The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the April 14, 2004 Plan Commission meeting and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 04-SE-4. Inspection Committee Report for U.S. Cellular Corporation, c/o CIS Communication, 166 N. Meramec, Suite 400, St. Loius, MO, for a Special Exception to permit a 190-foot monopole wireless communications facility with equipment shelter, to be located at 430 E. U.S. Hwy 6 in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to forward Case 04-SE-4 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Poparad asked if they advocate sharing antennas as part of the exception.

Mr. Thompson stated yes. He stated they have a really good co-location record going so far. He stated they will have to prove that there is not another tower within two


miles and if there is a tower within two miles of their
site that they are proposing they are going to have to come to the BZA and show exactly why they need this tower with their coverage.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-P-12. Petition of Robert V. Coolman, 359 Franklin Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking an extension for the preliminary plat for "The Prairie at Aberdeen" to be located on Larwick Circle between CR 100 N. and Larwick Circle in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

There was no representation for this case so it was suggested to wait until the end of the meeting to see if there will be someone representing this case.

Mr. Bucko moved to continue Case 01-P-12 until the end of the meeting. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 01-FP-11. Petition of Robert V. Coolman, 359 Franklin Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking an extension for the secondary plat for "The Prairie at Aberdeen" to be located on Larwick Circle between CR 100 N. and Larwick Circle in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Bucko moved to continue Case 01-FP-11 until the end of the meeting. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 04-Z-3. Petition of Bernie Madej, 5583 Paw Paw Road, Coloma, MI, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential to be located on the Southwest corner of CR 200 W. and U.S. Hwy 6 between CR 200 W. and SR 149 in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con't from April 14, 2004 meeting. The public hearing is closed.)

Bill Ferngren stated he is here in behalf of the petitioner and with Charlie Ray from the Duneland Group as well. He stated Charlie Ray will begin tonight in replying with what the Plan Commission requested from them.



Charlie Ray stated at the last Plan Commission meeting they were asked to address drainage and sewer. He stated they took full construction drawings and submitted them to TAC to be reviewed. He stated they attended the TAC meeting and worked with them there. He stated they also met with some of the neighbors and looked at what their concerns were. He stated the developer is willing to alter his design to accommodate water from other areas and really he is not generating. He stated they do plan on taking that water. He stated this would be from the north and to the east. He stated they felt that with working with Kevin and TAC they addressed the drainage concerns. He stated the other question was the sewer concern. He stated he knows that Portage has contacted both Bob Thompson and Kevin Breitzke and explained on what they plan on doing. He stated they will probably have at the end of this month an agreement put together for the group. He stated another concern was the cost or price range of the homes. He stated the homes will range from $190,000 to $250,000 and the development is similar to Emerald Ridge. He stated Bill will address a commitment letter.

Mr. Ferngren stated prior to the start of the meeting he handed out a revised written commitment that all the members received at the last meeting. He stated on page 2 there is a section that is highlighted. He stated essentially what they are saying here is that they want the property to be rezoned to R-1 because they anticipate provision of municipal sewer from Portage and domestic water service from a local utility company. He stated in the event that this is not provided to the property the owner is willing to say the property will automatically revert back to RR, which it is right now. He stated they can't proceed with the development shown to you without the property being rezoned to R-1. He stated they fully anticipate that Portage, as Charlie has indicated, is going to be providing sewer and the water is going to be there. He stated what they are committing to do is if they are not rezoned they will be back to RR, which is what they are today. He stated he would like to bring up what they discussed at the last meeting and point out to you again that the proposed project is located in a conservation development area, which anticipates a density of around one to two homes per acre. He stated this is exactly what they are committing to do. He stated 114 single-family


residences on this property is just under two homes per acre. He stated he thinks that it is consistent with what is anticipated for that area. He stated the Conservation Development Area also encourages the extension of sanitary sewers and domestic water service to these types of properties. He stated this is exactly what they are trying to do. He stated going back to the commitment again, if this doesn't happen they will go back to the RR zoning.

Mr. Mahnic stated if we would recommend to the Commissioners to rezone this with the condition that if they do not get water and sewer in time to start to develop this the property goes back to RR.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is what they are committing to.

Mr. Mahnic stated he doesn't know if we can make a motion like that that has a contingency on it. He stated he would like to ask Attorney Schaefer whether they can do this. He stated he can see the developer going into this and say "Well, we are depending on Portage and we are depending on South Haven to give us our facilities." He stated then you start developing on the basis of that because we said it was an R-1 and the Commissioners approved it. He stated now there is a glitch and you don't get the rezone. He stated they have already started developing it as an R-1.

Mr. Ferngren stated they have to go through the platting process.

Mr. Ray stated they have been told that they can't start development until they actually get a letter an agreement with Portage. He stated without that nothing can happen.

Mr. Mahnic stated you have to have written commitments not only for Portage but also who is providing the sanitary sewers.

Mr. Ray stated Portage would provide the sanitary sewers and Indiana American Water would provide the water.

