PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
March 24, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Robert Detert, Bob Poparad, Mike Sheetz and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Mike Bucko, Rick Burns, Commissioner Bob Harper and Frank Mahnic. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson, Patricia S. Gibson, Fred Siminski and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the March 10, 2004 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 04-FP-1. Petition of John Hall, 481 W. Division Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Hall's Acres Second Addition to be located on the North side of Division Road, between CR 450 E. and CR 575 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 3.01 acres. Property is zoned Rural Residential.)

Jeff Gustke stated he is from Emil Beeg Land Surveying. He stated they are here before the Commission tonight seeking secondary plat approval for Hall's Acres Second Addition. He stated he doesn't have anything to add that hasn't already been read into the minutes. He stated they have received primary plat approval from this Commission on February 11, 2004 and approval for final from TAC on March 5, 2004. He stated there have been no changes in the configuration or number of lots since the primary plat.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-FP-1. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


Public Hearing:

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



Case 04-M-2. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana to consider deleting in its entirety Chapter 17.84, Floodplain Zoning and replacing it with Chapter 17.84 Flood Hazard Areas.

Mr. Thompson stated the Department of Natural Resources came into the office and was reviewing what we have. He stated this ordinance has to be approved by the Department of Natural Resources through their Division of Water and their Floodplain section. He stated that our last ordinance was done in 1983 and they came up and suggested some changes into it. He stated the changes are very minor. He stated that it still doesn't permit a new residential structure to be constructed in a floodplain. He stated like he said, the Department of Natural Resources has approved this and they are expecting a signed copy by the end of May from the County Commissioners.

Mr. Detert stated he has read this and he concurs with Mr. Thompson's comments and all we are doing is trying to get it in line with the State agency. He stated some of the changes didn't really seem worthwhile but they are there.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Tim Cole stated he lives at 845 Calumet Avenue, Chesterton. He stated he is a little concerned about the exclusion areas adjoining in the wetland. He asked if there was a reason for this other than the DNR is under constriction now by a bill signed by the Governor to reduce legislation concerning wetlands.

Herb Read stated he lives at 1453 N. Tremont Rd. He stated he remembers when the first ordinance went through. He stated he had some objections to the wording of it then, which were ignored. He stated there are a couple of things that he would like to call to the Commission's attention between the old ordinance and the new ordinance. He stated the existing ordinance, under 17.84.050, "Floodway Districts," it specifically states, "the Porter County Plan Commission may impose terms and conditions on any permit it issues in this district which are more restrictive than those imposed by the DNR." He asked if the Commission wants to give this up because he can't find any equivalent paragraph in the proposed substitution. He stated the next thing here is that in his opinion anyone who knowingly builds a house or habitable structure in a floodplain is foolish. He stated this is proposed ordinance provides for, as did the previous ordinance to some extent, three phases for which a person can put a development in a floodway. He stated one is raised up above the flood level. He stated there are a couple of other provisions. He stated in affect we are talking about


building on stilts or where the water can go below the building and continue on its way. He stated that is not too bad. He stated then we get to the next category, which is a protected building. He stated this means that this is a permanent restriction on the flow of water and requires construction, which would resist the flood pressures, which could be considerable. He stated the third method is to dump fill. He stated this is the worst of all. He stated according to this they can't do anything if it exceeds more than one tenth of a foot, which is more than an inch. He stated cumulatively each guy starts dumping some fill in the floodway or the floodplain and raises his building that does have a cumulative affect. He stated there is some reference in the ordinance but he doesn't think it is strong enough. He stated it really should say "no building" in a floodway and only under very extreme circumstances should you be permitted to build in fringe areas or floodplains. He stated it does in the permitted uses in a floodway in the previous ordinance, agricultural land, forestry and wildlife areas, parks and recreation areas. He stated he hasn't found those in the proposed ordinance. He stated he thinks that those should be permitted but anything else should not be.

