggested that any of my development, much less this one, would increase crime, and the record stands for itself and I hope you take that into consideration. He stated that I have had opportunity to meet with several land planners and engineers, including County staff and have taken their recommendations into consideration. He stated that as much as 8 months ago, I was able to meet with Commissioner Larry Sheets. He stated that when Larry told me of the importance of coming before you and not ask for this zone without trying to identify what that product would be. He stated that we recognize the importance of identifying that product and we have done so and I can assure you that we are not going to have apartments. He stated that it’s not my idea to have apartments. He stated that these lots are in excess of 3 and 4-acre lots. He stated that the type of houses that we are going to build here are the type of houses that I am known for in the area. He stated that I wouldn’t do anything here that would jeopardize that and also I live right here and I can assure you that property values are of my utmost concern, also. He stated that we think that when we do any development we do two things: We start with demographic models and they tell us what’s the highest and best use of a property. He stated this particular piece of property had two uses that we thought were acceptable from an economic standpoint, from a risk reward standpoint. He stated that one would be to go ahead and ask the City for voluntary annexation, requesting a sewer that is on its way out there, and water from the water department of Valparaiso, who does now have control from the IURC to run service to this development. He stated that that would allow us some 400 to 500 units on this property, 150 acres. He stated that that would be one way to develop this piece. He stated that the other way to develop this piece is that demographic models show us that there are two existing markets available in this area. He stated that one would be in the entry level and one would be in the estate compound housing area. He stated that we elected because I’m the builder and I like to build a specialized type of housing, we think that right now, our first choice would be to develop it this way. He stated, with that, I took Larry Sheets’ advice and went ahead and tried to guess what I may want to do here eight years from now, and I have that and I wasn’t planning on doing this here tonight, but because of the 200 unit apartment buildings and things, I wanted to try to highlight a little more of what we’re trying to do. He stated that this is a model of the features of that parcel. He stated that these are four-unit carriage homes with motor court entry off of the cul-de-sac entry. He stated that the reason we selected this particular building is because it’s of the scale and size of some of the houses that will be built across the creek. He stated we have some pictures of the infrastructure planned that we drew with our landscape architect that show the cul-de-sac and the open space, some of the roadway that we want to do. He stated that we have artist renderings of the buildings that show the format of the buildings that are the size and shape of a residential product, the motor court. He stated that we have interior shots for those. He stated that I think the kind of people that live in these kinds of units don’t’ increase crime, traffic and lights in the area. He stated that here are more interior shots. He stated that we can assure this Committee that we have no interest in rentals, at all. He stated that these will be single-family, for sale and we think the demographic models show us that there are three markets available: near nester, empty nester and active adult market and that’s what our intent is at this point. He stated that we show you the whole plan, because we can’t do the whole plan without this land. He stated that we have 150 acres and we are showing you tonight about 150 units, including the (inaudible) building, so it’s very difficult to take 120 of our acres and only put in 40 units. He stated that to make that economically work, it’s important that we do add some density. He stated that your master plan calls for cluster house development and we think this is right in line with what your master plan calls for and with that I can answer any questions that you may have.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Bob Marischen, 2708 Froberg Road, stated that the first thing I wanted to point out is where I live, which is right here, right across from the commercial. He stated that I’m about 20 feet from the commercial, right across the street. He stated that you might know the old Froberg farmhouse – it’s the red brick. He stated that we just bought it 21 days ago and we’re 20 feet away from this property, and we didn’t get any notice – none. He stated that we found out about this meeting by word of mouth roughly 46 hours ago, a phone call from a neighbor. He stated that we haven’t been able to mount much response in 36 (sic) hours. He stated that I’m the one that made the flyer. He stated that that was based on everything we could find out, which is virtually nothing. He stated that this magnificent drawing wasn’t given to us. He stated that we were completely in the dark until today.

Mr. Mahnic stated, point of order, Mr. Chairman. He stated, I think we need a legal opinion. He stated that this gentleman did not receive legal notice.

Mr. Breitzke stated that he just bought the house. He stated that they base the notices on the tax receipts downstairs, so the notice was probably mailed to the precedent property owner. He stated that his presence here, though, suffices for the notice.

Mr. Mahnic stated that I wouldn’t want this to go on and then we find out that we are going to have to go through this again a month from now because somebody didn’t get legal notice, didn’t have time to prepare a response.

Ms. Schaefer stated, as far as we know right now, there is not a problem.

Mr. Marischen stated, we’re at a disadvantage. He stated that we have to respond to something we found out about 5 minutes ago.

Mr. Breitzke stated that you will have a second opportunity, because there will be a hearing at the County Commissioners, as well, should you have other issues or additional issues, or even the same issues.

Mr. Marischen stated, that flyer, well, there are a lot of things wrong with it. He stated that it’s 27 acres, not 20. He stated, I guess the first point is no notice, um, I’m 20 feet away. He stated that I think we’ve got a pretty good response here, given 46 hours of notice, you know. He stated that we tried to make people aware. He stated that the proponent did not try to make anybody aware. He stated nobody knew. He stated everybody in Windsor Park, which, you know, he is 20-feet away but there are some that he would estimate are 150-feet away and going on up. He stated nobody knew a thing until late Sunday evening. He stated this is hard to do. He stated we bought the property in part in reliance on the zoning in the area, everything that exists. He stated he is new to the area. He stated he doesn’t want to presume what anybody knows about the area but he would guess people are somewhat familiar with it. He stated there is nothing of this nature in this whole area. He stated most distressing is the commercial. He stated this will drop the value of his property 15% tomorrow. He stated it is just taking money right out of his pocket and into someone else’s. He stated like he said he has been here 21 days and none of this was out there. He stated this is not what it is zoned for. He stated they are looking to increase the density. He stated the road traffic is already pretty bad and he is planning on building up the grading to drown out some of the traffic noise and do what he can. He stated that road is stressed right now as far as capacity. He stated the proponent lives on the other corner of the property, the southwest corner of this map and the other high density is on the other end, away from the owner. He stated that should speak volumes. He stated they mentioned that the other commercial zoning there which actually includes his house, which is strange enough. He stated there is nothing commercial there and the Windsor Park Association wants to keep it that way. He stated he’ll let the Froberg’s (inaudible) because it is their land. He stated this is blind siding us and we haven’t had much time. He stated he is sure you can imagine…I mean these are great you know. He stated you pay a promoter or an add agency or an attorney and that will make a great case for you. He stated they haven’t had the time or the opportunity to build a counter case and we fairly got here. He stated we might not have gotten here if not for a phone call he received late Sunday night. He stated any good lawyer could take either side of the case…

Mr. Breitzke stated this isn’t what we are discussing tonight. He stated we are discussing the petition here.

Mr. Marischen stated what he is saying is that they had their time to present their case. He stated we don’t have any of that and they didn’t have the chance. He stated he personally doesn’t believe he received legal notice and he agrees with Mr. Mahnic. He stated he doesn’t believe that he received his process here and this is something and like he said they haven’t had time to think things through and this is something he is very concerned with.

Ann Marischen stated she feels very strongly about this. She stated they just purchased a home 21 days ago. She stated this was their dream home and it was a very short dream. She stated they moved their three children, ripped them out of school, moved from Chicago to get away from high density, from town homes, from not knowing their neighbors. She stated here they arrived ten days later and it is thrown in their face again across the street. She stated they had absolutely no notice. She stated her husband is commuting an hour every day so they can live in this beautiful country area. She stated all of these people behind her and themselves have paid a quarter of a million dollars to live in this area because it is beautiful, it is peaceful, its family, you know your neighbors, it is safe for the children. She stated she doesn’t care if you call it single family attached homes, duplexes, whatever. She stated it is high density, you don’t know your neighbors and that is a lot of people coming in and out. She stated you don’t let your children run and play with that kind of traffic going in and out. She stated commercial across from you…she is speechless about that, absolutely speechless. She stated they were well aware that it was commercial on either side of Windsor Park. She stated they were told that was because of the signage and because of the well in place there for the residence not because they want to build a gas station there. She stated they purchased their home from Dale and John Froberg and they asked them repeatedly and they assured them although it was zoned commercial they are not going to build anything like that there. She stated they were very particular about what they would do with our home because it is the entrance to Windsor Park. She stated that they wanted to protect that entrance and they want it is look beautiful, be inviting. She stated they are not allowed to put up a fence, they are not allowed to do this and that and there are many restrictions and covenants so that their home and Windsor Park looks beautiful and inviting. She stated now if you zone that commercial and a gas station and a Block Buster whatever beautiful thing that they come up with that is ruined. She stated she doesn’t care how pretty you make that look on that picture, she comes from Chicago and there are a lot of pictures like that out there. She stated let her tell you they don’t end up looking like that.

Dale Froberg stated he lives at 484 N. Froberg Road. He stated he and his family is developing Windsor Park and there are approximately 60 upscale homes. He stated there is no R-3 in the immediate area right now. He stated they are trying to keep it as a rural type setting.

Greg Walls stated he lives at 2700 Prentiss. He stated he is the first house past and the questions that he would have is that he heard that Mr. Wagner mention eight years down the road what he would envision in the high density portion. He asked why couldn’t each of those units be just single-family homes. He stated you plan on going from the big homes to the small and the small homes to the large. He asked how many units exactly are you talking about with the multi-family. He stated he is worried about what this is going to do with the schools that his children attend. He stated they are already overflowing. He stated there is going to be a large number of families. He stated he will say he doesn’t like it all a commercial. He stated he will be honest it is not what he expected to see but more people isn’t always necessarily good. He stated he would be interested in hearing exactly what a time line is for Mr. Wagner and this is what Mr. Wagner envisions but that doesn’t necessarily mean that is what it will be.