Mr. Ferngren stated then it would be back here with a


letter from the utility service that says that they are ready, willing and able and they are going to serve that parcel. He stated if they don't have that letter they can't come through the platting process.

Attorney Schaefer stated you can certainly make that part of the recommendation and that the commitment be incorporated as well.

Commissioner Harper stated you mentioned that the homes are going to be in what price range.

Mr. Ray stated $190,000 to $250,000.

Commissioner Harper asked if they are willing to put that in their written commitments too.

Mr. Ray stated sure.

Commissioner Harper asked if you are telling the Commission that you have worked out something satisfactory with the neighbors regarding the drainage.

Mr. Ray stated he thinks that Mr. Duffy can address that. He stated the real problem is the neighbor to the west who gets knee high water.

Mr. Duffy stated the neighbor to the west gets water from the cattle crossing. He stated they are prepared to take care of that and it is not coming from their development.

Commissioner Harper asked how are they going to take care of it.

Mr. Duffy stated they are going to pipe it down to Salt Creek.

Commissioner Harper asked if they made that proposal to TAC on how you are going to do that.

Mr. Ray stated they have not.

Commissioner Harper stated if we don't get this pinned down right now we don't have it.


Mr. Breitzke stated there is a Commissioners meeting where the actual approvals take place. He stated in the interim they can meet with us and show us the preliminary engineering design to show that work. He stated there is enough grade there that he is certain it will.

Commissioner Harper stated he thinks that we should let these neighbors know. He stated we brought these people back this time and they said that they have solved some of these problems with the neighbors and he thinks that we should hear from the neighbors.

Mr. Ferngren stated he would like to address the commitment on the price. He stated it is a little bit difficult for him but he thinks that what they can commit to and the questions were really around whether the homes were going to be site built. He stated each home is going to be framed on the site.

Commissioner Harper stated he really doesn't want them to commit on the price. He stated he doesn't want them coming before this Commission and say that they are going to build…you don't know what a pile of possible litigations we have right now. He stated he doesn't think you should say you are going to build that kind of home…

Mr. Ray stated the range is a big range.

Commissioner Harper stated he understands that but you don't know what is going to sell. He stated that when you say these things in front of the Commission it has a tendency to influence them. He stated we have a bunch of problems right now because things have been said and they haven't followed through.

Mr. Ray stated the reason this was brought up is because the neighbors asked about it at the last meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated if you get this zoning and you put in homes of 114, which he doesn't have a problem with, and the neighbors come in and say that this is all based on them saying such and such and ask if we are going to sue you. He stated then we have to say "no we can't sue them." He stated we are the ones who end up looking like fools.


Mr. Ferngren stated they are certainly willing to make the commitments that are before you tonight.

Mr. Sheetz asked how many homes on how many acres.

Mr. Ferngren stated 114 homes on 65 acres.

Mr. Poparad asked will you take the water down Hwy 6 to Salt Creek.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked if they were going to go south and hit the guy that was here at the last meeting.

Mr. Duffy stated that is the natural way it needs to be going.

Mr. Poparad asked if they were going to add to that.

Mr. Duffy stated they are not taking that water to the south.

Mr. Poparad asked if they were going to add to that flow that goes to the south now naturally.

Mr. Duffy stated their subdivision is going to be self-contained going to the south. He stated it is off site to the west. He stated they are going to continue on to the west with it. He stated it is stopped up now with different driveways.

Mr. Breitzke stated they have had discussions of ways to take it from the highway because he thinks that we are more concerned about the infrastructure as well as the driveway and anything that adds up water.

Mr. Poparad asked why don't they come with a letter in hand first from Portage.

Mr. Ray stated Portage is putting the agreement together now and they really didn't want to issue a letter until they got the agreement done. He stated this is what he was told and this is what both Bob and Kevin were told by Portage themselves. He stated this is why they said if they don't get it for some reason it goes back to RR.

Mr. Breitzke stated he thinks that they are being very cautious in the wording of the letter because they really don't want to annex. He stated they want to improve the area. He stated they want to take on more water for their plant for the efficiency of that operation and there will be some paybacks there. He stated they want to make it clear to the public that they are really not interested in any growth or annexation in that direction. He stated this is not their goal. He stated this will be a conservancy district and the conservancy district is of record.

Mr. Poparad asked if they had a conservancy district formed.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is formed.

Mr. Mahnic asked if the items that were discussed tonight were presented to TAC since the last meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Sheetz stated if this is approved as R-1 then you have to come back in front of the Commission for primary plat approval. He stated lets say this is not approved. He stated then we have something that is zoned R-1. He asked if we were going to have a problem there.

Mr. Ferngren stated it might be that the plat that they provide you is not approved for some reason or it doesn't comply with the ordinance. He stated they certainly can correct that. He stated that is not the triggering event to make it go back to RR. He stated the triggering event is if the sewer and water is not going to be available to the property.

Commissioner Harper stated what he thinks is happening here is this talk about coming back to us to approve it…we are not going to have much discretion when that happens, he thinks. He asked Mr. Thompson if that is correct.

