PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 14, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the June 9, 2004 Plan Commission minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the June 23, 2004 Plan Commission 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-SE-6. Inspection Committee Report for Hopewell Mennonite Church Cemetery, Box 316, Kouts, Indiana for a Special Exception to permit expansion of a church cemetery to be located on the East side of Baums Bridge Road, between SR 8 and CR 700 S. in Pleasant Township, Porter County, Indiana.

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

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 04-SE-6 to the Board of Zoning Appeals subject to all of the conditions in the Inspection Committee Report. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-5. Petition of The Autumn Group, LLC, c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 East Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary 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. (To contain 57 lots on 24 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans. He stated Mr. Breitzke summarized their presentation here for you very well. He stated the project was approved for preliminary approval on March 24, 2004. He stated we have been through the Technical Advisory Committee and that committee forwarded the secondary plat to the Commission. He stated the plan is the same as it was when it was approved by this Commission back in March. He stated they request the Commission's approval.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-FP-5. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Mahnic asked if these were public roads.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is correct.

Motion 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-P-7. Petition of Frank Mendez, 388 N. Sedley Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a replat for Lot 14 in Moreland Estates Subdivision to be located on the West side of Sedley Road, between CR 325 N. and CR 400 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con't from June 23, 2004 meeting.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and I have Don Bengel with me as well as the petitioner. He stated this is a replat of Lot 14 in an existing subdivision called Moreland Estates. He stated this is a very large lot subdivision. He stated TAC reviewed this proposal and forwarded it to this Commission May 28, 2004. He stated the proposal is to divide this large lot into two separate single-family residential sites both of which would include a single family residential home. He stated the subdivision proposed before you tonight meets all the technical requirements of the County's existing ordinance. He stated I would respectfully request that the Commission approve the proposed primary plat at this time. He stated it has come to my understanding that the restrictive covenants were somewhat of an issue at the last meeting. He stated the restrictive covenants currently in place do provide for this exact thing to happen on this lot. He stated initially there was not suppose to be any further subdivision of any of these lots. He stated that was expressly provided for and it was


prohibited in the covenants. He stated however, the covenants can be amended by a majority of the lot owners signing a written amendment and recording that amendment with the Porter County Recorder's Office, which has happened. He stated fourteen out of the twenty-two lot owners are in agreement with that and they signed the amendment. He stated all of their signatures have been notarized and that document was in fact recorded with the Porter County Recorder's Office. He stated I say all that realizing that the Subdivision Control Ordinance is really what is controlling this Commission tonight but I thought for some background information it was important to convey that to you. He stated also, I believe basing the decision on the restrictive covenants outside the purview of this Commission. He stated Indiana law is clear that zoning regulations and private restrictive covenants simply are not the same thing and they don't affect each other.

Patrick Hoots stated I live at 286 N. 475 W. Lot 15, Moreland Estates. He stated this guy said that these signatures were notarized. He stated I talked to a few of these neighbors and they said that there wasn't a notary public there when they signed these papers. He stated I am saying that these signatures might be true and they might not be true. He stated I talked to a couple of these neighbors who wished to unsign these papers. He stated this road is a private road and a one-lane road. He stated if you open this up and once you let them subdivide everybody can subdivide. He stated we could have fifteen or sixteen houses on this road a one-lane road. He stated we are going to have all this garbage out there on Sedley Road. He stated we are going to have thirty or forty garbage cans sitting out there being knocked over. He stated I am against this unless this road turns into a public road.

Mr. Mahnic stated you have reference to a letter from your organization that you cannot replat.

Mr. Hoots stated the developer in 1992 tried to get this lot subdivided into more lots and it was denied. He stated we were told that we couldn't subdivide our lot. He stated now we are in a position were we built our house in the middle of our lot. He stated we can't subdivide ours now. He stated if they build a house there it is going to bring down the value of my house.