Tony Lyons stated he lives at 2656 Mariestad Dr. He stated one question he has that comes back to the question of who needed to know, is there a certain amount of distance that you must be from the proposed site to have gotten some notice. He asked if the facilities in that area such as roads, water and sewer sufficient to cover that size development. He stated right now there is not city water in that area. He stated it is a two-lane road going both ways. He stated he is not sure whether the facilities can handle this. He asked if they are not sufficient then what would be the proposal to change both Froberg Road and CR 400 N. He stated the second question would be why changes from the original Master Plan that was made a few years ago, why all of a sudden a change. He stated the thought is this is what is decided now and what says that it can’t be changed another two or three years from now. He stated the question should be how does it benefit the current residents that are there and if there aren’t benefits to the current residents then there should be consideration for that. He stated the gentleman from the law firm said that these are upscale things and items that couldn’t be rented. He asked why couldn’t somebody own one of those four-plexes or whatever you want to call them and rent those items out. He stated we speak about empty-nester situations in the Valparaiso greater community area. He stated there are many empty-nester situations in Valparaiso, there is one on Campbell, there is one down on Silhavy so he thinks that there are many opportunities for empty nesters to come into the Valparaiso community. He stated this question probably repeats other questions but it was originally zoned R-1. He asked why not continue to keep it as R-1 and do all R-1 single-family homes. He stated again as they make this change now they may say this is what they want to do. He stated if the zoning is changed again, what stops them from changing what it can be. He stated lastly the attorney again said Vale Park Road, he made it sound like it was a done deal that Vale Park Road had through access all the way through. He stated he would think all of us would like to know that this was going to happen and what is the process for that.

Gerry Kamprath stated he has no questions.

Audess Kamprath stated she has no comment.

Rebecca Wilfong stated she lives at 2603 Westminster Dr. She stated her concerns are traffic. She stated they are the first house on the right as you go into the subdivision and they have watched many cars skate right through that intersection and there is traffic at all hours. She stated if you have a large development like that what are they going to do for the roads, the drainage and the schools. She asked where is their water going to come from. She stated their water is from the wells. She asked if that is going to be their water source also. She stated she is especially concerned about the commercial part. She stated just because they say make it look nicer doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to put in a gas station and a 7/11, which she didn’t spend that much money for her house so that she can be across the way from a 7/11.

Nancy Darrow stated she lives at 2900 Prentiss. She stated her concern is the commercial part. She stated they didn’t move to the country to have commercial buildings and she would like to know what size would be going in there.

Jon Darrow stated he has no comment.

Wendy Gilbert stated she lives at 2806 Prentiss Dr. She stated in addition to the questions that have been already asked the only other question she would have is that there was some kind of big impression as to what was going to happen to the commercial site. She stated since they got a very clear idea what they want with everything else she is confused as to why they don’t know what is going to go in that commercial site.

Nick Markuff stated he passes.

Mary Guzek stated she has no questions.

Harold Guzek stated he has no comment.

Pricella Tyler Pryor stated she lives at 2502 Chesterfield Dr. She stated she has the same concern as the other residents one of them being the commercial area that would be coming in as a gas stations and things like that in the area. She stated they moved there because of the peace and quiet in the country and they didn’t pay all the money for their home the same as all the people here to see those type of things come in. She stated she would like to see this stay as R-1, Single Family Residential.

William Pryor stated he will pass.

James Greenwell stated he agrees with Mrs. Pryor. He stated we don’t need any R-3 around there. He stated increase in traffic, fire protection, who is going to pay for all of the fire protection that we will have to have. He stated the traffic will be unbearable. He stated say you have 300 to 400 units. He stated most people have two cars and you are talking about 1400 plus visitors and you may end up with 3000 or 4000 more cars in that area. He stated he doesn’t think we are equipped to handle it. He stated he is sure against putting commercial buildings in front of Windsor Park. He stated he doesn’t think it is right or fair to the people in Windsor Park. He stated no one would complain about duplexes out there or single-family units like they have. He stated he doesn’t think that we are ready to go into the big city with all types of problems.

George Cannon stated he lives at 2563 Knights Bridge Dr. He stated he will pass.

Barbara Greenwell stated she will pass.

Caroline Cavlovie stated she has no questions.

Peter Cavlovie stated he has no questions.

Dorothy Peterschmidt stated she lives at 2501 Chesterfield Dr. She stated “Jake I supported you at Harrison West but I am not supporting you here unless you want to move that commercial corner to your end. If you want to put that commercial at your end, okay, I might concede.” She stated she thinks that it is very interesting that the high-end large lot homes are being buffered nicely by the creek and the beauty. She stated Windsor Park and the residents who live there now are being buffered by nothing. She stated she goes to the Master Plan and of the specifics that the Master Plan has set out for land use states specifically, “discourage residential and commercial strip development along county roads.” She stated these are two county roads. She stated she would like to discourage commercial and high-density residences that open onto county roads just as much as Larry Sheets wanted to. She stated she also goes back to the guide and principles and objectives that the Planning Commission set out in the Master Plan stating that, “Porter County’s high quality of life is captured by the natural resources, the people, the schools, the rural character of the area and the strong economy. The premise for this plan is to continue to build homes, strengths and opportunities of the county.” She stated this is the guiding principle of your Master Plan. She stated there is nothing about putting high-density homes and commercial outlots in this area that goes with the plan. She stated having commercial areas where you have empty nesters and no children is a fine thing if there aren’t children around. She stated her children recently moved to the Valparaiso public schools after transferring from a private school. She stated the school that they are supposed to go to is Memorial and it is overflowing. She stated they have two third grades, each with 30 children in it. She stated they are now being forced to go to Northview School, half of their neighborhood already goes to Northview where the class size was also very large, yet smaller than what was at Memorial. She stated when she asked why this would happen she was told that when Windsor Park and Waterford and some of the other neighborhoods around were built that the price of the homes indicated in the demographics that the people who moved into those homes would not be first time home buyers with young children. She stated they would be more affluent people who have raised their children and had money to spend on large homes, active adults. She stated she is an active older adult and she has an 8 year old and a 6 year old and they need a school. She stated she doesn’t think that high-density living is the way to keep this community the way that the Planning Commission and the Master Plan state. She stated commercial development in the middle of a farm is certainly not the way to prevent sprawl. She stated she also has a petition from the neighborhood that she would like to present to the Commission. She stated this represents 95% of the homeowners there.

Matt Peterschmidt stated he lives at 2501 Chesterfield. He stated he would like to mention a couple of things. He stated the advocate for the proponent mentioned the buffer between the commercial zone and the multi-family housing. He stated there is no buffer between this development and Windsor Park. He stated another thing he would like to point out is that once you rezone it what is the control that anybody has or with the developer. He stated it seems to him that he could well do whatever he wants after it has been rezoned. He stated the proponent also mentioned that multi-family homes are consistent with the surrounding area. He stated this is not the case. He stated absolutely not the case. He stated the Master Plan, this community obviously spent quite a bit of money, mentions specifically that clustered housing or multi-family dwelling should be located close to a population density. He stated with this development that is not the case at all.

Gina Pinkie stated she lives at 167 Kinsale Ave. in Waterford Subdivision. She stated she thinks that it is a little amusing that Mr. Wagner has stopped at the fact that those acres of land who wants to mow that, obviously all of us do. She stated this is why they bought there. She stated people who don’t want to buy there can buy at Aberdeen. She stated there are a ton of homes for sale there. She stated this is where those people can go.

Dorothy Cannon stated she lives at 2563 Knights Bridge Dr. She stated she is much against this. She stated they have only been out there for eight months. She stated she is like the rest of them. She stated this was their dream home. She stated they worked hard to get into the place. She stated when they drove into Windsor Park she said to her husband that this was it. She stated because of being out by yourself at the time she has lived there she doesn’t know a lot of people but the people she has had the privilege of meeting are super. She stated the ones that she doesn’t know she gets out in the yard and waves. She stated this is the kind of place that she always dreamed of living and she is not one to see this happen to Windsor Park.

Len Guzik stated he has no comment.

Dale Kroeger stated he lives at 2804 Prentiss. He stated the question he has is on infrastructure. He stated the Board of Commissioners met on September 17, 2002 and at that point it was highly recommended the speed limit on CR 400 N. between SR 130 and Froberg Road be lowered from 40 mph to 35 mph. He stated he assumes that there must have been some concern about the condition of the road or the safety. He stated at this point in time they are now talking about taking a large number of additional units and placing them in that area. He stated he would like to know what the specific plans made to the infrastructure in the area. He stated also in relation to the plans that would be made for water and/or sewer/septic plans, especially with the increase demands of C-2 or R-3.

Susan Owen stated she lives at 2501 Bernard Dr. She stated her husband, James, had to step out a minute. She stated they have been there two years and they had no notice. She stated they heard about this last night from neighbors about 7:30 p.m. She stated all the questions have been covered that she had but she would like to mention the same concerns that others have. She stated she has small children and the buses go right down Froberg Road to school. She stated there has been many incidences of speeding cars through that intersection. She stated about three weeks ago they almost got killed pulling out of there. She stated her big concern is the increase in traffic, the safety of the kids and bringing in all that congestion at that corner, which is such a popular cut through from Crazy D’s on down. She stated the traffic between 4:00 to 6:00 or 7:00 at night is heavy. She stated they left Lansing 15 years ago and they left a corner, Ridge and Torrence. She stated Walgreens, Burger King, White Hen Pantry and a Currency Exchange and she doesn’t want any of those places anywhere near her home. She stated this is why they brought the kids out here for a better place to live.