Mr. Thompson stated as far as permitted uses this ordinance is strictly talking about structures. He stated if someone came in and wanted to put in a park or a trail along the Kankakee River that is fine. He stated it is structures that we are going after and it does state no new residential structures, but if there are existing structures in there it does give the people the right and the ability to be able to go forward and do something with an addition to that structure or possibly put up an accessory structure. He stated what you see in the previous ordinance was done back in the '80's. He stated the codification was done in 1995 or 1996 and they codified the wrong ordinance. He stated there is a 1993 ordinance that was approved by the DNR and he went back and looked at some of these past ones and the DNR goes through and basically tells you what you are going to do with the ordinance. He stated the person who came in to talk to him basically told him what he was going to do with the ordinance.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 04-M-2 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Detert - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes



This case will be heard by the County Commissioners at the April 20, 2004 meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Case 04-P-4. Petition of Pat & Brenda Kleihege, 10 Washington St., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Troon Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 700 N., between Meridian Road and Calumet Avenue in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 29 lots on 50± acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Todd Etzler stated he is with Burke, Costanza & Cuppy, 57 Franklin, Valparaiso, Indiana. He stated with him is John Hannon with Great Lakes Engineering. He stated they are representing Pat and Brenda Kleihege the developers and owners of this land in front of us this evening. He stated this is a parcel of approximately 50 acres on CR 700 N. He stated it is on the north side of CR 700 N. and is between Meridian Road and Old SR 49. He stated it is about 2600 feet east of Meridian Road. He stated the property is zoned R-1, residential and this is what they intend to use it for. He stated they are looking for preliminary plat approval this evening. He stated they have a subdivision that complies in all respects with the County's Subdivision Ordinance and they are not requesting any variances. He stated they are developing 29 lots on this 50 acres ranging in lot size from just about ¾ of an acre to 4.48 acres per lot. He stated the R-1 zoning permits lots of 20,000 square feet. He stated theirs is significantly larger than that. He stated their smallest lot is larger than that. He stated the topography of this property is generally rolling and sets out a very nice topography for the larger lots that they have here. He stated the topography is causing the lots to be somewhat larger. He stated the roads and the lots are configured to work best with the topography with the minimum amount of excavation and soil disturbance necessary. He stated the property is not served by utilities. He stated they will have well and septic. He stated this is the reason why they have the larger lots in order to handle the well and septic systems. He stated storm water is controlled by a series of six ponds with one along the road. He stated you see the darker areas on the southeast and southwest and then two ponds on the east and one at the far east corner of the property. He stated the number of ponds is necessary because this is a generally rolling property. He stated they don't want to fight the property but get the water to the best places and to where it wants to go. He stated so these ponds are situated for that reason in those places. He stated the line for the split of the drainage on this property approximately follows the road on the north south. He stated it is a diagonal from the northwest down to the southeast. He stated the southwest quadrant of the property drains to the west and the northeast portion or half of


the property drains by way of these retention areas to the north. He stated the access is provided directly from CR 700 N. He stated there is a divided entrance with a median for about the first 200 feet if you measure from the centerline of CR 700 N. He stated through that the roads throughout the neighborhood have underground water transportation. He stated the roads will be carrying the water to the catch basins and the catch basins take them to the ponds. He stated the ponds hold them. He stated in a case of a large rain and the necessary runoff they do have appropriate runoff structures for each of those pond spillways and using the best management practices engineered to reduce the erosion on the development. Mr. Etzler stated the property has been checked for site lines and they have on the back of this drawing the location of the site lines for this entrance. He stated recall that this is 2600 feet east of Meridian Road. He stated the wavy line you see here is the centerline of CR 700 N. He stated this straight line is the calculated site lines for the point on CR 700 N. where the car would be existing. He stated so the car sits at the calculated based on a height of 3.5 feet at that point to a point that is 2 feet above the line or 2 feet above the pavement and you calculate how far you can see. He stated after development they do have to do a little bit of excavation at the front where the roads come out and meet at CR 700 N. He stated once that is done the site lines for a road that is marked at 35 mph, which is what CR 700 N. is, for cars it is 295 feet, for trucks the stopping distance is 361 feet. He stated their distances to the east is 671 feet and to the west is 655 feet. He stated you can see that in most cases they have almost doubled the site distance from the entrance to what is necessary under the INDOT regulations. He stated the site lines as they will exist after the development is completed will support trucks traveling at 53 mph down CR 700 N. and cars at approximately 60 mph. He stated the Highway Engineer has through TAC gone through this. He stated you saw the report that was filed by the Highway Engineer. He stated the Highway Engineer's concern was where the site lines and he is now satisfied with those. He stated his other comment was that they will need a passing blister and excel and decel lanes on the parcel. He stated those have also been provided and in the TAC meetings they have been approved by the Highway Department. He stated there will be a passing blister on the south side and excel and decel lanes on the north side constructed by the owners of the property. He stated again there will be well and septic on this property. He stated the water in this area and in general in Northwest Indiana is fully sufficient to handle 29 wells and the required water draw that will take place under this subdivision. He stated as you can see the subdivision is a traditional large lot rural subdivision. He stated it is not an attempt to cram a lot of lots into a small area. He stated the developer has