Gerri Babcock stated I live at 384 N. 475 W. She stated we own two parcels of land, lot 16 and lot 17. She stated back when Mr. Hooseline tried to originally resubdivide the property he was told no. She stated he was specifically told no because of the covenants and that was in this room at a meeting.She stated


it was this very piece of property that he was wanting to subdivide down into two acre parcels. She stated the reason that he wanted to do it was obviously, to break it out and have more income coming in because he was having a hard time selling the lot because it was a big parcel. She stated at least a third to half of the property was wet, which is one of the reasons we were told that adding additional septic to that area would not be good. She stated the Health Department at that time was opposed to it. She stated the drainage was an issue. She stated like I said at the last meeting I know you cannot force the covenants but we bought into the covenants just like everybody else who bought there bought into the covenants. She stated this is the reason why we bought into the covenants. She stated we go to work every day to take care of what we bought into and to have to go to work every day now for something we didn't buy into is very disheartening. She stated so at least I would ask that you consider our objections. She stated I understand you are public servants for all of us but there are more people to be considered. She stated the other people that are being considered in this lot being divided are the people that are on CR 400. She stated the back of their land only backs up to this property. She stated they do not use our road. She stated that road was originally intended for the six homes that it services. She stated that is all it was constructed to handle. She stated the additional wear and tear on that road would end up being a financial hardship to all of us. She stated if that lot gets divided precedence is being set that everybody else can do it. She stated that land can still be broken up even more. She stated our land can be broken up. She stated the other people that run their land along because they are narrow they have frontage on the front but they have that whole length of frontage, if you look at the lot in front of us. She stated they could potentially put two or three additional lots there. She stated the drainage is an issue and the sewage is a concern to me because of the septic systems and the wells. She stated all of these things are a serious consideration to us. She stated I don't think it is going to help our property value. She stated I think it is going to hurt. She stated the maintenance of that road is an issue and so is the garbage an issue. She stated it is already an issue with just the six of us down that road.

Ben Knox stated I live at 390 N. 475 W. in Moreland Estates Lot 13. He stated we are the neighbors directly north of the Mendez's. He stated our property abuts theirs. He stated we personally don't have any objections to this. He stated the house that they have now is a beautiful house. He stated it is well constructed and they are excellent neighbors. He stated they are not going to subdivide this and make a small subdivision. He stated it is approximately a ten-acre lot and


they want to put one more house on it. He stated I don't see anything negative about it whatsoever knowing the Mendez's. He stated I know that they are not going to build something that is substandard or shoddy or would detract from the value of the neighborhood anyway. He stated in fact the house that they built improved the neighborhood tremendously. He stated I would expect anything that they would build would be of the same quality.

Mr. Ferngren stated with respect to Mr. Hoots comment that everyone is going to be coming in here and doing this now. He stated I disagree with Mr. Hoots for a couple of reasons. He stated first and foremost the restrictive covenants as they stand now don't permit that. He stated lot 14 is the only lot that would be permitted to be subdivided. He stated if others were going to attempt to further subdivide they would then need to seek a majority of the lot owners in Moreland Estates to come before you as the Mendez's have tonight. He stated secondly Don Bengel the engineer has informed me that there are septic area limitations out here that would restrict the cart blanch subdivisions that Mr. Hoots seemingly believes that are going to be eminent once this actually happens. He stated with respect to the notary issue that is something that the notary would have to address if in fact their signatures aren't authorized. He stated that is up to the notary to address and that would fall within their liability. He stated it is my understanding that all the signatures were in fact properly notarized. He stated with respect to Mrs. Babcock's comments they may have purchased the property in reliance on the covenants but one part of the covenants that they purchased the property subject to allows for an amendment and that is in fact what has happened. He stated that is in fact what has happened, an amendment to the covenants has been had, which allows this property to be subdivided into two parcels to contain single-family homes. He stated the project was reviewed by TAC. He stated the septic fields proposed for these subdivided parcels are in compliance with your ordinance. He stated the drainage requirements are all met from your subdivision control ordinance. He stated again I would respectfully request that you would in fact approve the proposed subdivision.