Phil Dyniewski stated he lives at 2354 Knights Bridge Dr. He stated that he has a few concerns. He stated a lot of people have touched everything he was concerned about. He stated the schools were a big problem. He stated they were not able to put their son in Memorial. He stated they had to go to Northview because Memorial was full. He stated another issue is 3 or 4-acre parcels are nice. He stated they spent a lot of time and money he is sure making all these pretty pictures and a lot of planning went into this and these pretty charts that they are showing us. He stated with all the planning that has went into this project, why isn’t there a picture of what is going to be sitting in the commercial. He stated he hasn’t seen a picture of that area yet. He stated they have a nice subdivision and he wants to keep it that way. He stated he doesn’t want to see gas stations or, I like Wendy’s but I’ll drive five miles.

Ed Casko stated he has no questions.

Anne Casko stated she has no questions.

Jonathon Tinkey stated he lives at 2604 Kickbush Dr. He stated what he wants to focus on as far as his concerns have to do with you referenced that the property across from this proposal is zoned C-2. He stated the thing about that is and the reason why that would be shared with us is fine with him. He stated we know what is on that corner. He stated here we have no idea. He stated with all of this property why is this so necessary to have that little tiny commercial property there. He stated are you saying that if this property is not zoned commercial that this whole thing falls apart. He stated this just doesn’t add up to him. He stated one of the questions that he would have is and that he would have to be convinced of is to try justifying that because he simply doesn’t see it as far as why it is necessary for all of this to work.

Doug Montgomery stated he lives at 2700 Kickbush. He stated he and his wife moved into Windsor Park 38 days ago from Porter. He stated they moved from Porter for the reasons these folks are talking about. He stated they had R-3 zoning, R-2 zoning all around where they lived. He stated he is not against developments. He stated he would ask though that this Commission will work with the folks here that are making the presentation to try to find something that is consistent with the R-1 zoning that is here right now. He stated there has to be a win win in this someplace. He stated he doesn’t think that they have found it yet. He stated this area down here where down here where it is located just is not consistent with some of the things the other folks have pointed out here.

Frank Carullo stated he lives at 2500 Barnard Dr. He stated he has seen plans like this before and basically that is all it is is a plan. He stated there is no telling what is finally developed out of this. He stated he doesn’t know what kind of commitments the owners have to do what they show us here this evening. He stated he has seen plans like this before where they don’t come exactly the way they are pictured. He stated he moved out of the city to get into the country as an empty nester. He stated for one thing he wouldn’t want four acres of property to take care of. He stated this is up to the buyers for Mr. Wagner’s properties. He stated secondly he thinks that the density of these single-family/multi units or something, he doesn’t think he has heard how many of them they are going to build. He stated the paper he received yesterday evening said 200 apartments. He stated they used the wrong term. He stated it is not an apartment it is a single-family multi development. He asked what kind of firm commitment is there to build what they are talking about. He asked could they become apartments later on. He asked if there were any kind of firm commitments made by the builder or their advocate or anyone else to build what they show us on this picture. He stated he doesn’t think so. He stated the commercial area there is just going to create havoc on that particular corner at that intersection. He stated he has heard a lot of eight months, he thinks, of studies going into these plans. He asked what about the traffic study. He asked if a traffic study was made. He asked if they have numbers to back a traffic study. He asked do you know what kind of density you are going to have as far as rush hour traffic on CR 400 N. or on Froberg Road. He stated we need to know that. He stated he certainly doesn’t want to see this happen to us. He stated he is happy having to drive to Crazy D’s for whatever commercial products he needs. He stated he thinks that the rest of the residents in Windsor Park feel the same way.

Lori Pavell stated she agrees with what her neighbors have and their concerns are all the same. She stated she would love to believe that we live in a perfect world and that we are not being lied to. She stated she kind of resents the fact that we sit here and are being told that this is what is going to happen knowing full well that when it is rezoned anything can happen.

Jim Owen was not present.

Rich (inaudible) stated he has nothing to say.

Charles Camp stated he lives at 1358 Ransom Road. He stated even though he is not directly adjacent to the property, Ransom Road is still the main thoroughfare in that part of the county. He stated the attorney talked about the eventual connecting of Vale Park Road, which they have been talking about as long as he has lived here and it hasn’t happened. He stated Windsor Park is a great place and there is a lot of nice homes in there but that has increased the traffic flow onto that road. He stated there are only two exits out of the City on the north side and that is SR 130 and Ransom Road. He stated most of the people on the north side if you are going to the mall or anything you have to go down Ransom Road. He stated traffic is horrendous now. He stated single-family homes are one thing because you have two or three acres and two or three cars. He stated if you have multi family developments there you are going to have a super abundance of cars coming in and out and traffic…Ransom Road can’t handle it now. He stated there is not, from what he has seen, that any planning done in terms of handling the extra traffic. He stated this doesn’t include what kind of commercial traffic. He stated they also mentioned that there is a possibility of bringing Valpo City water and City sewage there. He asked when is that coming down and where is it going to come and will that disrupt traffic. He stated we have unfortunately tragedy on our roads on a regular basis from the hills and the kids speeding on them. He stated in winter it is treacherous and now you are going to have multi-family developments on the other end of that it is going to make traffic terrible.

Deb Camp stated she lives at 1358 Ransom Road. She asked everyone to slow down when they are going Ransom Road. She stated it is a very hilly area and they can’t get out of their driveway sometimes.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Robert Urshel, 487 Froberg Road who is against this petition.

Mr. Ferngren stated there were some questions about notice. He stated they conducted a very thorough search of the public records all persons required by law and they provided notice by certified mail. He stated they provided notices in the paper too. He stated all persons entitled to notice were given proper and due notice.

Mr. Breitzke asked what was the distance.

Mr. Fergren stated 150 feet.

Mr. Breitzke stated 150 feet from your boundaries.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is correct. He stated he would like to point out that they gave more notice than what was required to give because they were only required to give notice around the parcel they seek to rezone. He stated they included parcels outside of those boundaries as well. He stated there has been a lot of discussion about density tonight and where is the traffic. He stated he thinks what is not being focused on is the density of this project. He stated keep in mind that this is 150 acres and at this time this shows 100 units and 39 units, 139 units on 150 acres. He stated that is more than one acre per unit. He stated he submits to you that Windsor Park doesn’t provide that. He stated a typical residential development does not provide this. He stated this density on 27 acres with 100 units is consistent with most single-family detached developments. He stated it is not a dense development at all. He stated what could happen here if this project was developed in accordance to the City of Valparaiso’s standards, if it were annexed, or under the County’s standard you would receive a density in this project of 500 units. He asked what does that do to your schools? He asked what does that do to your roads, to your concerns about the wells and that sort of things. He stated he submits to you this is not a dense product. He stated 500 units are a lot different than a 139. He stated in this particular area is consistent with most single-family detached residential development from a density standpoint. He stated in the commercial section they haven’t identified what specifically is going to be there just as a cross the street it is not known what is going to be there. He stated the intent is offices and institutions. He stated the purpose of this commercial site is to provide the minimal services that these residents will need. He stated the Master Plan, and there has been some reference to that tonight, it specifically says that this type of commercial is good, small residentially located commercial to serve this. He stated on page 126 in the Master Plan it says this. He stated it is consistent with the Master Plan. He stated the density is consistent with the Master Plan. He stated again 150 acres and 139 units, we commit to that. He stated if they do it any other way it is going to be 500 and the traffic will become a problem then. He stated they have a right to develop the property like that. He stated this is the best use of the property. He stated this is the plan that they worked very hard to find that fits the area. He stated there was some discussion about this isn’t consistent with the area. He stated these aren’t here yet but they can go here and here. He stated this is zoned R-2 here and this is zoned R-3. He stated all of this property…this could be developed like this all the through. He stated now you all bought property in Windsor Park and your saying that you didn’t know that this was going to be there. He stated we are here tonight to rezone this but you knew this was here and this allows you multi-family. He stated he doesn’t know what Mr. Froberg has led you to believe but in here he can do all of these things. He stated he heard someone say that the only reason this is zoned commercial is because we want to put a sign down there for the subdivision. He stated he doesn’t think that is the case. He stated Mr. Froberg in fact petitioned the County to have this property rezoned from R-1 to C-2. He stated he petitioned the County to have his property rezoned from R-1 here to R-2. He stated it is consistent with what the County has been doing. He stated it is a consistent plan. He stated it is not a dense plan. He stated the demographic studies that they have done show that this is a product…this gentleman was absolutely correct. He stated that is Mr. Wagner’s responsibility and people don’t want his product. He stated Mr. Wagner studied that and he knows that this is what people want. He stated he thinks that Mr. Wagner’s reputation speaks for itself. He stated with respect to the commercial development a lady mentioned Harrison West. He stated Keystone Commons is another example. He stated the commercial development that is going to go into this location assuming they get approval is consistent to the entryway to Keystone Commons. He stated he doesn’t know if you are familiar with that. He stated when you drive into Keystone there is a series a red brick buildings. He stated that is commercial. He stated that is offices and in fact Mr. Wagner’s office is there and there is a dentist office there too. He stated if you drive in Aberdeen there is professional office space. He stated it is the same thing. He stated we don’t know what is going to go here. He stated we can control what is going to go here. He stated he things the reputation of Wagner Homes speaks for itself in regards to what this development is going to look like. He stated he thinks that if you drive around and compare these developments, Aberdeen, Keystone Commons, Harrison West, Brentwood, he doesn’t think you are going to find anything that is not first class. He stated this is just an exhibit of what the ultimate product is going to be. He stated with respect to the time line, the city has committed to them that they will provide the sewer and water to this location. He stated when that line gets there they don’t know for sure but it is supposed to be coming soon. He stated they said that they want us to tie in. He stated you asked if this would disrupt traffic. He stated probably during the construction process. He stated the roads will remain in tact the rest of the time. He stated the city has indicated to them that they will do that. He stated they can’t develop this like this until the city extends their services. He stated so with your respect to the timeline this is somewhat controlled by the city with regards to that. He stated with this development we are looking at 100 units on 27 acres. He stated it is simply not dense. He stated there was some discussion on how this project gets reviewed. He stated this is just the rezoning petition. He stated they will still need to go through Mr. Thompson’s office on Friday mornings for a TAC review. He stated after a series of those they will be back before this Body at a future date to review the construction drawings and the full detail drawings of this plan. He stated all of this is going to ultimately be done and these fine people up here are still going to be in a position to review, approve or deny this project. He stated concerning the rights-of-way on those roads, they spoke with Commissioner Burrus and that was one of his questions, what was going to happen on these roads. He stated they will dedicate that right-of-way. He stated this is perfectly acceptable to them and that is what they are in the position to do. He stated there was also some discussion about the Master Plan. He stated this isn’t high density. He stated we agree with the lady about the Master Plan. He stated the County spent a lot of money and a lot of time. He stated they agree with it and there are a lot of great things in there. He stated this development incorporates those. He stated neighborhood commercial, clustering of homes, open space. He stated it is all in there. He stated this development encompasses all of those things. He stated you asked also about the commercial development being closer to Mr. Wagner’s parcel. He stated this is the appropriate location the intersection. He stated with meeting with the Commissioners that was the location. He stated that was discussed by us and this is the appropriate location. He stated among other things the intersection plus the property across the street was already rezoned by Mr. Froberg to C-2. He stated it is the appropriate location. He stated he would like to go back to the density. He stated 150 acres is what we are looking at for this piece of property. He stated we develop this according to county standards and the city’s is even greater. He stated 500 units versus 139 units and they are willing to commit to this particular density on this parcel right now. He stated that would then provide for this development for the 39 units. He stated 139 units over one acre per unit, which is far greater than any of the other subdivisions that are adjacent to this right now. He stated Windsor Park is nowhere near over an acre per unit. He stated that is what they are offering. He stated there have been a lot of good comments tonight and they appreciate all of the concerns. He stated they didn’t exclude anybody from notice. He stated they gave everybody notice. He stated if you didn’t get notice because you moved in and the tax records just don’t show. He stated at the time they made their application the tax records the public records did show you as the owner of the property. He stated you are here tonight and I agree with Mr. Breitzke by being here tonight you have waived your claims to that.

