The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue the approval of the May 12, 2004 minutes until the next meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

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 May 12, 2004 mtg. The public hearing is closed.)

Bill Ferngren stated he is from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans here in Valparaiso. He stated as Mr. Breitzke indicated this was continued from the last meeting. He stated I want to back up a little bit and to give you a little history on this. He stated when we first came before you and there were a couple of different issues that the Plan Commission really seemed concerned with. He stated at the end of the first meeting we came away with "where is your sewer coming from" and also "we are a little bit concerned with the drainage." He stated this Body referred us to TAC and we went before that group and


preliminarily discussed the drainage and TAC had an opportunity to look at it. He stated it didn't raise any questions or concerns at that time. He stated we returned to this meeting, to this Body and in the interim a call from the City of Portage had been placed to Kevin Breitzke and to Bob Thompson and I believe that Commissioner Harper had indicated he had also spoken with the Mayor of Portage indicating that this is the location that the sewer would be coming from. He stated with that there was a referral back to TAC again to once again discuss the drainage. He stated that being the only remaining issue that we knew of before TAC. He stated last week we went before the Technical Advisory Committee and gave a detailed presentation to TAC regarding this project and at that time received a unanimous approval from the Technical Advisory Committee on the drainage. He stated with that we had the sewer issue, I think we addressed, and then also now with the drainage and the unanimous approval of your Technical Advisory Committee of the project. He stated the other thing that we had discussed at the last meeting was an addition to the written commitments to say that if the property were developed as an R-1 development there would be sidewalks included within the development. He stated I have added those to the written commitments as part of the requirements that any developer or owner of this property needs to adhere to. He stated again that is a finding document that runs with the land binding on all successor owners. He stated the other item that was more of an informal type of request but certainly one that we didn't take lightly was Mr. Poparad had some questions about the open space and what was going to be provided there. He stated what we have done is we have revised on the north end we have added a baseball field and a tennis court and basketball court combination in that location eliminating two lots. He stated this is to provide additional open usable space. He stated at this time Mike Duffy will discuss drainage.

Mike Duffy stated we have added some storm drainage along the area where someone had an issue with the cattle crossing. He stated they put in some storm drainage and are taking it to Salt Creek. He stated they added drainage along where the animal hospital is, which will keep our water in our subdivision. He stated then it swales on the south and the west side. He stated they also put in an


easement through the south line here specifically defined as for Mallards Landing if they ever want to tie in their drainage system they have the ability to go through that easement to get to our detention system.

Mr. Ferngren stated he believes that they have addressed the various issues that the Plan Commission had as a concern.

Attorney Schaefer asked if they would be willing to put all of this in a written commitment because otherwise it is pretty meaningless to us.

Mr. Ferngren asked what are the items that you would like them to put in there with respect to the drainage and the swale and the open space.

Attorney Schaefer stated sure, absolutely.

Mr. Thompson stated he knows that the Commissioners appointed two people to sit on the Damon Run Conservancy District but he has found where the Damon Run Conservancy District has not yet been approved or formed as far as an area in the Auditors Office. He stated he will state that Craig Hendricks the City Engineer did call and said yes the City of Portage was seriously considering the area and in his opinion they were probably going to have a contract to service the Damon Run Conservancy District and Mr. Hendricks thought that they would probably have a contract by the first of June. He asked if there has been a contract brought up.

Mr. Ray stated he spoke with Dave Hollenbeck on Friday of last week and he said they will be given a contract this week to review. He stated it is in the process of being done right now.

Mr. Ferngren stated just to refresh your memory in the commitments it states that if sewer is not going to be available to this parcel then the zoning would revert to RR and be developed accordingly.

Mr. Thompson asked if David Hollenbeck added this parcel into the conservancy district.



Mr. Ferngren stated as far as he knows Mr. Hollenbeck said that he has.

Mr. Poparad asked what is the final total of lots.

Mr. Fergren stated there are 112 lots on there right now. He stated there was 114 but they eliminated two lots.

Mr. Poparad asked if Indiana American Water is coming down there.

Mr. Ray stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic stated the written commitments still has 114 lots in them. He stated this has to be changed.

Mr. Ferngren stated the written commitments will have to be changed.

Mr. Mahnic asked if they are going to have a POA.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic stated when you refer to item 9 on page 3 or 4 you are talking about covenants. He asked if these are the covenants that cover that area or subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren asked which section are you looking at.