Mrs. Babcock asked if on a private road is there any ordinance or anything that states how many homes can be on a private road. She stated the gentleman behind us, Mr. Kunick to date has still not received proper notification. She stated he didn't even know about the evening tonight. She stated the neighbor on the next road over that letter was sent to an address that they lived at 15 years ago. She stated so they didn't receive their letter either. She stated as far as the notary goes I know that when Mrs. Mendez came to my home for me to sign the


paper that had the notary indicated on there that was opened and it was not signed by a notary and there was not a notary with her. She stated Mr. Kunick said that there wasn't a notary when he signed his either. She stated I don't know who the notary is or how the whole thing went on. She stated he did ask me to bring that to your attention. She stated he did say that if you would like a letter from him he would do that or whatever. She stated as far as the precedent this would set a precedent to allow other people to go through this process. She stated whether they would have to get all the signatures or not. She stated if the precedent is what we are going to look at then we need to look at the precedent that you set with Mr. Hooseline back in 1992. She stated it doesn't mean that the next person that buys the property won't want to do this too.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is our understanding that all of the notices were in fact properly sent out. He stated Mr. Kunick, whoever this gentleman may be, obviously received something to know that this meeting, whether he chose to be here or not to be here that is his own decision. He stated Mr. Kunick also did not sign the amendment. He stated his signature is not one that there is any issue with respect to the notary. He stated his name is not on the recorded amendment to the restrictive covenants for Moreland Estates. He stated fourteen out of the twenty-two lot owners have in fact approved it.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Sheetz stated I just have a couple of questions. He asked what is the size of Mrs. Babcock's lot.

Mr. Bengel stated she has two lots. He stated one is 1.91 acres and the other is 2.35 acres but there is a big area that is designated for septic only.

Mr. Sheetz asked what is the size of lot that they are trying to get.

Mr. Bengel stated 10.57 acres.

Mr. Sheetz asked if they were 15 now.

Mr. Breitzke stated no they are splitting it down.

Mr. Bengel stated they are splitting it down to 3.13, which is where their house is now and the lot that they will build on is 7.44.

Mr. Poparad asked if there was a 20-foot easement cutting through the lot.

Mr. Bengel stated that is a drainage easement that goes north and south.

Mr. Poparad asked which way is the house.

Mr. Bengel stated their existing house faces Sedley Road. He stated it is about 100-feet back.

Mr. Burns asked what is the average lot size in the subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren stated it appears to be about 2 acres. He stated there are some that are about 3.7 acres. He stated there is a series of them that are just less than 2 acres. He stated these are clearly the largest. He stated one is as small as 1.36 acres.

Mr. Burns stated there are six homes in this subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Bengel stated the only lots that are not built on are Mrs. Babcock owns two lots and she has one house.

Mr. Burns stated this subdivision won't double in size.

Mr. Bengel stated it can't because of septic. He stated in his opinion it will be difficult for the Mendez's to get another lot out of their ten acres.

Mr. Burns stated so we don't see a change in the subdivision. He stated all the neighbors can't come in and subdivide and this is my concern.

Mr. Bengel stated I don't believe that can happen.

Mr. Sheetz stated so you are saying that if we approve this to seven acres they are not going to be able to subdivide that down to another six one acre lots.

Mr. Bengel stated it is his opinion that can't happen because of the soil conditions for septic. He stated these soils are not the best soils for septic.

Mr. Burns asked if the Commission decides to approve this subdivision can we put restrictions on it that these two parcels cannot be subdivided again.

Attorney Schaefer stated we cannot do that. She stated we are bound by what the ordinance says.