attempted to take advantage of the topography of the land to make a very nice high quality and safe subdivision.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Vickie Sowards stated she lives at 57 E. 700 N., Valparaiso. She stated she owns the property just on the other side of the drive, on the west side. She stated it was brought to her attention tonight that the pond that they are talking about that is going to come down the driveway and down the road is going to be in her driveway. She stated before they put up the hill that was never there she never had water that came in like that. She stated it ran down the driveway and the ditches and now that the hills went up she has had water in her house. She stated not in the driveway or in her garage, but in her house. She stated some of her concerns are when they widen the road for the turning lane you have Mr. Golden's driveway and her driveway and the Dellinghams driveway and there is a ditch on the other side. She asked how far down is that going to go. She stated the increase in traffic that she read in the report was approximately 300 cars a day that will be traveling down the road. She stated that she does realize the speed limit is 35 mph on that road. She stated she is here to state that this is a joke. She stated not even the police officers going down that road do 35 mph. She stated the average speed that goes down that road is between 45 mph to 55 mph. She stated at the end of their road is Meridian Road and she would like to know what the increase in accidents are going to be with this additional traffic. She stated also to make sure that it is visible so they can see us and we can see them. She asked what about the pipeline that is directly behind her and the rest of her family that do live on this farm. She stated she was told by them that at any given point it may be a foot in some areas, which would be directly behind her house, so she will have all that equipment that is going to be driving on the Buckeye Pipeline. She stated she has been trying to take care of the water situation and now this is going to be going in and she will have to take care of mosquitoes. She stated she does realize that she cannot stop this but she can at least make sure that maybe somebody can help her get it done right and that they are safe and not flooded. She stated she has debris that is behind their house and every time it rains it washes onto her property. She stated she does have pictures if anyone needs to see them.

Brian Sowards stated he lives at 57 E. 700 N. He stated his concerns are the same as his wife Vickie.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mrs. Sowards to submit the pictures that she has.


At this time, Mrs. Sowards submitted her pictures to the Commission.

Kathryn Conrick stated she lives at 85 E. 700 N. She stated that her property borders the whole north side and half of the east side of the developer's property. She asked what is to keep the runoff of water from going into her ponds that are stocked with fish. She asked if the developer will be required to build a fence to keep them off of her property.

April Dellingham stated she lives at 53 E. 700 N. She stated she is really concerned about the wells and how is their water going to be affected. She stated they had to go pretty deep when they drilled for their wells. She stated they are concerned with the added homes if they are going to be affected.

Robert Hanrahan stated he lives at 77 E. 700 N. He stated his concern was that it was mentioned previously of two 16" wells to fill these ponds. He stated he doesn't know if that is in the program now or not. He stated his concern is also the water.

Tim Golden stated he lives at 69 E. 700 N. He stated the only concerns he has would be as long as the neighbors are taken care of on their issues. He stated he is for the neighborhood and he thinks that this would be good for the neighborhood. He stated he has no problem with this as long as the concerns of the neighbors are taken care of.

Tim Cole stated he lives at 845 N. Calumet Ave., Chesterton. He stated his major concern of course, is the good neighborliness of this subdivision with the adjacent County Park, Sunset Hill, which borders almost all of the western border. He stated one of his concerns are the questions that have been brought up so far and especially Mrs. Conrick's fence and the sandpit. He stated the sandpit is a dangerous place. He stated it is an attractive area for kids as well as those ponds. He stated he thinks a fence is a very necessary item and he would certainly urge it. He stated he would also urge any covenants associated with this subdivision might address the backyards of the homes that border the homes on the south side and Sunset Hill. He stated Sunset Hill is a camping area.

Herb Reed stated he lives at 1453 North Tremont Road, Chesterton. He stated his concern is something similar that he has voiced on many previous occasions. He stated there is absolutely no indication here of any preserved open space or green space. He stated he keeps remembering that the Home Builders Association spokesman for Porter County keeps telling him that they have seen the light and that they are going to turn


over a new leaf and that they are going to do something to preserve the open space in this County. He stated he hasn't seen it except in a few cases. He stated he realizes it is not required under the present ordinance. He stated they should get it required because they are not going to do it voluntarily.