Attorney Schaefer stated they are required to give notice within 150 feet. She stated they go according to the tax records. She stated he is certifying that he has done that. She stated if someone feels they don’t they can consult their own attorney and pursue whatever remedy they feel appropriate. She stated he is certifying that he did it and those are the regulations.

A person in the audience asked if it was boundary to boundary.

Mr. Fergren stated their paralegal searched the property line boundary and then 150 feet in this direction and this direction, north, south, east and west. He stated you may live in Windsor Park but you don’t live within 150 feet of the development.

Greg Wales asked if there was any way he could see what a unit is that has four homes. He stated you had to get the plan from somewhere.

Dorothy Peterschmidt asked is 100 units 100 buildings or 100 occupant units. She stated you are talking about 27 acres for that particular area. She stated you have used the argument that the adjacent land is already C-2 so why not go ahead and make other land across the street C-2. She stated R-3 doesn’t necessarily mean, as she understands it, that a unit is limited to four or less homes and that an adjacent area could be made R-3 once this area is R-3 and that an apartment building could go up on that R-3.

Robert Marischen stated all of the argument for the commercial property is being made with the fact that there is C-2 zoning across the street. He stated he bought more than 50% of this C-2 zoning and there is covenants in our deed that says he has to use it for residential use. He stated he can’t have a fence, he can’t have a satellite dish, and there is a whole page of restrictions upon him as to what he can do. He stated when they say the C-2 is already here across the street more than half of this is his land, which can’t be commercial.

Mr. Breitzke stated just to clarify this the attorney will address the issue of covenants.

Attorney Schaefer stated unfortunately this comes up so often in zoning meetings and people talk about their covenants. She stated the fact of the matter is that the Plan Commission or the Board of Zoning Appeals has absolutely nothing to do with your covenants. She stated it is not an issue for us and it is a private covenant. She stated if it is being violated by somebody that is up to you to enforce. She stated what our covenants are really is no concern of this Board. She stated just so every one understands that.

Mr. Marischen stated they are saying they don’t know what is going to go here. He stated he can’t do commercial activities on his portion of this.


Mr. Carullo stated he has been given the impression by the proponents that he should be grateful that there is only going to be 100 units on 27 acres. He stated first of all he doesn’t know that for a fact because he doesn’t know if they are filling up that 27 acres with those 100 units. He stated secondly he used the wrong term or we have been using the wrong term when we addressed density. He stated he is not concerned about how close together they are. He stated what he is concerned about is if there is going to be 100 units there are going to be probably 200 cars going in and out of that area. He stated on a daily basis maybe 300. He stated this is the thing he is concerned about. He stated the density really applies to whether or not 100 units are going to fill up the 27 acres. He stated the traffic concern has to do with the number of people who are going to be running in and out of that area every day.

Mrs. Marischen stated first of all she wants to ask the Planning Commission to stick to the plan. She stated they all purchased their homes based on the Commission’s plan. She stated this man is acting like he has the right to rezone however they see fit and in accordance to blah, blah, blah. She stated it is R-1 and that is the plan. She stated the plan is not R-3 and it is not commercial. She stated the plan is not to fit in with something down the road. She stated the plan is R-1. She stated she doesn’t appreciate the scare tactics that we should be greatly like this man said that they are only going to put in 100 units. She stated to her 100 units is 100 units times four because they are single-family attached. She stated also in regards to the notice, she is sorry but you can’t tell her that Dean Froberg, she bought his family home and he drives by there many times a day and you cannot tell her that he did not know that that home was sold.

Lori Pavell stated she needs some clarification. She stated when they first stated at this time this is how this plan looks. She asked when will they know if it ever changes that they won’t be notified.

Attorney Schaefer stated if this Body recommends approval or disapproval it still goes to the County Commissioners. She stated this is a public hearing and everybody can go there too. She stated you have four weeks to prepare for that. She stated then after that if the Commissioners approve this they have to come back with their plat and they have to come back and show exactly what they are doing. She stated they have to go to the Technical Advisory Committee and they have to follow every single regulation that the County has. She stated they can’t do something on their plat approval that they have not presented. She stated they have to do what they say they are going to do. She stated it comes back here and it is a public hearing. She stated at TAC you can go but it is not a public hearing.

Mr. Lyons stated he still thinks that they have much of a discussion on expansion of roads because if those roads are just as congested as they are what is more automobiles in that area going to change that but make it more difficult. He stated there wasn’t any discussion on why can’t that all be R-1. He stated there was no discussion on the Vale Park access and where that is at. He stated the last question is to the Commission. He stated you said they are all going to know and will have all these opportunities to be at these meetings. He stated we didn’t know that this was going on so how will they know if something else is going on.

Dale Kroeger stated you mentioned the City’s commitment to bring water. He asked if this was in writing or whether this was conditional upon you getting approval for the plat of this and whether the zoning variances mattered. He asked who provided that commitment.

Mr. Walls asked if Valpo City had a plan if this is not approved do you mean to say that Valpo is planning to move on this property with 500 single-family homes.

Mr. Fergren stated these have not been built in this area. He stated they have been built in the Lake Charles area in Chicago and Fox River Valley up in that area with a pretty wild run of success. He stated these particular units this is just one style of them. He stated they are redesigning slightly to have a French country look to them. He stated the number of units in this area he will call each one of these a building and within each building there will be four units. He stated that will be a total of the 100 single units. He stated there is over an acre per unit. He stated the development in the City would be denser. He stated the development that they could do would be much more dense. He stated tonight they are here for a rezone. He stated they will come back with a development plan and TAC will see this plan as well as the Plan Commission. He stated the expansion of the roads will all be addressed at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting and again they have committed to dedicating appropriate right-of-way along these roads. He stated the economic vitality for this not being R-1 is Mr. Wagner’s decision. He stated Mr. Wagner made this decision based on what he feels is the best land use plan, what’s the best use of the property and from an economic standpoint this is it. He stated there was some discussion about Vale Park Road and he doesn’t know the exact status of that and it is out of their control but what he can tell you that this is part of the plan to extend Vale Park Road from in Keystone Commons and the western end as shown on this plat. He stated this is the only property that they can control. He stated they have no control over when this is going to happen but this is the proposed Vale Park extension. He stated they spoke with the City today and when this sewer extension is made the City wants them to hook onto this and they will do that if they need to and if they have this density. He stated again this is not dense. He stated you will get a lot more traffic if they develop this to the full standard that they can.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Mahnic stated there are a lot of things that he could say about this plan. He stated one of the things is we keep hearing that we can develop this as an R-1 and it would be a lot more. He stated he feels that the way this is being developed is because financially it is going to be more rewarding to develop it this way then as an R-1. He stated he is concerned also because there are approximately 100 here who live in that area who don’t want to see this. He stated he is a homeowner and fortunately his home is paid for. He stated but looking at some of the younger crowd here he doesn’t envy their mortgages and he knows that these people want to protect their investment. He stated this is no different then the developer would like to make an investment here and protect it. He stated the reason he feels very strongly that he doesn’t favor this is that there are a number of things that he has to question and he feels that this is spot zoning. He stated we want to go out there and take this piece of land and for the convenience of a developer say, “Fine, look what it will do for the community and forget the people who live around there. We can spot zone this and we can go somewhere else and spot zone something else.” He stated he doesn’t like that because people buy in that area and they like to see that area stay the way it is. He stated health, welfare of the residents, when we talk about traffic a lot more traffic down that road, we can’t do anything about the schools and that is up to the School Board to worry about and we don’t consider that. He stated this is the way the system works. He stated we have to talk about the health and welfare of the people. He stated the traffic is certainly not going to be lucrative to the people who already want to protect their property. He stated he has gone there twice now and he has gone there when the Froberg’s were developing that, the roads were made better but unfortunately over the years they are getting to be in sad shape again. He stated Ransom Road is a terrible road to drive down. He stated it is very difficult to get out now. He stated pretty soon we are going to be asking for a traffic light. He stated people purchase in this area hoping that the R-1 will be there and that is why they bought it. He stated we have a very beautiful area and it is close to the city and yet it is country type living. He stated the lots are big, big homes and a lot of room for the kids to play in the backyard. He stated don’t forget that the November 18th meeting is a morning meeting at 11:00 a.m., which means a lot of people are working and you want to be heard by the Commissioners and it is 11:00 a.m.