Mr. Mahnic stated this is a very unique situation. He stated this thing started as a minor subdivision back in 1995. He stated this lot 25, which he will get to in a second, was part of a discussion back in December of last year and approved because we allowed a portion of parcel A to be subdivided into a 1.2 acre lot for a person who had a heart attack and had a health problem. He stated I looked at that because I agreed with subdividing that at that time. He stated nobody spoke for it and nobody spoke against it and nobody brought up anything else. He stated a man said his kids want to take care of him and they are going to build a house there. He stated that has not been laid out yet. He stated I was there Monday. He stated nobody has moved a finger as far as that piece of land to be measured off to put a house. He stated I think that somebody took advantage of us not doing our job to see if they are actually going to build a house. He stated this parcel that I am referring to that we approved back in December is accessed through another private road on a different end of the subdivision. He stated the road that services these houses in question is a separate private road. He stated the road is a hard surface contrary to what Mr. Bengel said in the first meeting that it is a dirt road or a slag road. He stated it is hard surface. He stated it is paved with black top. He stated I went there and looked at it. He stated they have a problem there in that the stop sign is not the stop sign that they need to have there. He stated that belongs to the whole association there. He stated the other thing is somebody just painted a private road sign that was done in a kindergarten fashion. He stated it needs to have a regular private road sign there. He stated the road is narrow and it is actually a one-car road. He stated consequently I don't know how we are going to build another house there when we don't have enough room to move the six or seven cars through here now. He stated I was there on a Sunday and I could not get out of what I call 382 North because of the traffic down here on CR 475. He stated when somebody wanted to pull in I had to back up in order to allow traffic to flow there to allow this person to come into that road. He stated the road is narrow. He stated the other thing is when TAC considered this there were five members at TAC and four voted for it and one abstained. He stated the person who abstained was Chuck Walker. He stated he is the guy who knows about water and what water does to a subdivision. He stated the whole area here has a water problem. He stated there is a big detention pond here in Parcel A, there is detention pond to the west of lots 20 and 21. He stated it is a big water problem. He stated the soils are not the type that will really accommodate any more septic systems. He stated of all the people who signed, you have to remember the majority of the people are on a good country road, 400 N. He stated this is a paved road and Schelling said it was repaired within the last year because in Schelling's


letter initially when this was considered Schelling said he did
not approve putting more traffic here due to more construction. He stated since that time I questioned him and he said that this road has been improved. He stated consequently these people who are here quite frankly don't care what happens here. He stated I have to feel sorry for the people who are here who have to maintain this road by themselves, which is what they chose to do and this is why it is private. He stated it is a unique situation here where most of the lots in this plat are not even in this area. He stated there is only about six. He stated I asked the gentleman when I spoke with him and his wife on Monday that they had a letter and they were denied by this Plan Commission some years ago that they cannot subdivide. He stated I say that this is a precedent that says the Commission here has already ruled that we can't subdivide. He stated this is the reason why I had the gentleman present that letter. He stated I just read it a few minutes ago. He stated I think if anything we need to continue this so that we can research that letter to find out if they were denied and what happened after that letter. He stated that letter only states that certain lots want to be subdivided and that hearing will be held at a public hearing. He stated I don't have any follow up on that. He stated I would like to see this continued so the staff and anyone else who is interested can research this to find out what we are really doing over here. He stated this is a little community over here and they do have to maintain that road and they do have a big problem with garbage. He stated this is what they voted for when they went on a private road.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is a paved private road and then CR 400 N. the road that actually has the majority of the lots is a gravel road. He stated the subdivision that we are proposing tonight will actually have a better road then the road that exists that most of the houses use. He stated this proposal meets the terms of your current ordinance. He stated I am not sure what if anything happened in 1995 when Mr. Mahnic said it was denied. He stated I am not aware of any denial letter or if a denial occurred.

Mr. Bengel stated Mr. Mahnic said that this started as a minor subdivision in 1995. He stated this started out as Moreland Estates in 1991 and then in 1995 that is when the minor subdivision was done when Mr. Peracki came in a couple of months ago because he wanted to build a house for his folks. He stated they are going to build. He stated I have gotten all of their permits.

Mr. Ferngren stated with respect to traffic an additional single family home will generate on the average 10 more vehicular trips per day at the most.