Mr. Etzler stated several of the questions concern the storm water on the property. He stated right now the storm water simply drains where the storm water maybe draining. He stated Mr. Hannon has engineered this project with several additional retention areas and those retention areas will act to control this water to bring it into a single area and then let it out at a controlled rate. He stated these problems are likely to become better from this property due to the drainage system that is now calculated to handle the water that exists from the storm water. He stated the distance on the decel and accel lanes will go to as far as the right-of-way exists on the front of the property. He stated he doesn't know what the distance is.

Mr. Hannon stated the acceleration lane goes to this point on the property. He stated the deceleration lane actually is proposed to extend a little bit beyond the existing property line. He stated they have about 300 feet of frontage along CR 700 N.

Mr. Etzler stated all those lanes will be within the right-of-way for CR 700 N. He stated for Mrs. Sowards and the speeding people on CR 700 N. with the average of 45 to 55 mph, as he has indicated even if they are driving that fast their site lines will provide for a safe exit and entrance into this subdivision. He stated if they are going 55 mph or higher that is something that society needs to control rather than someone who owns the property. He stated they can design to what is necessary out there. He stated they even design what INDOT requires in their regulations to design to what not only what the posted speed limit is but what the actual speed limit is out there. He stated the site lines are fully large enough sometimes up to two times enough to handle the cars going in and the cars going out, which was an issue also for Mrs. Dellingham. He stated there is the Buckeye Pipeline that runs through the property. He stated there is a 50-foot pipeline easement that runs right at this location of the property. He stated as you can see the lots were configured to take that into consideration. He stated that is the back and side lot lines of each of these properties. He stated all construction in these areas will be off of that easement. He stated if they were constructing within the Buckeye Pipeline easement the Buckeye Pipeline would have something to say about that also. He stated Buckeye does permit and it is completely safe to construct roads and detention areas and other


utilities over and across those lines. He stated to the extent that those utilities have to be adjusted because the pipeline exists there and that is the problem of the developer. He stated Buckeye is not going to permit him to do something that will damage their pipeline through that property.

Mr. Hannon stated he would like to add that they have been in communication with the Buckeye Pipeline people for almost a year now. He stated they know what their specifications are for designing over and around the pipeline and the plan that they have presented to the Commission and to TAC is designed to meet the pipelines specifications. He stated the pipeline people are very good about protecting their pipeline.

Mr. Etzler stated the question concerning the property that borders to the north and to the east and the sandpit that was dug out back there. He stated the eastern portion of the property will end up draining into that area once the water leaves those ponds. He stated they do have septic systems and those septic systems will also be constructed to the State and County guidelines. He stated they have already done several borings out there and that is necessary during TAC and before this preliminary hearing. He stated the Health Department has looked at those and said that they are acceptable. He stated the septic systems are not an issue to hurt any of the adjoining properties around the area. He stated the drainage and the storm water drainage the water that leaves this property, Indiana and the nation as a whole are increasing their regulations all across the board. He stated storm water is getting very highly regulated. He stated they have put into place regulations concerning best management practices that requires water to travel over distances for the engineers to configure their spillways in a way that not only controls the rate and flow of that water but also controls the quality of the water that comes out of their. He stated they have several levels of quality control both in the amount and the quality of water that comes out of these ponds. He stated Mrs. Dellingham had an issue concerning the wells. He stated this is only 29 lots at this point. He stated they are not going to be drawing on a lot of water. He stated if you look at Indiana and their ground water availability in Northern Indiana we are very well stocked for ground water. He stated the amount of ground water that exists goes on a scale from 0 to 600 gallons per minute. He stated our area in Northwest Indiana is the 400 to 600 units and this is taken directly from the surveys from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, their well and septic section. He stated this area will be fully supplied with water and these wells will not be affecting the other wells around the area. He stated the properties to the south for Mr. Cole and Mr. Read there was concern about the property where the houses


already exists to the south. He stated this project is nice because on the south portion of the property you will see you have these lots here but there is detention or retention areas both on each area. He stated this entire area here is going to be open green space with retention areas in it. He stated you have the circular area, which is the actual pond. He stated the straight lines around each of those areas are the actual easements for those drainage easements. He stated nothing will be constructed within those easements. He stated because of the large number of ponds in this area you not only have a large amount of green space and open space but buffers to the south. H stated the green space and the open space is spread throughout the subdivision. He stated the adjacent County Park is immediately to the west of this property. He stated his client has had meetings with the County Park Department and they indicated that there is not an issue concerning this subdivision. He stated their one comment was that there is some fencing along that property line and that may need to be upgraded or repaired. He stated there were no objections and they didn't file any objections as far as he knows with the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated he is going to interrupt these proceedings at this time.