Mr. Breitzke stated you can write letters.

Mr. Mahnic stated he understands that a lot of people were not notified regardless of what his gentleman did. He stated he is new to the area and everything was done properly. He stated anybody else who lives in this area was not notified legally. He stated there were only two persons. He stated he questioned their advice by our attorney, which he is very proud that he sits here with us. He stated the thing is he always felt that any concern citizen should be notified. He stated “concern citizen,” means 300 feet and he knows the word 150 feet was passed around.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Mahnic that it is in the “Rules of Procedures.”

Mr. Mahnic stated when we talk about we are going to have so many units per acre no one mentioned if these are gross acres or net acres. He stated a lot of developers have nothing but good things about Mr. Wagner. He stated a lot of developers will take land that cannot be developed and use that in there and say, “Look what we are doing on so many acres of land.” He stated they need to take all the land that cannot be developed and throw it out and say, “Here is what we are developing” a net acreage that is right. He stated he doesn’t see that and right now he feels very strongly that he will, if anyone supports him, later on make a motion that we deny both of these cases because we can’t rule for them or against them. He stated we can only make a recommendation to the Commissioners. He stated they are the ones who make the final decision. He stated Attorney Schaefer stated to him if he does make a motion later on he must put down the facts because it goes to the Commissioners we have to have in the notification to the Commissioner, to Mr. Thompson’s office, why we are recommending denial. He stated we just can’t say something off the top of his head and be denied.

Mr. Breitzke stated in either event whether favorable or unfavorable there has to be findings.

Mr. Detert stated he has some of the same concerns. He stated he thinks that the commercial, and one of the biggest concerns people have indicated is that they don’t know what will go in there. He stated he thinks that it would help their case if they would make commitments for certain items or exclude certain items for the commercial area. He stated the R-3 it appears that there is quite a bit of R-3 around there that is not developed. He asked if this was correct. He stated it is kind of hard to look at that and say we need more, this is here and it could be developed. He stated it is a little hard to keep recommending approval for additional R-3 or either commercial for that fact. He stated there are many cases whether there is other land available to do the same thing. He stated he has some concerns with the project at this point.

Mr. Bucko stated he is very familiar with the kind of work Jake Wagner does. He stated in relationship to the C-2 zoning and the type of buildings that may be envisioned there. He stated personally he doesn’t have a problem with how they might look or anything else and he takes into consideration what he has done in relationship to Keystone. He stated he looks at that and he is familiar with where this area is and that corner. He stated he has a little problem with it because he doesn’t think that corner is a Keystone corner in relationship to it isn’t adjacent to a school is not a half a block away from a major church and it is not close to a nursing home and the institution itself that is on Ransom Road just slightly to the north. He stated he thinks that this is kind of a stretch. He stated he has no concern about the quality of the buildings. He stated he is a little uncertain as to whether it is appropriate for that corner for the adjacent property. He stated he spent a lot of time when he first came back to this Board in relationship to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated he hears that used by a lot of different builders and their interpretation. He stated people who want to make a point mix and match the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in relationship to the Master Plan. He stated there is a big difference. He stated this is somewhat consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated it calls for cluster homes. He stated it calls for the clustering of homes. He stated now you have to determine whether four-unit multi-family development is the clusters that are appropriate for what we are talking about or are we talking about adjoining subdivisions rather than spacing them out in different areas and having problems with the agricultural industry that has to go on and be placed between them. He stated in the discussions of all of this and this Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was the major concern. He stated he is having a problem with understanding how far you are stretching this. He stated he looks at 25 multi-family units and he looks at it based on 27 acres. He stated the information here that was given to him talks about the County Plan or the County Codes as far as the roads. He stated the information here says that the roads are adequate. He stated there is some adjacent R-2 zoning, which is the duplexes that are compatible with empty nester people and things like this. He stated he does have a problem with that dense of a multi-family application at this time. He stated with the C-2 he is just not sure. He stated he doesn’t think the multiple acreage and 39 homes on that is a problem. He stated it is somewhat consistent and it is less dense than he assumes Windsor might be.

Mr. Burns stated he has the same concerns. He stated it is definitely spot zoning. He stated it is not consistent with the other zoning in the area. He stated it will change the character of the area. He stated there will be increased traffic. He stated he doesn’t have a problem with the R-1 large lots. He stated at this time he cannot support this.

Mr. Biddinger stated when it comes to density issues and such he is kind of in favor in some cases of more dense developments. He stated he has said it a number of times sitting on this Board. He stated he is always looking for an innovative a different way of doing things. He stated sometimes those items don’t fit real well under our codes but that is why we are here and that is why laws can be changed. He stated before he goes on too far with the density issues there are some places where it is appropriate and there are some places where it is not appropriate with higher density’s. He stated he guesses in this place he still has some pretty mixed emotions about some of the possibilities and some of the things that can be done with this property. He stated he is still making up his mind.

Mr. Breitzke stated he is inclined to agree with Mr. Biddinger. He stated we need more information, written commitments if it is going to be commercial that we know the use. He stated unlike the other commercial properties in spite of the covenants, which we don’t enforce, the reality is in the County’s eyes this land is commercial across the street and down the way. He stated it could be used as commercial from the County’s standpoint. He stated you might be in a legal contention with your neighbors who are joint in the covenant but we are not part of that covenant. He stated likewise, the R-2 could be developed as multi-family, the R-3 likewise. He stated we have no stipulations or control. He stated here again with the R-3 if they commit to doing the R-3 as stated connected with that zoning that would be a different matter because once it is zoned R-3 who knows what could go in there. He stated it could be sold to another owner. He stated we need to make it clear that this is rezoned R-3 with intent. He stated the other issue here is that it sounds as if the developer is participating with (inaudible) the extension of services. He stated this comes at a cost. He stated he suspects you work on some kind of densely quotient. He stated the developer is this case is looking for large estate lots. He stated another developer would look at this not unlike Shamrock Subdivision in Valparaiso or dare he say Brigadoon. He stated he doesn’t think it would be that dense but you could be looking at 200 lots easily by his estimations for the lot requirements and still be able to get streets, detention and all the other facilities onto this piece of ground. He stated literally if you have sewer, water and storm these lots could be as small as 11,000 square feet. He stated just a little bit bigger than a quarter of an acre. He stated much smaller than the lots in your subdivision or in your surrounding areas. He stated we want to be cautious that we don’t negate the possibility of having somewhat of a blend having singular buildings. He stated he is not really happy with how things have been presented tonight to the extent that we don’t have the written commitments as far as what specifically what is planned for the commercial. He stated he thinks that there are commercial buildings offices that could fit in that would be consistent with the south center and the nursing homes, legal offices and even perhaps a dental office that perhaps could end up being a service for you folks locally. He stated if Vale Park Road continues that is an unknown and is totally in the hands of the City. He stated they have to plan far in advance to raise the moneys for that to get the thorough transportation and Indiana Highways money and everything to match up. He stated the right-of-way acquisition takes a lot of time as well as the settlement because people don’t willingly just turn over their land for these projects.

Mr. Detert stated he failed to mention one thing and that is he is also concerned about the traffic and he thinks it might be appropriate although normally we ask for this later to get some input from the Highway Department.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 03-Z-14 until the November 12, 2003 meeting for more information. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

Biddinger - No Bucko - Yes Burns - No
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Breitzke - No

This case will be heard on November 12, 2003 with the public hearing closed. This case will not be heard by the Commissioners in November.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 03-Z-15 until the November 12, 2003 meeting for additional information. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns asked what information are we looking for.



Mr. Detert stated he is looking for more information on the commercial and any commitments it might need.

Mr. Burns stated the commercial is the previous case. He stated this is the R-3 case.

Mr. Detert stated he is talking in general. He stated he is talking about all the things in total that he wants to see. He stated he wants to see the need for R-3 in this location when there is R-3 in the general area. He stated he has trouble zoning large parcels in Porter County to R-3 and then eventually get developed and then we have more than we want.

Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

Biddinger - No Bucko - Yes Burns - No
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Breitzke - No

Mr. Breitzke stated both of these cases will come back on November 12, 2003. He stated the public hearing is closed. He stated the people are welcome to attend but the public hearing is closed.

Dorothy Peterschmidt stated once you have a recommendation for the Commissioners then we will have another chance to speak at the Commissioners. She stated at every meeting that you require a continuation and this comes back before you we can be here but we can’t speak.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is correct.

Mr. Ferngren stated his office phone number is 464-4961 and you can also call Jake Wagner’s office at 465-1995 and he would be happy to talk to any of the public.