Mr. Bengel stated part of the TAC restrictions on the road is to be at least 20 feet wide with a distance of 50 feet from the edge of the pavement on Sedley Road and a stop sign and a "no outlet" sign would be required too. He stated that would be the Mendez's responsibility.

Mr. Poparad asked if there were 22 homeowners in this subdivision.

Mr. Ferngren stated probably not 22 because Ms. Babcock has two lots.

Mr. Poparad asked how many homes are there.

Mr. Ferngren stated there are 22 lots and I believe there are 21 homes.

Mr. Poparad asked if they contacted all 21 or did you stop at 14.

Mr. Ferngren stated I don't know. He stated I didn't actually survey the amendment.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Mendez did you contact every home owner or did you stop at 14.

Mr. Mendez stated we contacted everybody we could.

Mr. Poparad asked did you stop at 14.

Mr. Mendez stated no.

Mr. Poparad asked if every home in this subdivision was asked the question that you are asking tonight.

Mr. Mendez stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked if there were six homeowners against this.

Mr. Mendez stated there were some that were undecided. He stated some that are present here stated that they were not going to sign but will are not going to be against it.

Mr. Poparad asked how long have you lived there.

Mr. Mendez stated we have lived there for almost three years.



Mr. Poparad asked did you buy a house there or did you buy the ground.

Mr. Mendez stated when we found the property it had a big old hole and the guy we bought it from was going to build on it. He stated it was a foundation that was falling apart, full of water and it was a mess. He stated we built a new house there.

Mr. Poparad stated your intention is to sell the house and 3.7 acres.

Mr. Mendez stated yes the house is for sale now.

Mr. Poparad stated you will then build another house on the remaining 7 acres.

Mr. Mendez stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated you bought this house and property knowing the covenants.

Mr. Mendez stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated you walked into this with your eyes wide open.

Mr. Mendez stated yes.

Mrs. Mendez stated when we moved there we had all intentions to stay there.

Mr. Poparad stated he is not questioning that. He stated what he is questioning the fact that you acknowledged the covenants when you bought and now three years later you want to change the covenants.

Mr. Ferngren stated the point of clarification is that they bought knowing the covenants were there but part of what the purchase included was the opportunity to amend the covenants.

Mr. Biddinger stated frankly the covenants don't concern me at all. He stated that is outside the bounds of this Commission. He stated we don't have any say on that. He stated anytime you deal with hydric soils I always have concerns on septic systems. He stated if Mr. Bengel says the appropriate site is there I have no objections to this subdivision.

Mr. Poparad asked if we are exposing ourselves down the road.


Attorney Schaefer stated I don't know what you are asking me.

Mr. Poparad stated if we grant their petition and two months from now…

Attorney Schaefer stated each case is on its own merits.

Mr. Poparad stated if two months from now we tell lot whatever no, will they have a court case because we told lot 14 yes.

Attorney Schaefer stated I can't answer that because it would depend upon what they presented.

Mr. Poparad stated it would be the same thing. He stated they want to subdivide.

Attorney Schaefer stated I know but they would have their arguments.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have a lot of different soil conditions that would predicate to build on.

Attorney Schaefer stated the only way we would have a problem is if what we are doing is arbitrary. She stated we are supposed to be following the provisions in the ordinance. She stated it is a simple question, you are either following them or not. She stated if they meet the technical requirements in the ordinance then they are entitled to approval in my opinion.

Commissioner Harper stated are you telling me that if we find that a private road shouldn't have more houses on it that cannot be a reason to deny this.

Attorney Schaefer stated if you want to find that you can find that.

Commissioner Harper stated you were making it sound like that there would be no reason we can turn this down.

Mr. Mahnic stated he would like to make a motion to continue this to the next meeting so if nobody else will do it I will research that letter and make sure that we have recommended it in the past that somebody can say that they were denied it and now the same Commission is going to change that and now today somebody else is going to get it.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Mahnic if he was referring to a letter or the minutes of that meeting.