Mr. Thompson stated if it is rezoned to R-1 and they have the commitment and everything that they are going to have the sanitary and water in there and if they come back with a plat with a contract and letters for all of those services to be put in our subdivision control ordinance is essentially submittal requirements.

Commissioner Harper stated in other words what we do here tonight we are not going to have much discretion in the future.

Mr. Thompson stated if approved, no.

Mr. Sheetz asked so if they come back it is a slam-dunk.

Attorney Schaefer stated they have to meet all the requirements of the current ordinance just like anyone else.

Mr. Poparad asked what happens if the "green space" ordinance got adopted before they came in.

Mr. Ferngren stated whatever the terms of the ordinance are at the time they file for application for plat approval and if that included a "green space" requirements then that is what they need to abide by. He stated again the maximum density on this property is 114 units. He stated that might not even be the number of units that are ultimately there. He stated this depends on what the ordinance is at the time the application is filed for primary plat.

Mr. Poparad asked if there is any multi-family.

Mr. Ferngren stated there will be only single-family homes.

Mr. Poparad stated if this was left alone as RR and they brought sewers and water down there how many homes could they build.

Mr. Thompson stated about 50 to 55 homes. He stated no matter what in RR it is one acre whether they have sewer and water or not. He stated if they have septic it is one acre or whatever the Health Department says.

Mr. Mahnic stated on your sanitary sewer, which will come from Portage, what distance will that be from where to where. He asked where is the pipe at the present time.

Mr. Ray stated from Samuelson Road, which is Bay Road.


Mr. Mahnic asked if they are bearing the cost of this installation.

Mr. Ray stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked if there was any green space at all.

Mr. Ray stated this is green space here and this is a pipeline easement, which will be kept in green space.

Mr. Poparad asked if there were any baseball fields.

Mr. Ray stated no there are no baseball fields there.

Mr. Ferngren stated the areas are certainly large enough to provide some recreation. He stated maybe you can't have a full fledged baseball game in there but the dimensions of a little league baseball field to first base is 60-feet and he can assure you that there is at least 60-feet to throw baseballs more than adequate to accommodate little league type of play. He stated there is also plenty of room out there to kick a soccer ball.

Mr. Sheetz asked what are the other areas around there zoned.

Mr. Ray stated the property to the north is zoned RR. He stated the property to the south is zoned RR. He stated the property to the east is zoned C-1 and multi-family. He stated the property to the west is a combination of commercial and residential.

Mr. Mahnic stated C-1 and multi-family are right on the corner and just beyond that is Mallards Landing and Mallards Landing if he is not mistaken is zoned RR.

Mr. Thompson stated if the Commission wants sidewalks they need to ask the petitioner for a commitment on that fact because our ordinance wouldn't necessarily allow for it.

Mr. Ferngren stated if this is developed in an R-1 manner with sanitary sewer and water they will commit to sidewalks too.



Mr. Poparad stated if I had my way leave the sidewalks out and have three lots out in the open so they can have a ball field.

Mr. Bucko stated he thinks that it is an amenity that is as important and substantial in a quality of life type of factor to have sidewalks. He stated that creates a neighborhood affect. He stated people walk to friends and families homes and not in the street. He stated this is his issue with Porter County, no sidewalks.

Commissioner Harper stated he would like to recognize a remonstrator to speak.

Steve Engle stated he lives at 225 Morthland Drive. He stated he is immediately to the north of the proposed development. He stated he is north of Hwy 6. He stated he would talk about drainage.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Engle if he was at the last meeting.

Mr. Engle stated he didn't know about the last meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated in all fairness it will be heard again in front of the Commissioners. He stated either way you will get your chance.

Mr. Bucko moved to forward Case 04-Z-3 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation with the written commitments and to include sidewalks in the written commitments. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper stated he thinks that these guys have gone a long way but I think that I am going to have another vote on this and I think that these drainage issues should be put to bed before we have that next vote. He stated because of that he is going to have to abstain because he doesn't want anyone to say that he voted this way one time or another. He stated he sees a lot of good things here.



Attorney Schaefer stated according to the law abstaining means that you have a financially interest.

Commissioner Harper stated at this time he is going to vote no and that does not mean that he is voting no at the Commissioners meeting. He stated he thinks that you need to tack down these drainage issues.

The motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Harper - No
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - No Sheetz - No
Breitzke - Yes

This case is continued until the May 26, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Ferngren if they could make arrangements with TAC and see if they can do something about the drainage.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 04-MP-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for a public hearing concerning the selection of a consultant for the purpose of updating the Porter County Master Plan.