Case 03-APP-4. Appeal of Jane L. Aicher, 2051 Pokeberry Ct., Valparaiso, Indiana appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve Center Minor Subdivision 1437-A-1 to be located on the South side of Pokeberry, between Thornapple Way and the West line of Heritage Valley in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Jane Aicher stated we are appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve this Center Minor Subdivision for the following reasons; they oppose the road approved to come off of Pokeberry Court, which is a cul-de-sac. Along with that goes first and foremost a safety concern, especially for the children that reside in the street (sic). In addition of the road off of


Pokeberry cul-de-sac would mean additional traffic flow in and out of Pokeberry Court. She stated the next reason is the design of the cul-de-sac. She stated their street is designed as a one way cul-de-sac. She stated if the proposed road goes in this result in cars going against the flow of traffic on a very narrow street in front of the mailboxes. She stated as you can see the mailboxes are here and the proposed road would be down here. She stated this is about 16-feet wide right now between the mailboxes and the other side. She stated there isn’t enough room for two cars at the mailbox site even right about now. She stated here is that area. She stated also questioning the impact of utilities on the cul-de-sac. She asked how wide would the road be and also what would the home values. She stated of the ten families that live on the cul-de-sac when they purchased their homes there they purchased it because it was a cul-de-sac. She stated it was safe for the children and the expectation is that the value of their homes are going to go down. She stated there is an alternative route and that is to come in off of Rt. 2 and along an existing driveway and have it coming in that way and accessing the three homes that are proposed to be built. She stated she believes that there are some other people that want to speak.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mrs. Aicher that she is the petitioner.

Mrs. Aicher stated they consider possible hazards to the postal delivery to traffic to and from the proposed road. She stated also for their mail pick up and delivery. She stated the development will allow a large increase of noise to their neighborhood from Rt. 2 and particularly from Reed’s Nursery, which they bring in a lot of stone and sometimes large boulders. She stated if the trees come down then there is an opening and the noise from that will be very bad. She stated security issues are another concern. She stated mainly a safety for the traffic and the children.

Joseph Kenaga stated he lives at 2156 Pokeberry Court. He stated he has pictures of the cul-de-sac. He stated this is the proposed driveway and you can see where the existing homes are on the cul-de-sac. He stated the proposed driveway is coming in this 80-foot span, which basically is very close to the center of that cul-de-sac. He stated you have a very much of a blind intersection with a 90º road coming into the side of a cul-de-sac. He stated you have kids in the neighborhood and have in the 25 years that it has been there expect to be safe by riding their tricycles or bikes or whatever. He stated you are going to interrupt that. He stated you can see right here the three trees the three openings that are proposed to bring in the drive. He stated it is going to be a 90 right into the middle of that cul-de-sac and very easy for people to be able to enter that without seeing very well and also the possibility for some accidents there. He stated the subdivision has been there since 1976. He stated he was the first occupant and he bought into the subdivision because of the fact that it was a cul-de-sac and essentially there wasn’t going to be any other folks entering into that area just like all the rest of the cul-de-sacs in Heritage Valley. He stated now we are going to propose having a road coming into that, which basically brings up a lot of questions. He stated safety is one issue and certainly the fact, depending on what type of homes go in there, their home values could be impacted by that. He stated that roadway going in there is in an easement area that originally when Mr. Coolman put that in left a small section of about 80 feet that had the county road right up against it so basically lost the possibility of having that inclusive and that is how the entrance is being obtained now. He stated the three sites are along this area. He stated there are two existing buildings, a home and a garage. He stated that there is a driveway coming in off of Rt. 2 that has been used for many, many years coming in right up to these homes and they could easily access those three without having to going through the cul-de-sac and entering into those property’s. He stated essentially that is the reason they suggested it to be on Rt. 2 rather than over in the cul-de-sac where it can cause all kinds of problems for them. He stated these existing buildings are pretty much an eyesore and they are kind of hidden with trees over there and some older buildings, an older home and an older garage. He stated basically they will be able to see that because the driveway will be looking at these older homes and it will also open up a lot of noise, which was mentioned as well. He stated the other possibility is that they haven’t any idea if they put a driveway in going into the cul-de-sac the property runs over Thornapple and down to Rt. 2 this segment that is left. He stated in the future there could be a possibility of anyone developing that property and also getting into that same driveway going into the cul-de-sac. He stated they just don’t know what might happen in the future as well. He stated the driveway going into the utility easement coming off of the cul-de-sac they don’t have any control what they might do with that. He stated they can put that right up adjacent to Mr. Steele’s property line. He stated this is going to create a lot of noise and dust as well. He stated this is why they feel that they should enter off of Rt. 2 instead of off of their cul-de-sac.

Cami Gudino stated she lives at 2058 Pokeberry Court. She stated usually she doesn’t want to repeat what her neighbors have said but she is very, very concerned about this. She stated they bought in Heritage Valley 26 years ago because of the design that Bob put in there. She stated they have raised three small children in a cul-de-sac. She stated there is a big safety issue there and she would love to see this stay as a cul-de-sac. She stated she doesn’t want her home value to go down.

Mr. Breitzke stated Dan and Naomi Goodman submitted a letter. He asked them if they wanted the letter read or would they prefer to make comments.

Mr. Goodman stated to read the letter.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Dan and Naomi Goodman. This letter is in the appeal file.

Tom Baker did not speak.

Carol Dilley stated she lives at 2154 Pokeberry Court. She stated her main concern is the fact that they wouldn’t even be considering this if there wouldn’t have been an error made by the developer being abutted off to a county road. She stated as a Planning Commission they would hope that maybe a right could be set straight with this and this is her concern. She stated she feels very strongly that this would change the characteristic of their cul-de-sac with the extension of a road. She stated it is kind of unusual is what she means. She stated you wouldn’t see this happen in other situation. She stated they wouldn’t even consider it just because it was a mistake that was made.

William Noel Dilley stated he lives at 2154 Pokeberry. He stated he will somewhat repeat some of the items unfortunately. He stated Pokeberry Court was just paved by the County this summer after about 25 or 28 years and they did a fine job of it. He stated the City came in and did the sewer work for extensions and concrete in that area. He stated as you can see if this is the area of the proposed road with these trees being removed the value of the adjacent homes in this cul-de-sac area of which all the people who live on the street bought for that purpose a very beautiful setting. He stated with this road being put in you can see the type of miscellaneous materials and out buildings and discarded materials that is going to be an open view of the whole area and it will affect the value of the homes in this cul-de-sac. He stated there have been as many as 18 children living on this closed street and when you have a cul-de-sac, children tend to play in the street. He stated the neighbors and friends watch out for those children. He stated when you propose new streets to an area when people bought there thinking that there wasn’t going to be any additional roads or access to homes. He stated the safety of children is very concerning. He stated in addition to the mail area where people not only deliver mail but pick up their mail day and night on a very narrow, it is about 16 feet at the mailboxes, but there are some areas in the cul-de-sac that is 12 feet or less because it is a narrow cul-de-sac, concerned of two way traffic or any traffic that may impose in the area of the mail area is a great concern. He stated another concern of his that has to be mentioned is with this road that has been proposed for the three homes there is going to be a road put down within 20 feet of Lonnie Steele’s home that will go back to these lots. He stated with this road comes an amount of noise that will be coming from the additional traffic of construction for those homes and the people in there and their visitors. He stated there is additional traffic noise from Rt. 2 and the stone and nursery across the way, which they hear a lot of now. He stated it is blocked by a lot of trees and plants that have matured there. He stated with this road going back off this cul-de-sac their neighborhood watch, they have had people parked there for various reasons who are not suppose to be in that area. He stated because they can see them they can either approach them and ask them what they are doing there taking care of neighborhood concerns and so forth. He stated with the road jetting off to the side and back in behind in a hidden area there are places where people can park back in there for criminal activity’s or whatever. He stated where the people that now have lived in this area on this closed cul-de-sac will not be able to see what is going on back in there and it is a concern for crime and security. He stated as mentioned before the road off of SR 2 that access that area has been used already by the people that have proposed this road with these lots. He stated that they have brought in various vehicles for drawing inspections and so forth, tree removal, land clearing and so forth, none of that has been accessed off of Pokeberry Court. He stated it has all been done off of Rt. 2 and if that can be done why not continue that affect by using access from those properties not affecting the cul-de-sac that the home owners bought purposely for beautiful play in the street type of atmosphere that so many families have lived there. He stated they have lived there almost like Joe Kenaga, since 1977. He stated it is a beautiful area and he thinks that this road proposal is the wrong way to go.

Richard Gudino stated that he lives at 2058 Pokeberry Court. He stated he is one of the original buyers on Pokeberry Court also. He stated the reason they bought there is because it was a cul-de-sac. He stated if there were a door there someone coming in would be disturbing you. He stated he doesn’t like the idea. He stated he knows his property values will go down and everyone else’s. He stated he really doesn’t want them to be impacted in that direction. He stated he does thank the Board for listening to them this evening and taking the time and patience that you are showing. He stated they raised their three daughters there and they just ask the Commission to please consider that his grandchildren are now getting to an age where they are growing to be growing up and coming to their street also. He stated he really would like it to be safer. He stated he knows someone else would like to save a few dollars and not come in from Rt. 2 and that would be wonderful for them but saving one of our kids’ lives would be precious to them so please consider that.

Paula Mitchell stated she has no comment.

Gary Mitchell stated he lives at 2060 Pokeberry. He stated fortunately or unfortunately you ladies and gentlemen have to hear the various opinions and it is a difficult job. He stated you have already heard a lot various opinions just from this group tonight. He stated for him personally he thinks that it just boils done to basic good judgment and common sense. He stated he had the pleasure to come before this Commission several times through when he represented his professional lodge and this Commission has always presented good judgment and common sense. He stated just look at the situation regardless of everything that has been said just the engineering the physical proximity in trying to accommodate a road with just again the mathematics not just the additional traffic but the just the numbers. He stated it just doesn’t make sense. He stated he is asking the Commission to use their common sense.