Mr. Mahnic stated based on that letter the minutes of that meeting should tell us whether we turned it down years ago or not. He stated if we turned it down years ago then on what basis can we tell somebody else that they can have it.

Attorney Schaefer stated we have to go by what the ordinance says. She stated there are criteria for that. She stated you are talking about a road. She stated those criteria are not necessarily in this book and they are elsewhere and Bob says that there are further road criteria that need to be complied with.

Mr. Thompson stated I was researching this today and I did get a phone call from Mrs. Babcock and I was briefly talking about it and I went in to researching this. He stated you do not meet specifications as it is drawn today. He stated you do not for the road.

Mr. Bengel asked are you saying when it got approved.

Mr. Thompson stated when at TAC. He stated TAC can't grant variances and what TAC recommended is not specifications. He stated according to Title 16, Section 16.16.020 D (3) it is Engineering Feasibility Report. At this time, Mr. Thompson read from Title 16, Section 16.16.020 D (3). He stated that was supposed to be submitted. He stated now I am going to get back to the street specifications. He stated if you go underneath 90-3, which is the engineering or Title 12 in the Porter County Code 12.04.120 the Minimum Pavement Widths for a local road and it doesn't discern public or private, but this does say you have to have the road. He stated the minimum pavement width is 24 feet and it has to have 10 inches of aggregate compacted two in one of the asphalt. He stated also concerning lot frontage and the description of lot frontage it states that it supposed to front on an improved public or a private road. He stated I would have to say it does not meet specifications. He stated if this plat were to meet specifications a 24-foot wide road with the proper thickness is going to have to be constructed for the entire frontage of those lots.

Mr. Ferngren stated I am a little confused about the road requirement. He stated you are saying that the pavement width has to be 24-feet and that the aggregate and all those other dimensions all have to be provided whether it is a public or a private road.

Mr. Thompson stated this is correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Mahnic suggested a continuance and


I would really recommend you look into it and decide if you want a variance with the BZA because as we learned recently this Commission does not have the authority to grant variances.

Mr. Ferngren stated I would like to confer with Mr. Thompson and Lily about what exactly they are looking at so they can see. He stated they would like to be continued until the next meeting so they could further investigate what in fact is required.

Mr. Poparad asked what happens if we don't grant permission to subdivide. He asked will you sell your house anyway.

Mr. Mendez stated I don't know.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 04-P-7 to let them do some research and for us to be able to do some research. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Poparad stated on this private road you can't even get a garbage truck down.

Mrs. Babcock stated this is correct.

Mr. Hoots stated you can't even get a school bus down it and we have to plow it ourselves.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - No
Sheetz - NoBreitzke - Yes

This case is continued until the August 11, 2004 meeting under pending business. The public hearing will be closed.

Mr. Thompson stated I have a couple of things to discuss. He stated the first one is the PUD ordinance. He stated looking into writing that and first thing I want to know exactly how we want to proceed with this such as an application procedure. He stated I sent out a report on it and there are two ways the State Statute says we can go about it. He stated it is a detailed plan, which is exactly what we have now or it is a general procedure. He stated a general procedure requires two steps and there is flexibility on how you set up the steps. He stated the two steps would be a conceptual plan and if the conceptual plan is approved then it has to come back for a detailed plan. He


stated this is the first thing I want to know from the members is how we want to proceed with this. He stated I did talk with Brad Johnson from Ground Rules who is going to be doing our code rewriting and he said most municipalities do the general procedure. He stated Brad said this seems to be the tendency that everybody is going to the conceptual plan then the detailed plan. He stated I am going to leave it up to the Commission members.

Mr. Detert asked if the conceptual plan makes it easier for the developer. He asked if this was our goal and if not what is our goal.

Mr. Thompson stated my question is do we want all subdivisions coming in or do we want somebody to possibly propose a nice design to us.

Mr. Poparad stated in order to do a nice design we don't need the PUD anyway.