Mr. Mahnic stated it says, "The County shall be the designated party for the enforcement of the covenants."

Mr. Ferngren stated the County would be the party who could enforce the terms of this agreement.

Mr. Detert asked if we had a copy of the restrictive covenants in our file.

Mr. Ferngren stated they don't have a copy of the covenants prepared.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is just a rezoning issue right now.

Mr. Poparad stated he is assuming there will be fire hydrants.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated the Property Owners Association needs to be incorporated to maintain any lighting you have the sidewalks the playing fields and much of the drainage because you are agreeable to taking that on.

Commissioner Harper asked if the neighbors with their drainage issues get involved in the discussion about the drainage and how it is going to be handled.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes and just for clarity, the neighbor is thoroughly a little bit west of the west line. He stated the one who really had the drainage issue that was bringing that up actually had filled in a swale that allowed water to come through. He stated there is about a 20-foot drop in 300 feet that affectively some tile had gotten blocked on as he filled in his area of the lot. He stated that prohibited the water from going in that direction as it had prior to him filling this in. He stated he worked with them as far as bringing in the 12-inch outlet so that should be the solution to that. He stated in fact the water does eventually drain because of the steep grades.

Mr. Thompson stated if the Commission would like if they don't get the written commitments to me according to what the Plan Commission has stated here tonight in their motion, I won't put them on the agenda for the Commissioners until we receive them and they are sufficient.

Mr. Mahnic moved to forward Case 04-Z-3 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation with the understanding that there will be a formal written commitment handed to the Commissioners at that time. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion.

Mr. Breitzke stated to Mr. Mahnic that his motion will have to be amended to add the commitments.

The commitments added to the motion are: open space as per plat, 112 lots, sidewalks, sewage, water with fire hydrants, drainage swales along the west and south sides,
installation of the off-site storm drainage, Mallards


Landing easement for drainage, incorporating the Property Owners Association, storm water quality to Salt Creek.

The second agreed with the amended motion. Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on June 15, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

Case 04-P-1. Petition of Preferred Builders, c/o Ralph Affeld, P.O. Box 1578, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Vernon Woods Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 550 N. between CR 50 W. and CR 175 W. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 25 lots on 38 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)(Discussion of pending litigation.)

Attorney Schaefer stated we have met in executive session, as you all know, and some issues came up and we believe it needs to go to the County Commissioners. She stated so we are continuing our executive session and continuing it on the agenda until the next meeting if we have a motion to that affect.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 04-P-1 until the June 9 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 01-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. (con't from 5-12-04 mtg.)

Mr. Breitzke stated if the Board doesn't have an objection he would just like to consolidate the these two.

Case 01-FP-11. Petition of Robert V. Coolman, 359 Franklin Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking an extension for 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. (con't from 5-12-04 mtg.)

Mr. Mahnic moved to consolidate the two cases. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Bob Coolman stated my business is at 359 Franklin Street and I live at 502 Franklin Street. He stated I would like to first apologize for not having anyone here a few weeks ago. He stated I am in school two weeks a year as a result of church activities. He stated I made arrangements for my general superintendent to be here and I gave him the wrong date. He stated I am here tonight seeking an extension. He stated this is a 53-lot development on a 25 acre site and roughly 60% of the site is in open space. He stated it is referred to as a conservation development. He stated when we first brought this to the County about four years ago the County's ordinances did not anticipate in your conventional subdivision ordinance this kind of development. He stated in order for us to proceed we went through your Planned Unit Development ordinance process at the time because it was the only way we could go about accomplishing what we wanted to accomplish here. He stated this was a unique site largely because of the way the drainage is organized on this site. He stated we only drain off of the site in one place. He stated here and that ties into all of the Aberdeen drainage that goes down stream from there. He stated in the other direction this property slopes to that point. He stated this gave us the opportunity to look at a sort of unique drainage processes conservation drainage processes in which they could eliminate point discharges. He stated about three or four years ago we started looking at doing this and putting together a project that would actually comply with all of Phase Two Clean Water Act requirements that we are going to be facing someplace coming down the road. He stated we were wanting to do this because it interested us as a way of going about developing and we thought there was a market in Porter County for this kind of unique conservation development. He stated we went through the PUD process and this Body approved the Planned Unit Development, initially and then we came back and received primary and secondary plat approvals. He stated about the time we received