Don Bengel stated he is an engineer and surveyor here in Porter County. He stated he is representing TE-NI-DA. He stated the outlined area is the area of the subdivision. He stated he certainly understands the emotional consideration of the folks that oppose this. He stated the safety seems to be a big matter and he thinks the overall view if you stand back and look at the whole situation in his opinion it is safer to come up through the cul-de-sac then have three more homes come in off of SR 2 very close to the intersection of Pokeberry and SR 2. He stated all of these folks thought that they bought on a closed cul-de-sac and in fact they didn’t because there is an 82-foot access to the property that contains this subdivision. He stated he believes that the developer thought he was going to acquire that property and therefore would not be a nice quiet cul-de-sac although with the addition of three homes he doesn’t believe the character of that cul-de-sac is going to change very much. He stated just to mention that the utilities the sanitary sewers will be off of the sewer that is provided by the city to the subdivision. He stated they are not sure what NIPSCO is doing. He stated he is not sure if NIPSCO will try to use a transformer that is in the subdivision. He stated he kind of doubts it. He stated concerning the home values. He stated he thinks that the types of homes that he was told that are going to be built here he doesn’t see any reduction of home values to Pokeberry Court. He stated it is a good chance that these homes will be updated and possibly more upscale then what is there now. He stated as far as removing a lot of trees to make this entrance, and this is a public road, make sure we understand that. He stated the trees that were shown there in this area, they are not sure if they will take one or two of the trees out. He stated they will take the minimum out. He stated they are not extending a roadway. He stated it is going to be a driveway that serves three homes. He stated in his opinion it is a good deal rather than having three more drives along a highway. He stated they don’t think the postal delivery will be affected. He stated three more mailboxes will be there. He stated they had the opportunity to meet with these folks and it was a very nice meeting. He stated everyone was very gracious. He stated they did agree that with the situation with the road it is one-way traffic around the cul-de-sac. He stated keep in mind that this is not a typical cul-de-sac. He stated this is a lane that comes and makes a long oval shape and goes back out. He stated the people that will build these are willing to agree that they will maintain the same traffic pattern. He stated the road that will go down here, this is Mr. Steele’s house and on the other side of these trees here is a sixty-foot access. He stated the road that will go down there they agreed that they would face it so they would not harm any of those trees. He stated as far as the driveway it is planned that this driveway would be paved. He stated it would not be stone but it will have an asphalt surface on it. He stated again the access to Pokeberry he doesn’t believe it was a mistake. He stated it was intentional by the developer. He stated he thinks that it was always there and it is not a mistake in any sense. He stated someone mentioned to use good judgment and common sense he thinks that if you look at the overall picture of the subdivision the access it is to makes better sense. He stated it is adding three homes on a cul-de-sac. He stated they went to TAC and this subdivision meets the ordinance.

Mrs. Aicher stated in terms of the property value and she thinks if you look here and see the condition of the homes back here and the debris and all of that stuff. She stated if they take those trees down it is going to become very visible, which would bring the property values down.

Mr. Mitchell stated he has to say he is not concerned about the property values. He stated he is concerned about the logistics and the engineering and the proximity just spaces. He stated to him it is a space issue.

Mr. Dilley stated the gentleman mentioned three roads off of Rt. 2. He stated all the work that has been done and could be done could be through a single access of public property owners that have a cut or a right-of-way onto Rt. 2 that are existing. He stated not three more cuts onto Rt. 2. He stated he thinks that this should be considered and looked at.

Mrs. Goodman stated to repeat the question that they had. She stated right now they are saying three houses on three acres but her understanding is that the parents own 30 acres on Rt. 2. She asked if it is any guarantee that it is going to be three houses or are they going to have ten more houses or twenty more houses and having all of those houses using the road whether it goes onto Rt. 2 or whether it goes through Pokeberry Court.

Mr. Kenaga stated the only other thing that Don had mentioned that the developer originally putting in the cul-de-sac, basically they talked to Mr. Coolman and he did state that it was a mistake on his part not to leave a one-foot buffer on that edge. He stated Mr. Coolman left that eighty feet open. He stated he thinks that it was an oversight on Mr. Coolman’s part.

Mrs. Dilley stated one of the issues that came up was a safety issue. She stated you have a lot of people like Aberdeen and all the other people who get off of Rt. 2 and they build homes off of Rt. 2 all of the time. She stated she doesn’t see that as any more of a danger issue for them then it would be these new home owners to still come off of the parents driveway.

Mr. Gudino stated he would like to clear up one thing. He stated that car that you see in the upper right hand picture would have to be making not a 90º turn. He stated he would have to make an 180º turn. He stated you are talking about maybe coming in this way and being against the one-way at one point or another, which could happen and come out that same way. He stated this was one of their big issues.

Mr. Bengel stated those existing houses here are not part of the subdivision. He stated in his mind there will be no more homes in there because this would not support any more homes. He stated this is all low ground in here and it would be perfect for drainage. He stated it was mentioned the first time that this road went out to Thornberry or this property could go out to Thornberry. He stated it doesn’t. He stated this is a separate owner that has the parcel between Thornberry and this parcel. He stated as far as he is concerned there would only be three houses on this parcel. He stated he understands their concern about this being somewhat unsightly. He stated those buildings are not on this property. He stated he doesn’t understand Rich’s concern when you turn off of this existing drive there will be a 90º turn. He stated there will two 90º turns. He stated you will turn to your right and then you will turn again back west. He stated he might take this opportunity to mention that we proposed an agreement with these folks and he realizes that their bottom line is they just don’t want these houses there and he can respect that. He stated they had proposed agreement with several items. He stated the only one he hadn’t mentioned so far is that they would agree to plant a screen along the bottom part of that “L” and in site review when they take out those two scrub trees they agreed to pave the driveway and also to establish a building line from one side and they would not use their pond. He stated they had agreed that these would be covenants that ran with the land and they would go on the final plat. He stated this is something that they didn’t have to do. He stated to him the main concern is using the existing driveway pattern in that cul-de-sac and there is no disagreement that this is what they will use. He stated concerning the property values the first house that is going to be built is going to be on lot 3. He stated there is a spot now to build a house there and he is sure that it is going to quality of at least equal to what is on Pokeberry now.

Mrs. Aicher stated they do not oppose the homes. She stated they oppose the road coming off of the cul-de-sac.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated he needs some clarification from TAC in relationship in clearing understanding this piece of property. He asked was there in fact access, which is allowed on was there an easement or any kind of right-of-way that allowed that to be accessed to these adjacent properties for the purpose of future homes.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically a developer who is optimistic can acquire adjoining lands will extend right-of-way right to the property line. He stated a prudent one will put in a spite strip of which he can control that access. He stated it is typically a foot or a half of foot to really control access to a very expensive improvement. He stated in this case a road. He stated the developer didn’t in this case and there is actually an 80-foot right-of-way along that could be considered an access point. He stated further more TAC looks at the technical issues. He stated things are brought back to this Board because this Board can look more at the issues of public health, safety and welfare. He stated we have to abide by the ordinance so we do that without prejudice of looking at does this contain the standards and sometimes the minimum, standard is basically the minimum. He stated that is why it is here for you to address the issues probably beyond just the ordinance itself.

Mr. Burns stated then what you are saying then legally they meet the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated he believes they do.

Mr. Thompson stated there is a right-of-way that abuts that parcel and he saw no restrictions on it then in his opinion the 60-foot easement meets the code requirement for a minor subdivision. He stated the lots must be accessed by a 60-foot ingress/egress that has access to a public road. He stated Pokeberry Road is a public road.

Mr. Bucko stated obviously if the County paved that road it meets all the standards.

Mr. Thompson stated he doesn’t know if he would go that far in saying that. He stated if you look at our standards of development that are by the County Highway Engineers and everything like that he would say there is not a standard there for that type of a configuration because it is an oval shape in which there is an island in the center that also allows parking, if he remembers correctly. He stated he doesn’t know if it is more of a cul-de-sac or is it a turnaround. He stated it is an oval and it has parking in the center of it. He stated it is a narrow lane that goes off to one side. He stated parking is also angled for direction of the flow of the traffic is supposed to go along the narrow line. He asked if there is a standard within our County Highway Engineering, 90-3, he thinks, is the ordinance. He stated no.

Mr. Breitzke stated he will say this that the subdivision itself was developed in the mid 1970’s. He stated the most infrastructure was in place by the mid 1980’s. He stated the ordinance that Bob is referring to was written in 1990. He stated it probably doesn’t conform to today’s street requirements. He stated the geometric of having a private drive coming that way we have no control over. He stated as a public street it is very awkward but this is a public street.

Mr. Bucko stated so therefore by the technical aspects of everything else if the person wants to do this technically they have the right because there isn’t this little parcel of land that was put there by a developer at that time to prevent that kind of…

Mr. Breitzke stated the developer left 80 feet and all they needed was 60 feet for the connect.

Mr. Thompson stated nor do we have an ordinance that governs access control onto public right-of-ways.

Mr. Burns stated really our hands are tied.

Mr. Bucko stated he is looking at the practical application of these people here and how they live today and how they may live in the future and how this is going to impact them. He stated certainly because of the design of that cul-de-sac that changes how they drive in there.

Mr. Thompson stated to the people in here that disagree with the comment but there is a court ruling a number of years ago concerning a minor subdivision that allows this Board discretionary judgment on minor subdivisions. He stated the Judge did rule that in a major subdivision there is no discretion and it is all because of the definition within our codes right here on minor subdivisions. He stated as far as answering Mr. Burns question that are hands are tied, not necessarily. He stated you have an opinion on it and it does state, “Means any minor subdivision containing not more than four lots on an existing public street or road or on a 60-foot right-of-way, not including any new public street or road or the extension of municipal facilities or the creation of any public improvements and not adversely affecting the remainder of the tract or adjoining property. He stated this little statement here was argued in court and a Judge agreed that it allows this Board discretion.