Mr. Thompson stated he would like to explain this to the public. He stated last week the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals held an advertised special meeting on Wednesday, May 5 and an advertised special meeting on Thursday May 6 to interview consultants. He stated there were six consultants. He stated on May 5, Wednesday night, they interviewed Wightman Petrie, Inc., Ground/Rules and Duncan & Associates. He stated on Thursday they interviewed Camiros, DLZ and HNTB. He stated out of those six interviews it was agreed upon at a Commissioners meeting that the Plan Commission will select one of these firms and give a recommendation to the County Commissioners. He stated this recommendation, if it does come tonight, will be at the Commissioners May 18 meeting


scheduled for another interview for the County Commissioners to say if they agree with the Plan Commission's selection.

Commissioners Harper asked Mr. Thompson if he spoke with the County Attorney.

Mr. Thompson stated no.

Commissioner Harper stated it was his understanding, so they may be talking to you; she was going to talk to Commissioner Evans, that the Commissioners weren't going to hear a full presentation from that group. He stated it was going to be a real abbreviated one.

Mr. Thompson asked basically a small presentation like they gave…

Commissioner Harper stated no, like five minutes.

Commissioner Harper asked if this is going to be like other things where we have a public hearing this time and vote on it next time or are we going to vote on it tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated we hope that there aren't too many times where we vote on it another night. He stated we want to get most things done the same night.

Mr. Thompson stated this is why he advertised it as a public hearing and the twenty days prior and everything is because for the fact of making a selection.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Marge Hefner stated she missed the public meetings and today she was at a conference in the morning and she heard Kevin say if she heard him correctly that Porter County is going to update the ordinances and they got $100,000 of CEDIT money to review ordinances and changing the zoning and subdivision ordinance. She stated she would like to know since she missed the meetings what are we going to pay the consultants.

Mr. Breitzke stated for clarity he would like to answer that. He stated we had a watershed meeting this


morning about resource issues affecting the region and among other things is the substantial body of references to floodplain, erosion control, wetlands etc. that affect water and water quality and that will be reflected in this review. He stated he mentioned that we set aside $100,000 from CEDIT to finance this endeavor. He stated he doesn't know if we are going to use $100,000 but that is the amount of money he thought was set aside.

Commissioner Harper stated he thought it was more like $300,000.

Mr. Breitzke stated the first year was $100,000. He stated he is doing things year by year.

Mrs. Hefner stated she would like the Commission to update or refresh her memory in what is happening. She asked if this was going to update the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning or all of it.

Mr. Thompson stated all of it is going to be updated. He stated the very first thing in this whole step every consultant that came up in front of us is going to take our codes and they are going to review them and come back and give us recommendations on what they feel that we need to change. He stated he already has his opinion on and recommendation on what he feels we need to change. He stated it is going to be the entire zoning and it is going to be the entire subdivision. He stated all of our codes and titles, #16 and #17 as they appear in the Porter County Code.

Mrs. Hefner stated it is going to take $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000 to do this.

Mr. Thompson stated at this time we have accepted RFQ's, Requests for Qualifications. He stated we do not have proposals. He stated we wanted to find a firm that would be what we felt was the best. He stated the next step that we are going to have to do is to sit down and actually work out a scope of work with these people and work out a contract again. He stated this will be at a public hearing when the contract and scope of work are going to be presented to the Plan Commission for their review and final okay. He stated the firm that is selected tonight,


we may not end up agreeing with on down the line with a scope of work or a contract. He stated this is just a very preliminary step and the very first thing we are doing is selecting a firm that we want to start and sit down and talk with. He stated as far as a price, we don't know because we haven't developed a scope of work or proposal for this yet.

Mrs. Hefner asked if there will be public meetings before you if anything is made permanent with the zoning.

Mr. Thompson stated there is going to be a lot of public meetings.

Mrs. Hefner stated so this is just selecting who is going to do this study.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.

Attorney Schaefer stated who we would like to do the study. She stated as Bob said if we can't reach an acceptable contract for both sides then that may not necessarily be the outfit that does this.

Mrs. Hefner stated she thinks that this is a lot of money.

Commissioner Harper stated this in my opinion this study and the work that is done in this is probably the most important thing that is going to be done in the next four or five years that will affect the very future of this county. He stated it is going to be expensive and there is no way of pretending that it isn't going to be expensive because the ordinances that we have almost every one that comes up there are problems with. He stated he doesn't think that anybody other than the members of this here and some other people realize what an impact that this can have and what a gift it can be to the county if it is done in the right way.

Mrs. Hefner stated we'll see what an impact or how good the money is spent going down towards the road when they start taking the rezoning and taking the whole county and want to rezone it or how they are going to rezone this and I know that is not the question right now.


Commissioner Harper stated all of this is going to be done at a public meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is very timely because we just did the Comprehensive Plan and to validate that to make it affective because that was just a bundle of recommendations we need to carry through with something that has teeth. He stated it is where the feet hit the pavement now.