Mr. Thompson asked Mrs. Sowards if the pictures she submitted were her pictures.

Mrs. Sowards stated yes they were hers.

Mr. Thompson asked who took these pictures.

Mrs. Sowards stated she did.

Mr. Thompson asked whose property were these pictures done on. He stated this material that he is looking at in these pictures whose property is it.

Mrs. Sowards stated it depends on what picture you are looking at. She stated some of them are hers on her property and some of them are behind the lots.

Mr. Thompson asked Mrs. Sowards to come up front and identify these pictures.

At this time, Mrs. Sowards came forward.

Mr. Thompson asked Mrs. Sowards to tell him who took the picture and what the picture was.



Mrs. Sowards stated this is behind Uncle Bob's and she took the picture.

Mr. Thompson asked Mrs. Sowards to point on the plat on the board where this picture was taken.

At this time, Mr. Sowards came to the front.

Mr. Sowards stated right now the property has numerous tree section on the back half. He stated he is presuming right now that this across here is probably going to be where the tree section is now. He stated if that is the case it would be this area right here.

Attorney Schaefer stated they have photos here that depict tires and all kinds of materials being used as fill on property. She stated there is even one that looks like some kind of tank container. She asked Mr. and Mrs. Sowards if they can tell the Commission that those are actually photos that they took of things that are on the petitioner's property. She asked if this is what they are saying.

Mrs. Sowards stated yes this is correct.

Mr. Breitzke asked if it is approximately where the pond or depression is.

Mr. Sowards stated yes that is correct.

Attorney Schaefer stated to Mr. Etzler that we don't like to subject the petitioner to a "trial by ambush" but we are in charge of enforcement of the codes and some of the photographs depict things that cannot legally be done on this property. She stated to Mr. Etzler that the Commission would like to offer him the opportunity to take the photographs and discuss this with his client because if that is in fact going on on the property right now you may wish to continue their petition until another date and discuss the enforcement issues and so forth with Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Breitzke stated at this point he is going to ask for a motion to continue this until the end of the meeting and the Commission will proceed with the next hearing.

Mr. Poparad moved to continue Case 04-P-4 until the end of the meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.





Discussion:

Mr. Thompson stated he would like to explain this to Mr. Etzler. He stated he is not going to be in the office the next two days. He stated the pictures will be in the office and he will make sure that the staff has these available so that way you can look at them up in the office. He stated we will scan copies of them.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-P-5. Petition of The Autumn Group LLC, c/o Todd A. Leeth, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Autumn Oaks Subdivision, to be located on the North side of Division Road, between SR 2 and CR 325 E. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Bill Ferngren stated he is from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and he is here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, The Autumn Group LLC. He stated Mr. Palm from Palm & Associates and his client is also here. He stated this was reviewed by TAC and forwarded after the February 27, 2004 meeting. He stated he would like to a little bit of history about the zoning of the property. He stated right now it is zoned R-1. He stated originally it was part of the Aberdeen PUD but this portion of the subdivision has just been recently rezoned to R-1. He stated this was actually before this Body and the County Commissioners. He stated this was rezoned by the County Commissioners to R-1. He stated the property before you is approximately 24.197 acres. He stated it is located on the north side of Division Road. He stated it is surrounded primarily on the north by the Aberdeen development. He stated there are two minor subdivisions adjoining to the east and there is a proposed Prairie development for Aberdeen adjoining the parcel on the northwesterly portion. He stated as you can see the parcel is kind of a unique shape. He stated it is a "T" shaped parcel and as he has indicated is zoned R-1. He stated the proposal before you tonight is a 57 lot single-family residential subdivision. He stated the development will be served with sanitary sewer and domestic water. He stated the sanitary sewer is through the Nature Works Conservancy District, which is known as the Aberdeen Conservancy District. He stated the water will be provided by the City of Valparaiso Water Department. He stated both entities have provided a letter indicating that they have the capacity and both the willingness to serve this particular development. He stated he has provided Mr. Thompson with a copy of those letters. He stated the average lot size in this development is around .315 acres or around 13700 square feet. He stated in the R-1 District with sanitary sewer