Mr. Thompson stated Judge Alexa came out and said that this Commission nor the County Commissioners can grant variances and the way the particular ordinance we have written in today has developmental standard requirements. He stated the only thing this PUD ordinance by what somebody wrote is to do a glorified subdivision with multi-family, single-family and commercial but they cannot vary at all from any of the developmental standards listed within the zoning and the subdivision control.

Mr. Poparad stated why don't we just get rid of the PUD. He stated if we don't have a PUD in this county then a developer could actually come in with this plan, we could recommend variances and it goes to the BZA and everybody moves on. He stated we don't have to have a PUD.

Mr. Thompson stated we could go to what is called a developmental review process instead of a PUD. He stated some municipalities have done that.

Attorney Schaefer stated it is provided for by State law.

Mr. Poparad stated it is provided by not required. He stated this is my point.

Mr. Breitzke stated we can make our version of the PUD.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on the PUD and whether or not State law requires it.



Commissioner Harper stated let me tell you of one option that Portage started off with. He stated they said you are not going to come to us with a PUD that varies from the underlying zoning in density more than 5%. He stated that is one place where they started which is exactly, I think, started to put the Plan Commission in Portage in some control of what went on to start with. He stated secondly I think if you narrow that down a little more not only less than 5% but you make it usable land. He stated you start to use that kind of definition that the developers wouldn't start spending a lot of money on a PUD unless they were really going to with it what it was planned for and that is to leave a lot of green space and put the homes in a smaller space. He stated whatever we do I think we should start with something like that.

Mr. Detert stated what bothers me is we approve a conceptual plan and I am not sure where the courts will go with this eventually we might be sitting here and be sued and the Judge says we have to give it to them because you okayed the conceptual plan. He stated I think we ought to do what we are doing now. He stated you bring the plan in we look at it and we agree with it or we don't agree with it.

Mr. Biddinger stated the biggest concern I have with the PUD ordinance as it stands right now is what Mr. Thompson alluded to it is a glorified subdivision. He stated I have always been taught that the spirit of the PUD is to blend commercial and residential housing together. He stated blend different types together. He stated we have a definite resistance to do that here in Porter County. He stated just by somebody proposing an apartment complex or something along that line next to a subdivision we get a huge backlash against that. He stated really what we have done is made it very difficult to blend this type of thing together. He stated we hear about traffic all of the time. He stated a PUD by blending commercial and residential together is an excellent way of reducing some of that traffic flow. He stated I am really at a lost as to which direction to go or make it easier for developers or make it harder for developers. He stated I think whatever we do we need to realize or maybe take a step back and look in what we want unincorporated Porter County to look like as a whole before we make this decision.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Biddinger what PUD has been approved by this Commission in the last five years that has done anything about reducing traffic flow.

Mr. Biddinger asked how many PUD's have we approved have commercial in them.


Mr. Poparad asked how many PUD's have not been approved is a bigger question.

Mr. Biddinger stated I don't know the answer because I have not sat on this Commission for over five years.

Commissioner Harper stated when they talk about PUD's reducing traffic they are talking about a huge PUD with some commercial. He stated you have to have a little community and to have a little community you need a huge PUD.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion on the PUD and what the vision is for unincorporated Porter County.

Mr. Detert moved to have Mr. Thompson stop working on the PUD ordinance until some time in the future when the Commission redirects him to do so or when the consultants come in. Mr. Sheetz seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Mahnic asked Mr. Thompson how many members gave you any information as to what they would like to see in a PUD.

Mr. Thompson stated two.

Mr. Mahnic stated there are seven people who gave you nothing formally as to what you should look at.

The motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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



At this time, Mr. Thompson went over the 2005 Budget for the Plan Commission and Building Department.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the 2005 Budget for the Building and Planning Department and to remove the Administrative Assistant position. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.



Commissioner Harper moved to employee the Firm of Sommer, Barnard & Ackerson for the appeal of the Landfill decision and that the our Council, Attorney Schaefer be co-council with them. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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