John Whitcomb stated he lives at 2059 S. SR 2. He stated I remember very well the last time this Board or members of this Board updated the Master Plan and it wasn't worth a darn. He stated they paid $130,000 for that HNTB outfit. He stated that's all we got for it were those silly looking maps. He stated he did get probably the most important thing a verification of what sprawl is. He stated it doesn't matter. He stated you guys are sprawling this county out all over the place. He stated so you didn't listen. He stated you don't know what sprawl is evidently. He stated you didn't listen to that $130,000 contract that you gave those people. He stated this is going to affect this county for the rest…most of your lives and your grandkids lives. He stated it did before too. He stated it didn't mean diddly. He stated I haven't got much faith in this Board or your consultants. He asked are you going to have minutes of all of these meetings you are going to have. He stated last time we had a dozen meetings around here and nobody took minutes. He stated we asked numerous times why minutes weren't being taken. He asked now are you going to take them this time. He stated just like Mr. Harper said some of those people will come back and say you said this, you said that and you didn't do it. He stated right now I can say you didn't do it but you'll say "Oh yea we did." He stated how can I prove it.

Mr. Biddinger stated to Mr. Whitcomb that he wanted to make this perfectly clear. He stated there are two things that we are dealing with here. He stated one is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan the other is a set of ordinances. He stated the plan is just that. He stated it is a plan and a suggestion and that was the document that was approved in 2001. He stated the Plan itself is not law. He stated it is a suggestion as to how we should handle things within the County. He stated the problem we

are under right at this moment is that our ordinances do not line up with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated in other words we have this wonderful plan but our ordinances, the law, does not follow the plan and the objective of this, what we are going to do here is to rewrite the ordinances so that they do make sense with the plan and so that we can enforce the plan through the ordinances. He stated basically it is bringing the two pieces together.

Mr. Thompson stated I will explain the minutes of the meetings. He stated yes there were a number of meetings that were held by the consultants that minutes were not taken. He stated why, because there was not a majority of this Board present. He stated we did get the newspapers out and asked people to come; Chesterton, Valparaiso and Hebron were the first round. He stated we came back the second round were we went to Chesterton, Valparaiso and down to Kouts. He stated he worked with the newspapers to try to get the newspapers to let the people know to come to the meetings. He stated these meetings were conducted by HNTB. He stated they were not conducted by the Plan Commission and we did not have a quorum of members there and I did not have the recording equipment available to make the minutes for these. He stated basically there were exercises that were done. He stated I held a number of meetings with farm groups. He stated I was invited to come out to Pinney Purdue for two meetings with farm groups out there. He stated I did discuss that again. He stated I was invited out there to discuss it and it was not an advertised Plan Commission meeting. He stated I went out there to discuss these issues. He stated so yes there was a number of meetings. He stated we did try to get this word out and everything but whenever this Board or whatever decision was made we approved the Goals and Objectives that was done at a public hearing where there are minutes available for that and it was done with a quorum of this Board. He stated anything that was voted on and approved within that plan was done in front of this Board.

Mr. Breitzke stated I attended many of the meetings and it might have been Frank Mahnic, myself and Karen Martin and occasionally another member. He stated we never had a quorum nor did we make any decisions at these meetings. He stated what we did do is take advantage of


the situation and pull the people to get as much input for the consultant as we could and try to listen to people. He stated it is hard to listen and get participation like Ms. Hefner and yourself coming to the meetings. He stated we do appreciate the fact that you come and participate. He stated there are many people that don't.

Mr. Whitcomb stated your right; there wasn't a quorum here. He asked was that planned or wasn't it planned. He stated even if there wasn't a quorum it wouldn't have been an official meeting but you could have had notes taken or minutes taken. He stated Mr. Eric Biddinger, I understand what that program was to take a comprehensive plan, but the Commission here didn't follow it. He stated you didn't follow the recommendations, didn't do anything. He stated therefore they didn't get a Master Plan change. He stated they changed it every meeting as you went along. He stated you still do it now. He stated I imagine you'll keep on doing it. He stated that is why I have no confidence in this Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated we hope to change that truly. He stated that was the first step, this is the second step.

Mr. Biddinger stated why we haven't followed that plan is because according to these two books right here we can't. He stated these two books are what we need to rewrite and these are the titles, Titles 16 and 17. He stated until we rewrite these to follow this Land Use Plan the plan itself is worthless. He stated the ordinance are the law right here. He stated this is what we have to follow. He stated it doesn't make any difference whether the work we've done and actually that was the anticipated point when the Land Use Plan was done was that this ordinance would eventually be rewritten. He stated now that we are in the position to do this we need to get this plan rewritten so that the Land Use Plan the whole thing makes sense. He stated right now we have people who come in front of us and say this is your Land Use Plan and this is what you said you do. He stated yes that is nice but unfortunately I have to go by these rules and they don't meet the previous plan or don't meet the Land Use Plan.

Mr. Whitcomb stated in other words you are saying it should have been, those laws should have been rewritten after the last study.

Mr. Breitzke stated our goal was to have it done immediately afterward but if you recall with the financial crunch and the lack of the money in general and that is where they came up with the CEDIT money to finance this. He stated fortunately the Commissioners were thinking.