secondary plat approval this site is serviced with City of Valparaiso water and sewer from Nature Works sewer system. He stated even though the waste water treatment plant in Aberdeen was operating at about 25% capacity at the time, because of differences IDEM, at that point and time, changed its way of rating waste water treatment plants and we were unable to obtain a capacity letter until Nature Works built a second treatment cell for the project. He stated that was completed about a year later and about the time we got the capacity letter from Nature Works we became aware of the fact that, I am sure most of you are aware, there is one section in Aberdeen called the "Links" that is up in the northwest corner of Aberdeen that was not developed by Benchmark but was developed by Merit Properties and Merit Properties was struggling with some financial problems. He stated ultimately that resulted in the Bank that had the financing on that coming to us and it took us about six months to negotiate the buyout of the "Links of Aberdeen." He stated we had to go in and repair a significant amount of the infrastructure that had never been completed. He stated that finally occurred a little over a year ago. He stated as we got through last summer we felt like we had resolved all of the issues relevant to the "Links of Aberdeen" such that by this spring we felt that we were prepared to proceed with the Prairie. He stated our interest in doing this as a Conservation development and our density here is about two to the acre. He stated there is one change that ultimately we will be asking for in the Third Phase final plat. He stated the final plat that we are asking you to approve this evening is in this section, a part of the conservation process on this site is to develop this in small manageable phases to keep the amount of earth disturbance down. He stated the property immediately to the east here is under development by Rick Carlson and which provides for a second access and we have agreed with to that development to provide a second emergency vehicle access and school bus access. He stated we have agreed to eliminate one lot so that when we come back ultimately with our third phase we will be eliminating one lot here so that there is additional access at that point. He stated other than that we are simply asking you to extend the approvals that you have originally made for both primary and secondary plats three years ago.

Mr. Poparad asked if this is a private road.


Mr. Coolman stated yes. He stated these are private roads because at the time this was originally approved we had no choice because all of the roads leading up to this are private roads. He stated these are one-way streets and we are 18-feet wide. He stated they are super elevated and are no curb and gutter. He stated we are looking at 36 feet of street and they are private streets. He stated we had no choice because everything in Aberdeen leading up to it were private streets. He stated the County's position on that was that they didn't want to come all the way through. He stated I believe that Mr. Carlson has requested or received approval for public streets.

Mr. Breitzke stated he built his streets to county widths.

Mr. Coolman stated we have places here and here where we are at 30-feet. He stated we are wider than that on the one-way streets sections. He stated there is a total of 36-foot widths. He stated rather than go through all of the engineering at this point and time to modify that we left it the way it is.

Mr. Detert moved to approve a three-year extension for Case 01-P-12. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Poparad asked if we were in litigation with Aberdeen.

Mr. Breitzke stated no not as a Plan Commission we don't.

Mr. Poparad asked if we could ask the developer to sign a contract stating that these will never become public roads.

Mr. Breitzke stated this would have to be an agreement between the developer and the Commissioners between their charge is the maintenance of the roads.

Mr. Thompson stated this was a PUD. He stated I am looking at the written commitment for development of the PUD District ordinance and this is recorded, it does state


within that that the roads will be private and installed by developer and will be conveyed to and maintained by the
POA.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Detert moved to approve a three-year extension for Case 01-FP-11. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-MP-1. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana concerning the selection of a consultant for the purpose of updating the Porter County Master Plan. (Discussion of scope of work.)

Mr. Thompson stated he did submit to the members the scope of work for all of you to review. He stated he is open for comments and discussion on the scope that was submitted. He stated Commissioner Harper did bring up at the last Commissioners meeting what the Plan Commission is doing and all the effort the Plan Commission has done on this. He stated the Commissioners wanted to compliment the Commission members for all of their work. He stated they agreed with going through with the scope of work process. He stated what they ended up asking was that out of the three consultants that we have after reviewing the scope of work the proposals submitted by the consultants that the Plan Commission rank the three, one being the best on down the line and then submit that to the Commissioners for their review. He stated they did want him to mention one thing and that is that the contract and the bidding or pricing is a Commissioner duty. He stated he is now open for comments from the Board on the scope of work. He stated it is a two week time frame that they are suppose to have this back in and they are suppose to have all of the proposals into the Plan Commission office by June 8, 2004 4:00 p.m. He stated the proposals will be opened up at the Plan Commission meeting on June 9. He stated another thing that he tried to put in with that are some of the things or items that the Plan Commission was trying to echo, such as a guarantee. He stated he also put in there as far as a scope that if the ordinances went through the approval process and got approved by the Commissioners that their job doesn't stop there and that we want them here four


months afterwards to help us work through some of the issues that could come through. He stated he has a time line that they would continue to work with us for a period of four months.