and water the minimum lot size is 11000 square feet. He stated each lot in this development exceeds that minimum requirement. He stated as he has indicated the development is surrounded by existing Aberdeen homes or a future Aberdeen site and the parcel sizes are consistent with those areas and in fact larger than most of Aberdeen's. He stated the minor subdivisions are located to the east of the parcel and those are larger parcels. He stated turning to the roads in the development, there is one access located in the south end of the development from Division Road and there is also a proposed connection on the western border to the Prairie development. He stated this connection was made at the request of the staff and initially it was to be a 50 foot wide private right-of-way but in speaking with Mr. Schelling with the Highway Department and the developer of Aberdeen Prairie the right-of-way would be improved to a 60-foot right-of-way just as they are through the rest of the development and it will become public roads. He stated all of the roads within the development would be public and taken over by the County. He stated all streets would have a curb and gutter. He stated this will not have the traditional ditches along the side of the road but rather a curb and gutter utilizing a storm sewer system. He stated sidewalk will be provided throughout the development with handicapped accessible ramps at all required locations. He stated they are requesting one variance tonight to the subdivision control ordinance requirements and that is for a curve radius. At this time, Mr. Ferngren handed out to the Commission members a drawing that may help them understand what they are looking at. He stated the street that you are looking at is classified as a residential street and the curve requirement for this type of a street is 200 feet. He stated what they are asking for is curve radius of 187 feet. He stated the reason is this north south dimension on the parcel is very limited in nature as you can see. He stated it kind of scrunches this section together making the curve radius, the need for that slightly less than what the County's minimum requirement is. He stated in looking through the ordinance and discussing with the engineer the purpose of the curve radius that dimension given for residential street is to provide a safe site line for the residents in the area and for those traveling down the road. He stated the minimum requirement for the site line is 150 feet and even with this proposed variance of 187-foot curve radius they still exceed the 150-foot site line distance that is required. He stated he believes that the intent of the ordinance is still accomplished by allowing this lesser curve. He stated also the sharpness of the curve will serve as a traffic calming feature in the subdivision. He stated they don't anticipate a high rate of speed with this but certainly the layout of the subdivision and that reduction of the curve will further enhance the traffic common value of this lessoned curve. He stated with respect to


the variance he really believes the intent of the ordinance is the site line safety and visibility and all of those things are provided. He stated if you look at the drawing that he handed out to you the area that is shown in gray would be a curve that actually would meet the County's 200-foot requirement. He stated as a result of that lots 12, 13 and 14 would be greatly diminished and probably not usable at all. He stated the site lines on Division Road meet or exceed all the County requirements as well. He stated that is a minimum of 500 feet is what they have in this area. He stated there are two oak trees located in this area within the right-of-way that is dedicated, as part of this minor subdivision that once removed all of the site lines would be provided for. He stated as he indicated earlier the drainage would be through a storm sewer system. He stated Bob Palm has prepared all the calculations and designs. He sated one of the reasons why Mr. Palm was selected outside of his outstanding credentials he is the gentleman or his firm that has worked with the Aberdeen development. He stated his client felt that it was best to utilize somebody familiar with this area and who understands the workings of Aberdeen and Nature Works Conservancy and that is the reason he was employed. He stated this project was reviewed by the Porter County Drainage Board and it is his understanding that there are no issues remaining with the Drainage Board. He stated TAC reviewed the project and there were a few changes all of which were made regarding spillways, calculations, heights of banks and that sort of thing. He stated there is a storm sewer piping system that basically collects the water and flows it in this direction to a detention basin located in this area. He stated all of that would be flowing underground and collected in that point. He stated the detention basin has been oversized so it will be more than adequate to handle any and all storm water runoff for this project.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Tami Betz stated she lives at 283 W. Division Road. She stated she owns the minor subdivision next door to this and her grandmother owns the other minor subdivision on the other side. She stated there is a private road in there and from what she heard through the grapevine her two big oak trees that have been there for probably 500 years are going to be cut down along with her hedges. She stated her house is fairly close to the road so she doesn't see them putting a deceleration lane across her front yard. She stated otherwise she really doesn't have a complaint about the neighborhood. She stated she just doesn't want to have a deceleration lane across her front yard. She stated she likes her hedges and her oak trees.

Michael Aylesworth stated he is representing the Porter


County Builders Association. He stated his address is 171 W. SR 8 in Hebron. He stated he has had an opportunity to work with the developer as well as their Association President and review his plans. He stated we think this is a really good solid development and this blends well with the character of the community. He stated he supports this development.