Mrs. Hefner stated I am understanding you to say that if the ordinances are changed or rewritten that it should comply with the comprehensive plan. She stated her question is does that mean there is going to be no more rezoning. She stated she has an opportunity now to ask why weren't these ordinances rewritten a long time ago like the Landfill Ordinance should have been rewritten a long time ago. She stated Mr. Thompson I would like you to respond.

Mr. Thompson stated if I had a crystal ball and I could predict what was going to happen in this county I would be a miracle saver and be able to write these ordinances. He stated I have no idea that a landfill petition is going to come in and hit us and then all of a sudden when it does I have to go by the existing codes. He stated we saw it was deficient at that time and we changed it. He stated this is why we are bringing in a consultant to redo all of these codes because we need to look at it. He stated we have been piecemealing this all the way through. He stated we've been picking, picking, picking, picking. He stated we've got to stop picking. He stated we have to do the whole thing as one and do it.

Mr. Mahnic stated we get blamed for everything and the buck stops here. He stated we are at fault. He stated that is a plus. He stated you have to remember that we have one Planner and we have two gals that are deputies and that is the extent of what this Commission has. He stated we meet twice a month. He stated we read the minutes of the previous meeting. He stated we don't sit down here and start rewriting ordinances. He stated we don't have the know-how. He stated our attorney does everything she possibly can to revise these or point items out that we should look out for legally. He stated as far as people being able to work on ordinances as we go along it is not possible because Bob is busy fulltime, believe me, and if you go up there you will see that he is a very, very busy man. He stated the two gals are up there every day and they don't have time to take lunch. He stated this is what


we are limited with. He stated this is the reason why we
need somebody who is a professional who will put full time to review our ordinances and tell us where some of the pitfalls are and then tell us here is how we can coordinate your ordinance to the comprehensive plan. He stated then all of that stuff has to be done legally to get it there. He stated it is not just going to say because we are going to bless it. He stated it has to go to the Commissioners and legal opinions will look at it. He stated it is a tough job for the three people we have.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Breitzke stated Rich Hudson and Marvin Brickner are members of the BZA and we are inviting them to make comments.

Rich Hudson stated he is on the County BZA. He stated we struggle at the majority of our meetings and Lily is also our attorney, with actually different things and a lot of the similar things that are in our portion of the ordinance, which is the zoning ordinance. He stated it has become very clear that he wants to say maybe they are not antiquated but there are a lot of loopholes that we deal with all of the time. He stated this is why he thinks that it is important that we do this study. He stated we have the changes recommended and that the Plan Commission and the Commissioners make the decision to go through with the proposed change in the zoning and the subdivision control ordinance. He stated we have to deal with issues all of the time. He stated Bob is very correct when he says things come up and we don't know that they are there. He stated they are like ticking time bombs. He stated we don't know about them until an issue comes up. He stated one of them in particular that we deal with all the time on the BZA is the issue of garages. He stated it just drives us crazy and that seems very, very small in the big picture of drainage issues that we talked about earlier with the proposed rezoning. He stated but there is a loophole there and that didn't become apparent until everybody wanted to build a pole barn in subdivisions. He stated this is the one that seems to hit us at the BZA but there are other ones. He stated he thinks that this is important that we do this study. He stated he sent in his recommendation as far numerically positioning the six consultants to Bob in an e-mail.

Marvin Brickner stated he is from the Board of Zoning Appeals and is the Vice-Chairman. He stated what Rich says pretty much covers it. He stated the loopholes that we have in our ordinances. He stated to give an example; we turned down a huge pole barn in a small subdivision and because of a loophole in the ordinance the guy built two pole barns. He stated he put them far enough apart and it was perfectly legal for him to do that. He stated it is a threat now because every time a pole barn comes up they are going to say, "well don't give me a variance and I'll just go and build two of them." He stated we can't do anything about it. He stated that is just one thing and there are a lot of other things that you all are familiar with. He stated cellular towers are getting to be a big problem. He stated we really need some…I think our ordinance is a great ordinance. He stated how defendable that would be if we ever got in trouble with the FCC I'm not sure. He stated if we ever turn down a cellular tower based on our ordinance is it going to be 100% defendable for Lily to go to court, in a Federal Court, to say we did the right thing or what we did was right. He stated we need people to look at those things and it would make it a lot easier if we know where to find defendable ordinances. He stated we need to get somebody who, I think, has some legal expertise on their Commission would be helpful in writing these things to help Lily out.

Mr. Hudson stated I can't tell you how I listed after first but in my e-mail to Bob I had Duncan & Associates number 1. He stated I purposely didn't have HNTB who prepared our Land Use Ordinance and I guess my reason for that and even though they are close to it and they have a lot of information and there is a lot of data that they collected that would be useful in looking at the zoning ordinance and looking at the subdivision ordinance but I though it was important that we had another set of eyes. He stated there is a lot of their information that is in written form that we can use but I thought another opinion another look. He stated I thought the presentation made by the Duncan Group their legal counsel and this is why I positioned them first and not HNTB.

Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Brickner's top three firms that he had listed here were HNTB, DLZ and Duncan in that order. He stated Mr. Hudson's choices are Duncan, HNTB and DLZ in that order.

Mr. Brickner stated I thought that DLZ had an outstanding group and the familiarity of the county was very impressive. He stated the one thing that I questioned is that they didn't have a legal expert on their group. He stated I really like that.

Mr. Mahnic stated if I may I will read mine. He stated "I was most impressed with the two of the six consulting organizations during the presentation on May 5 and May 6. He stated Duncan Associates team of Kirk Bishop, Amber Medel and Dr. Kelly was a very good one. A good case for legally defensible zoning and land use ordinance. Dr. Kelly was quite confident that they could also develop an impact fee ordinance, although they had limited experience in this area. HNTB also made a good presentation and I felt that they were very qualified to meet Porter County requirements and they still retained the staff that developed the Porter County Comprehensive Plan in 2001. Due to their familiarity with this plan, they would be able to develop the Land Use and Zoning Ordinance to best serve the county. Also, impressive was Elizabeth Gavin, their attorney, who was very impressive to me in her discussion of legal aspects of land use, zoning and impact fees."

Mr. Bucko stated one of the groups that I thought was pretty impressive and what I liked about them was the fact that they literally stated that performance guarantees. He stated that was Ground Rules. He stated in talking to some people I got the impression that people thought they were more of a little town, little area more rural. He stated I don't have…I like the layout and the tools that they use and the way the presentation is and the simplicity of the ordinances is kind of like "Planning for Dummies." He stated that means it is in lay term. He stated people could look at something and clearly follow the process in layman's understanding. He stated those of you that were there do you feel that we are too big of a county or to urbanized of a county. He stated we are urbanized and we have municipalities so it isn't an issue perhaps. He asked are we still more urbanized in some of our county areas that would be beyond our scope. He stated this is my whole area for not going 100% with Ground Rules. He stated my next choice under that honestly is Duncan & Associates and then HNTB.

Mr. Biddinger stated I had the same thoughts. He stated I have three top groups that I have been looking at. He stated one is Duncan & Associates, HNTB and Ground Rules. He stated the difference between those three groups is what direction you want to take Porter County. He stated if you look at large scale projects Duncan & Associates and HNTB have the experience with large-scale municipalities. He stated on the other hand you have Ground Rules and just looking at some of the professional experience here, Howard County, DeKalb County, Pike County, Town of York Town, Town of Atlanta, and I believe that is Indiana, Town of Winfield, Rochester, which I am very familiar with, much smaller communities. He stated we have two directions to go with Porter County. He stated we can look at Porter County as a small community, self-contained within our ordinances or we can look at Porter County as a piece of the larger Northwestern Indiana and as much as I hesitate to say that this includes Chicago. He stated we have to look at Porter County in the auspices of where we sit between Gary, South Bend, and Chicago the whole region and that really does become important when we start planning for thoroughfare travel and where we want to develop and where we want to be economically feasible. He stated so there is really two different aspects. He stated the other thing is that we could look at Porter County in itself and concentrate on what our assets are and what we can do to develop this county and maybe influence the rest of the region around us. He stated I think that is what some of these different groups bring in front of us is expertise at different levels. He stated I really think Ground Rules has that small community grassroots view point to it. He stated I really believe that is what this organization can bring. He stated I believe the other two organizations can bring in larger aspects. He stated I did go a step further and I started calling my colleagues in different counties. He stated unfortunately I couldn't find anybody who had any experience working Duncan & Associates outside of Eric Kelly's experience with the "Nitty Gritty Land Use" trainings. He stated however, the impression he leaves with that is very much as a professional. He stated some other phone calls that I made concerning HNTB, Cynthia Bowen, the project planner for that group, everyone that I've talked to has her in very high regards. He stated there are some other comments depending on who the project manager was with any project
that Cynthia was associated with came with very high marks.


He stated I also followed up with Fulton County with Ground Rules and the comments that I got back was that the gentleman there came into a very difficult situation. He stated planning and zoning failed the first time through. He stated my mother sat on that Board when they did that and he remembers that "parking lot" meeting quite well. He stated anyway he has handle the situations where planning and zoning was not well received very professionally. He stated I think in any of the cases with any of those three groups I think we have a very confident group that can handle our county planning and zoning ordinances very well.

Mr. Sheetz stated correct me if I'm wrong but Howard County is where Kokomo is in this county.

Mr. Biddinger stated yes.

Mr. Sheetz stated that is a pretty big city.

Mr. Biddinger stated it is a city dealing with sprawl.

Mr. Sheetz stated Ground Rules does have some experience I would say.

Mr. Biddinger stated the maps are eluding me right now but Kokomo is the major municipality. He stated unlike Porter County where you have several major municipalities. He stated it is a little bit different situation but every county will be.

Commissioner Harper stated I agree with about everything what everybody said. He stated the three that I would name is the same three that Mr. Brickner named. He stated they are DLZ, HNTB and Duncan. He stated DLZ because they had 40 people that lived in the county and they have some business here. He stated I thought some of the people from HNTB were very impressive. He stated I thought some of the people from Duncan were also impressive.

Mr. Sheetz stated I would like to comment on DLZ. He stated one when we asked a question defensible they didn't have an in-house attorney, which was a red flag to me. He stated I appreciated the fact that they did have 40 people
that lived in the county. He stated when we are trying to


set ordinances that are…so we don't have to go through some of the things that they are going through. He stated I can relate to Mr. Hudson from the BZA because I was one of the people that actually brought that pole barn thing up. He stated I didn't want to play that card and there is a loophole there. He stated the other reservation that I have with Duncan & Associates, which I thought was a beautiful presentation is how much time is Mr. Kelly actually going to be putting in on our project. He stated he is someone very well respected and very knowledgeable. He stated he is a professor at Ball State and I know they are on a quarter system so maybe every two weeks they are going to be up for it. He stated what I liked about Ground Rules was I thought that they had a vision, that they were innovative and that they were on a stepping-stone. He stated this county is one of the fastest growing county's in the State and our future; our children's future and our grandchildren's future are going to be living through this. He stated I'm thinking Ground Rules, HNTB and Duncan. He stated what concerns me about Duncan if we are going to pay a lot of money or whatever the cost is I would want that expert to be more of an in house and actually working for them.

Attorney Schaefer stated I think that the contract would address that. She stated if Duncan were to be the choice I think that we could have that in the contract.

Commissioner Harper stated when Kelly made that statement about impact fees I was really impressed. He stated then I had a night to think about it and the fellow for HNTB he didn't give us the answer we wanted but I think he gave us the right answer.

Mr. Sheetz asked for some clarification on the process. He asked are we supposed to narrow it down to one to go to the Commissioners.

Mr. Thompson stated one.

Mr. Sheetz stated I don't know if I am going to articulate this right due to his background. He stated we are going to narrow it down to one. He stated then we are going to negotiate the cost of what their services are going to be. He asked if this is correct.


Mr. Thompson stated we are going to have to sit down and figure out a scope of work and from that we will negotiate a contract. He stated we are going to work out the scope of work and we are going to start out the proceeding of looking at a contract but the contract is going to have to be approved by the County Commissioners.

Mr. Sheetz stated my question is why wouldn't we narrow it down to two and at that point who is going to give us the best price.

Mr. Breitzke stated the bottom line is our direction from the Commissioners was to give them one. He asked Commissioner Harper if there would be a problem if we gave you two.

Commissioner Harper stated I don't want to speak for everyone but I think that what he is suggesting makes sense.

Mr. Breitzke stated I honestly do too.

Mr. Poparad stated I think we ought to expand it to four.

Mr. Breitzke stated I think that is too many.

At this time, the Commission members discussed how many consultants to choose.

At this time, the Commission members voted on choosing three consultants.

The three consultants are Ground Rules, Duncan & Associates and HNTB.

Mr. Thompson stated I will develop a scope of work and at the May 26 meeting I will present the scope of work to the members.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will now go back to Case 01-P-12 and Case 01-FP-11.

No one was present to represent this case.



Mr. Biddinger moved to continue Case 01-P-12 and Case 01-FP-11 to the May 26, 2004 meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Harper - Yes
Mahnic - Yes Poparad - No Sheetz - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Commissioner Harper stated based on what these people are telling us that if all things go well it will take one to two years to get this done. He stated at the next meeting we indicate to our Director that we are in favor of that subdivision ordinance that provides for 20% green space and that 20% green space would not include things such as swales, drainage ponds, detention ponds and so forth. He stated that ordinance be prepared and presented at the next meeting and voted on.

Mr. Thompson stated I will not be able to get it by May 26 because we missed the public hearing deadline for that. He stated I will try my best to get it done for the first meeting in June.

Attorney Schaefer stated I don't want to throw something really controversial into this but I don't know if anybody ever considered that we also have a possibility of doing moratoriums on different things and that is not unconstitutional. She stated that is a case that came out of California to the United States Supreme Court where we do want to hear what they did in California because they did a moratorium on building property along the beach. She stated as an attorney I would perhaps be in favor of having moratoriums then writing a hasty write up ordinance that might be even a bigger problem.

Commissioner Harper moved to direct Mr. Thompson to write up an ordinance for 20% open space/green space and that 20% would not include swales, drainage ponds, detention ponds etc. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Poparad asked if that would be 20% of the subdivision.



At this time, the Commission had a discussion on what the 20% would be based on.

The amended motion reads as follows:

Commissioner Harper moved to direct Mr. Thompson to write up an ordinance for 20% green space/open space for 30 lots or more and that 20% would not include swales, drainage ponds, detention ponds etc. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner Harper moved to have Mr. Thompson prepare a PUD ordinance that is changed to the affect that it has the same language that the Portage PUD ordinance has, which provides that a Planned Unit Development cannot vary from the underline zoning density more than 5%. Mr.Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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