Mr. Breitzke stated another words a service contract.

Attorney Schaefer stated she would like to add in reference to what Mr. Thompson said earlier about this Boards function. She stated she thinks it is the job of the Commissioners to negotiate the price and she thinks that under the State Statute especially this Body's job is to determine what direction we want the County to go in and who is best qualified to take us there. She stated she understands where everyone is coming from in talking about price but that is not what we are supposed to be doing. She stated Eric had a good remark last time when we talked about this when he was saying, "well, do we think about ourselves as agricultural or do we think about ourselves as being situated where we are in Northwest Indiana urban Chicago land, basically." She stated those are the kinds of things that are the job of everyone here to weigh and decide which consultant best meets what direction we want the County to go in.

Commissioner Harper stated we took a vote and he took it to the Commissioners to make sure it was approved. He stated he doesn't think at this point is a point to be changing horses in our direction in what we decide to do. He stated if he remembers it was a unanimous vote that we were going to have Bob do the scope of work and then we were going to present to these people and then get a price. He stated we got this through this group and it was passed at an open meeting with the Commissioners and this is not a time to change horses. He stated he doesn't think we should start debating it again.

Commissioner Harper moved to go ahead with Mr. Thompson's scope of work that he has prepared in the way that we discussed we were going to do it last time. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson stated the Commission members have an Open Space Ordinance in front of you. He stated this will


be on the agenda for the June 9 meeting. He asked the Commission to please review it.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the things he has been discussing with Bob to kind of expand on open space to is that we might consider the impact that we're having with our ten acre parcel for building site philosophies. He stated an example is 80 acres and that is a quarter of a mile road frontage and one half mile deep. He stated typically someone can go out there and get eight building sites or ten acres at least out of it. He stated he would like to see us form some kind of policy that would exchange maybe the development rights in trade say to reduce the parcels between one and two acres. He stated that leaves a balance of somewhere around 65 acres that the development rights are turned over to the County. He stated it becomes a new zoning classification, maybe a farmland or forest preserve or something like that. He stated so it is on the record that it is set aside so you have some kind of continuity. He stated so someone still has the right to do, as our ordinance lets them do today, but encourages or discourages the large lot development. He stated if they really don't want to do it, it will give the opportunity for the farmer to continue to farm his land or landowner to continue to have a forest or large preserve without committing that land. He stated it is a non-recreational open space but that has as much impact on our county as the subdivisions do in eliminating a lot of the conservation easements the farmlands and those kinds of issues.

-----

Mr. Thompson stated you will also notice on the June 9 agenda that the PUD ordinance is not there. He stated he hasn't quite started it yet. He stated he would like some direction on it. He stated the State Statutes allows under the PUD criteria that there are two directions that the Plan Commission can take. He stated one is what they call a general terms ordinance, which is kind of like a conceptual plan first. He stated everyone okay's it then it has to come back in a second plan for a more detailed. He stated it is a two-step process. He stated right now what we are going through is the other process. He stated it is called a detailed process where they have to have everything up in front of us. He stated he would like to


know if the Plan Commission want to explore a two step process, which they would bring in a conceptual plan to us and then they would go back to the detailed plan.

Commissioner Harper stated first place the motion was to rewrite it adding that provision that Portage has about not being off the underlying usage.

Mr. Thompson stated that is going to be in there.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson what way does he think we would have the best ability to make sure that whatever we pass is a good plan. He asked the two-step or the one-step. He stated he thinks that we should do whatever gives the Plan Commission the best input to make sure that we approve a good plan.

Mr. Thompson stated this is his opinion. He stated he thinks the two-step plan because if the two-step plan is conceptual and they haven't spent a lot of money on engineering you can work with them and get what you want. He stated he thinks the reason people stay away from our PUD here because it is full of large detailed requirements with engineering. He stated when they come in with a plan they are going to fight changes.

Mr. Detert asked if these would be public hearings in both cases.

Mr. Thompson stated yes you can make it that way.

Mr. Poparad asked if we have the two-step plan and they come back with details can we reject it.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically the concept is clear enough that it will have many of the issues addressed but it will not be specific.

Mr. Thompson stated he will get a draft with some outlines on what they would have to do to the members shortly.

Commissioner Harper moved to have Mr. Thompson rewrite the PUD ordinance as a two-step plan. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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