Herb Read stated he lives at 1453 N. Tremont Road. He stated maybe he should submit a generic all-purpose objection to some of these subdivisions. He stated it would save everybody a lot of time, including his. He stated again he has an objection to this as most of them and it is on the same basis as he objected before and that is he doesn't see anything that is preserving open space or greenery. He stated he has been honking this horn for 30 or 40 years in Porter County. He stated maybe if he keeps it up long enough the people of Porter County will wake up to the fact that the open space is disappearing and if the subdividers are not going to take care of it the only alternate answer that he can think of is a crash program to expand the Porter County Park system, which he expects all of you to be gleefully submitting your money to pay for new parks.

Tim Cole stated he lives at 845 N. Calumet Avenue, Chesterton. He stated he agrees with what Mr. Read has said. He stated other than not having green space everything else is admirable. He stated there are sidewalks, sewer and water provided to the subdivision, and better than minimum size lots. He stated his one objection was probably raised by the 13-foot reduction in the radius of the curve. He stated in the event in an emergency and an emergency vehicle coming down these streets. He asked if that allows for a good size fire truck to pass through there and is on street parking going to be allowed. He stated if cars are parked on both sides with that kind of curve stricture a fire truck and even a delivery truck might have a hard time passing through that. He stated other than that he has no objection.

Mr. Ferngren stated the oak trees are in the right-of-way and the decel lanes that are proposed are also entirely in the right-of-way. He stated none of that is on her private property. He stated he spoke with his client today and he is not interested in destroying the environment and he would work with Mrs. Betz to minimize the impact of the removal of these trees and providing some sort of a buffer. He stated all of the roadways including the roadway that has the reduced curve radius are more than adequate to allow even the largest fire safety equipment to get in and around the subdivision in a safe and efficient manner. He stated concerning parking on the street he is unaware of whether that is going to be permitted but never


the less the development of the streets are all up to the
County's standard with requirements for right-of-way with the exception of the curve radius.

Mrs. Betz asked if she had legal rights about them taking down her tree. She asked if the County owned so many feet from the road to her house.

Mr. Ferngren stated there is a 40-foot right-of-way there and that was all dedicated as part of the minor subdivision that was approved. He stated the trees are all located within that right-of-way as well as the proposed deceleration lane.

Mrs. Betz stated her house doesn't seem like it is more than 40-feet from the road. She stated if it was that far she would be surprised. She stated if you put this lane in she is going to have 10 or 15-feet before stepping into this new street.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is something that will have to be discussed by the County Highway Engineer.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad asked when Mrs. Betz did the minor subdivision if they gave up the right-of-way.

Mr. Ferngren stated that this was correct. He stated they dedicated that right-of-way as part of the county roadway.

Mr. Poparad stated Mrs. Betz gave up the land to the County for the road but that is where the trees are.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Mr. Poparad stated if Mrs. Betz gave up her land for the right-of-way then the trees are not hers.

Mr. Breitzke stated with the dedication of the subdivision the right-of-way was given up.

Mr. Thompson stated Mrs. Betz's grandmother did both minor subdivisions on each side. He stated there was a proper dedication of right-of-way as according to the Thoroughfare Plan on that plat.

Mr. Poparad asked if they are going to ban on street parking or do they know yet.

Mr. Ferngren stated he can ask his client.


Mr. Poparad stated he thinks that they have a valid point if they allow parking on both sides.

Mr. Ferngren stated cutting the radius does not affect the vehicular traffic in there.

Mr. Poparad asked if these are the same as the county roads in terms of specs.

Mr. Thompson stated 60-foot right-of-way 30-foot back-to-back curb.

Mr. Breitzke stated these are wider than the typical county roads.

Mr. Thompson stated he is assuming that they are proposing to have this dedicated to the public.

Mr. Poparad asked if this side road is going to tie into another subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated that is tying into a private subdivision. He stated that is the Prairie of Aberdeen. He stated that is not in connection with the Aberdeen PUD itself. He stated Bob Coolman did the Prairie at Aberdeen after he left as a partner of Aberdeen.

Mr. Poparad asked if this lane was going to be public and stopping into a private road.

Mr. Thompson stated the proposed development is private.

Mr. Poparad stated we will have a public road ending at a private road.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is still public access. He stated we won't be responsible for the maintenance of the private road.

Mr. Poparad asked if the private road will be built to the same specs as the public road.

Mr. Thompson stated it is a PUD to the west of it and it was approved at a 50-foot right-of-way with a 24-foot wide pavement. He stated whereas the stub that is going to the west is not the full 60-foot right-of-way. He stated it is a 50-foot right-of-way.