Mr. Burns asked Mr. Bengel if this was a normal cul-de-sac how many lots would have been on the cul-de-sac. He stated if it was normal and complete.

Mr. Bengel stated he thinks that you could probably have more than what is there now because a normal cul-de-sac you come in and you have a circle that is offset or a street. He stated with this one you coming with a lane and then you turn and there is an island in the middle, which the County doesn’t like, although the ordinance still says you can put an island in the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Burns asked if it were a round island how many parcels would there have been.

Mr. Bengel stated you probably could have gotten more because these people have pretty wide widths.

Mr. Burns stated it looks like a third of this cul-de-sac is cut off.

Mr. Bengel stated when he thinks about this is where this new drive comes out it will come out at 90º.

Mr. Burns stated the issue that he has here is there is an 80-foot easement and that property owner has rights too and it is a public roadway. He stated he would have to ask our attorney for her opinion on this.

Attorney Schaefer asked what the question was again.

Mr. Burns stated he would like her legal opinion on that property owner who owns the 80-foot easement has a right to develop their property.

Attorney Schaefer stated the problem that she has and sometimes that you have to admit the ignorance is that she doesn’t have a copy of the ordinance section that she needs and then there is a decision that Bob referred to that she doesn’t have either.

Mr. Detert stated he is a little concern about the access.

Mr. Burns stated so is he and he understands what the people are saying but he thinks that we have a responsibility and it is a legal problem too for the County. He stated he would like to find out from our attorney in the future at the next meeting and he would really like to continue this case.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 03-APP-4 for further information from the Plan Commission Attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Biddinger stated he has never seen anything like this. He stated he would agree to continue this case in need of more information and what exactly is the legal precedence here.

Mr. Detert stated he doesn’t think three more lots would really impact this if there were conventional three lots. He stated he is real concerned about how you get in and out of there with only 60-feet to enter it.

Mr. Mahnic stated his problem is that he doesn’t fully understand this in one respect and that is TAC approved this and they looked at the idea of coming off of Rt. 2. He stated he knows that Mr. Schelling had a lot of input in there. He stated this came out as a final solution and TAC approved it and they met all the ordinances and they have no variance and he thinks legally they have a right to develop this as it is.

Mr. Detert asked the developer if they had any covenants on the property or anything that says this cannot be subdivided from three lots to six.

Mr. Bengel stated no not at this time and as far as the subdivision it can’t be any more than the three lots.

Mr. Detert stated he was talking about your lots. He asked if someone could buy one of your lots and come back in for parceling it up.

Mr. Breitzke stated they would have to ask for a variance and typically they would have to have a fully improved public street.

Motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote.

This case will be heard on November 12, 2003.

Case 03-Z-16. Petition of Carmen Good, 275 S. 150 E., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from Ag, Agriculture & Open Space to RR, Rural Residential or R-1, Single Family Residential to be located on the South side of CR 150 S. between CR 100 W. and CR 200 W. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Don Bengel stated he is an engineer and surveyor in Porter County. He stated he is representing Carmen Good and Lonnie Ailes who own this property. He stated these two gentlemen bought this farm and sold off several ten acre parcels for houses and they did a minor subdivision that shows up to the west of these parcels, lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. He stated what they had left is marked in yellow. He stated they proposed to do a subdivision and they can’t do it under the Ag zoning because there is already a minor subdivision out of this residual parcel. He stated it is zoned Agricultural but everything around it is being used as residential. He stated all of the parcels to the north have an R-1 use with the R-1 specifications. He stated this is the last piece that is left of that farm and the access would be off of CR 150 S. and there would be no more than four parcels. He stated each one averages 4.5 acres.

Jan Henry stated she lives at 178 W. 150 S. She stated her property adjoins the four lots that he is talking about. She stated right now they are zoned rural and he has indicated about the subdivision across the street from us that is R-1 and there are quite a few homes over there. She stated on the side of the property that he is talking about they are all rural and ten acres or more. She stated she and her husband have 20 acres and all the other houses have 10 acres with the exception of the small subdivision that Carmen Good put in in the front. She stated fortunately her property does not abut that property so she wasn’t able to come to the meeting and talk about that. She stated there is some serious issue on the houses that they want to build here. She stated for one there is only one easement through. She stated you don’t know how they are going to put the driveway in. She stated there is a lot of water runoff that happens right through several of these parcels that runs right into her property across the back right across the front and then into her wetlands. She stated that whole half if not two/thirds of that land is wetlands most of the year with the exception of this time of the year when it dries up. She stated all that sewage that they have here because we don’t have sewers or city water all run into that watershed that also feeds their wells. She stated they did not address the issues with these small parcels and how they are going to be able to take care of that drainage problem with the septic and everything else that they have. She stated in addition on her twenty acres and most of the acreage around there they have cattle, horses, chickens and other farm animals and if you put people right here rule one what are they going to be saying about the animals that are right up next to their property. She stated out of these 150 acres that they originally started off with there are 12 homes that are on ten-acre parcels or bigger. She stated then they have these four small parcels that are sitting in a small cul-de-sac, which he never paid and took care of for those people that live in that subdivision in the front. She stated he is always making promises and does not fulfill them. She stated when they originally bought this property their original 10 acres and 10 acres next to them, originally he was going to sell them off as five two acre parcels or one ten acre parcel. She stated that was 10 years ago. She stated now a couple of years ago he built a subdivision and now he is trying to get in another one. She stated they also don’t know what kind of homes he is planning on building. She stated they don’t know if they are going to be modular, stick or prefab. She stated all the homes in the area were all built stick built to go with the covenants and restrictions, which she knows it doesn’t matter to the Commission. She stated if he builds the same quality homes that he built on his first four homes it could affect the rest of the homes because they are not of the same quality of the other homes that were built of the other homes that were built on the other 140 acres.

Mark Henry stated he lives at 178 W. 150 S. He stated he is concerned about the property values. He stated they bought in that area because of the covenants and all those homes are a third of a million dollars. He stated the homes that they built on that front parcel are all $150,000. He stated they didn’t meet the covenants, the size or the scale. He stated when that land came before the Commission originally to be divided into ten acre parcels there were 13 or 14 made. He stated they held on to that one parcel and he knows that the Commission doesn’t care about the covenants but they do as far as property values. He stated they have their hard earned money there and they invested in that area for a reason. He stated they moved out of subdivision to move into the country and now someone wants to build a subdivision right next to them again. He stated the other thing is the way this is oriented there is only one easement here. He stated there is a street back here and they are going to have to come in here and put in another road. He stated he is concerned about the drainage because that property does sit about two feet above them. He stated their house sits about right here close to this line because they thought this ten acres house was going to be up here.

Salvador Pena is not here.

Mr. Bengel stated he thinks that this little subdivision will do more to improve the drainage because now it is row crops. He stated now it will be all sod except for the houses and drives. He stated it will be septic and they certainly don’t expect any septic runoff off the property. He stated if the septic systems are constructed properly and approve by the Health Department and they will have wells that they will be concerned about also. He stated they expect no change in the drainage pattern at all from the subdivision. He stated it will be very little work. He stated these are an acre and a half parcels and probably no more than an acre or three quarters on each on would be disturbed. He stated there was a question about the road. He stated this is a crazy situation here where the property line was south of the centerline of the road. He stated CR 150 was not placed where you normally would think it would be. He stated we do have this 135-foot access so they would have a private drive come in and serve these four parcels. He stated he thinks that there is one benefit to that. He stated you would have one drive coming out onto the road instead of four. He stated as far as the quality of the homes he has been back to these four homes that were built in the minor subdivision and they staked them all out and he doesn’t think that you can call those houses shabby. He stated all the houses in the area are not the top of the line and he is sure that these four houses would be equal to or greater than the houses that are close to them, which would be on the north side of the road.

Mrs. Henry stated as far as the drainage this has been sitting in grass and not in row crops for the last ten years. She stated in fact it has been weeds for the last ten years. She stated Carmen tried to mow it once and that has been it. She stated that was part of his covenants and restrictions was to keep the land up even if you weren’t building it. She stated you had to keep it mowed or in crops, which he didn’t abide by that. She stated that drainage issue as far as grass is concerned that is not the issue. She stated it is trenched very steeply like a ditch. She stated when it rains it runs like a little river all the way down through that property. She stated in fact if you could go out to the land you would see through this “B” parcel here it is rutted really heavy where that house would sit. She stated they would have to do some kind of filling for not only for the septic but also for the house to keep the water from running off. She stated the water also runs in front of their property and the one that she was just talking about runs in the back of their property.

Mr. Henry stated to his understanding this is to be the orientation of the homes. He stated they wouldn’t be like the other ones in the front were on a cul-de-sac with the backs facing the road.

Mr. Bengel stated no it won’t be anything like that.

Mr. Henry stated they didn’t hear what type of house was going to be built. He asked if there was going to be a minimum price range or will they be modulars, trailers and is there going to be a minimum square footage. He asked if he heard Mr. Bengel say that the homes will be equal to the homes adjacent to them. He asked if these homes will be equal to the value of his home. He stated they bought there because this was all developed as 13 R-1 parcels. He stated they specifically looked for that and they didn’t want someone coming in putting in a trailer park next to them.

Mr. Bengel stated he knows that it is weeded now and there are some ruts in there and this would be an improvement because you won’t have weeds you will have grass or sod. He stated the ruts will all be replaced with nice lawns. He stated we don’t discuss the quality of the homes because the county has a minimum standard that he is sure, he can guarantee that these houses will are exceed the minimum standard. He stated the closest houses to these lots will be the houses on the north side of CR 150 and ones directly to the west. He stated knowing the size of the lots and the conversations that has been had on these lots he thinks that houses will be substantial.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated this is a situation where you have very like zoning across the street. He stated the issue of rezoning doesn&rsq