Mr. Poparad stated he is concerned that we have a public road that is up to specs and then it ends and we have a private road.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is an access issue. He stated he thinks that it is fine the way it is.

Mr. Poparad stated he disagrees because someone will be coming down that road and turn in there with a truck or something and they will go down that road then all of a sudden they are going to be on the private road etc. etc. He stated then we are going to have the snowplowing issue come up.

Mr. Thompson stated to be able to do what they are proposing there the developer of the PUD to the west, Prairie at Aberdeen, would have to come back in front of the Commission to amend his plat to be able to tie into that subdivision.

Mr. Poparad stated he is not adverse to the public road. He stated we need to have Coolman make his road match up to their road and have some consistency to all this mess. He stated if you are going to build a road then build a road. He stated if you are going to build a lane then build a lane but don't do both.

Mr. Detert stated the Highway Engineer has apparently approved the change in the radius. He asked if this was correct.

Mr. Ferngren stated they met with Mr. Schelling and he is okay with it.

Mr. Detert stated what is bothering him is we had some testimony earlier that said that the Highway Engineer agreed and then he reads the Highway Engineers letter and he doesn't get the same feeling that the developer had. He asked do we know for a fact that the Highway Engineer has agreed to the change in the radius.

Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Schelling is well aware of it because he sat through the TAC meetings. He stated he does not recall David raising any serious objections.

Mr. Sheetz stated just to clarify from curb to curb you have 60 feet.

Mr. Ferngren stated the right-of-way is 60-feet.

Mr. Sheetz asked how wide is the road.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is 30 feet.

Mr. Biddinger stated he has no questions.




Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-P-5 with the variance for the radius on the curve. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Detert - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

At this time, the Plan Commission resumed Case 04-P-4.

Mr. Etzler stated they would like to make copies of the pictures. He stated they purchased this property approximately 10 years ago. He stated there is a lot of that stuff on the property. He stated while they were doing excavation they came across a lot of that stuff. He stated at that time, the County was called out also because there was clean fill being filled on the property. He stated that stuff was being hauled off. He stated the property now does not have all of that garbage on it. He stated some of that stuff may still be there because they haven't had a chance to get it all off. He stated they are in the process of removing it. He stated they are asking for a continuance until the April 14, 2004 meeting. He stated they will go out there and take pictures and try to get the same location where those pictures were taken. He stated he assumes that when the County was called out at that time concerning any filling that was going on there are reports concerning those calls. He stated he would like to get a copy of those reports because it has been indicated that the fill is clean fill and it is fine doing what they are doing.

Attorney Schaefer stated she thinks that what Mr. Thompson would like is if it could be arranged to go out there with you when you are going to inspect this.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 04-P-4 to the April 14, 2004 meeting. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Other Business:

Mr. Thompson stated on the first meeting in April he would like all the members to develop some questions that they would like him to submit to the people who will be coming in for our interviews as far as the consultant for our ordinances. He stated the interviews are set for May 5 and May 6 and they start at 6:00 p.m. He stated that there will be three consultants each night. Mr. Thompson stated the Commission has an Open Space ordinance in from of them. He stated it is a very rough draft. He stated he would appreciate it if everyone would go through it and look at it and see if they like it, what they don't like about it.

Mike Aylesworth stated the Builders Association did work extremely well with Mr. Thompson and the County Commissioners to support the creation of a separate fund and they are very aware of what the County's needs are. He stated the Builders Association wants to make sure that the Plan Commission and the Commissioners Office are properly funded for timely inspections. He stated their people are very concerned that if it isn't funded properly then the response from the County is not timely. He stated time is money and we all know that. He stated to address Mr. Read, the Builders Association has spent about $12,000 for the impact fee study in the past couple of years. He stated they have unanimity among all of the major communities in the County that have a park impact fee, which will help with the open spaces. He stated they all agreed to do that but there has been no impetus from any unit to get together to do this so he will take the bull by the horns and try to get them together again. He stated working with the different units is an extreme challenge to get them all together to agree but they all have agreed in principal to having a County wide based impact fee that would not only be just for the County unit but also for Valpo City, Portage and Chesterton. He stated it would be approximately $100 per lot. He stated those association's supports legal impact fees and they are here to visit with the Commission about legal impact fees and illegal impact fees. He stated now there is a statute that allows that to be done legally so they would encourage the Commission to follow the statute and use legal impact fees.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning impact fees.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner