PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
July 28, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, July 28, 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 Bob Harper, Frank Mahnic, Bob Poparad and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Rick Burns and Mike Sheetz. 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 July 14, 2004 Plan Commission minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Pending Business:

Case 04-FP-6. Petition of 400 North, LLC, c/o William A. Ferngren, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans LLP, 103 Lincolnway, P.O. Box 2357, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Pepper Creek Subdivision to be located on the northwest corner of CR 150 W. and CR 400 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 39 lots on 150.749 acres. Property is zoned R-1)

William Ferngren stated I am with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and with him tonight are Jake Wagner and Dean Froberg. He stated this is the petition for secondary plat approval for Pepper Creek Subdivision. He stated the proposal is for 39 single-family residential lots. He stated this was forwarded from TAC to this Commission unanimously on July 16, 2004. He stated the primary plat for this phase of Pepper Creek was approved by this Plan Commission on November 12, 2003 with an 8-0 vote. He stated this is the same plat that you reviewed at that time. He stated one point of correction, Mr. Breitzke, is that the acreage is actually 120 acres because we are not platting all 41 lots. He stated we are only platting 39 lots. He stated I have a copy of the revised legal description. He stated we submitted our road agreement and I understand that we have signed and I have heard that this has in fact been signed by the County. He stated I don't have a copy of that with me. He stated we are waiting for a review of the performance bond, which was submitted to Mr.


Schelling and we have not heard back whether that figure was acceptable or not.

Mr. Mahnic stated I am impressed with the way you have this laid out. He stated it is going to be pretty high scale and I like it. He stated the lots are deeded to the center of the road. He stated there has to be some reason for that. He stated also at the present time you are developing this with private roads with the intent to possibly some day turn it over to the County. He stated there is no mention whether or not we are going to have our engineers look at it to see that you people do it by the standard but I would really like to know why if some day you are going to turn this over to the County and let's say that things do change in the County and they accept it, how do we get involved with the fact that the lots are platted half way down the road. He asked do we have to buy the right-of-way from you folks. He asked what is the obligation for the County.

Mr. Ferngren stated what I think I stated at the TAC meeting was that the lots are deeded to the centerline of the ingress and egress easement and they are going to be private streets throughout the development. He stated what we have provided for is that in the event the County or the city if this should ever be annexed, should either one of those entities want to take over these streets we would provide that in the covenants on the plat and say that this is something the county can do and the developer retains the right to turn those over and each owner takes title subject to the opportunity for these roads to be taken over at a later time. He stated there is no obligation for the county or the city at any time to do that and our intent is to have them as private. He stated they are built to county standards. He stated if they are going to be turned over and somebody would like to do testing at that time, that is a method by which they could determine whether the roads are built to county standards. He stated right now the intent is for the roads to remain private.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-FP-6 for secondary plat contingent on the performance guarantee of $795,000 for the infrastructure. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on the following voice vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Abstain
Breitzke - Yes

Case 04-FP-7. Petition of Edgewood LLC, 630 W. 81st Ave., Merrillville, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for


Edgewood Subdivision to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy
30, between Shorewood Drive and Dorchester Blvd., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 50 lots on 24 acres. Property is zoned PUD.)

At this time, Mr. Thompson read a letter from Jeff Bann of DVG asking for a continuance until the August 25, 2004 Plan Commission meeting.

Mr. Thompson stated I spoke with the developers engineer and also the developer's attorney and explained the PUD process and the decision that recently came out about the PUD. He stated they have decided they would go in front of the BZA to seek a variance for developmental standards. He stated they will be applying and be on the August meeting of the BZA and this is why they are asking for August 25 because the BZA meeting will be before this.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 04-FP-7 until the August 25, 2004 meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 04-Z-4. Petition of Greg Engstrom, 1415 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to AG, Agriculture & Open Space for the purpose of allowing a minor subdivision to be located on the East side of CR 400 E. between CR 300 N. and CR 200 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveying representing Greg Engstrom in this matter requesting a rezoning from the current I-2 to Agriculture for the purpose of single-family residential construction of a 4-lot minor subdivision. He stated I-2 doesn't currently allow for single-family residential. He stated currently the entire parcel is in agricultural use right now including the parcel to the north; it is all in beans, the parcel to the south is all in corn and the parcels to the west are in corn as well. He stated there is a commercial, well, I don't know if it is commercial, but there is a pole barn 660 feet north of the north line of this parcel. He stated other than that there is nothing within a quarter of a mile distance of this area.


No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad asked are we going to rezone industrial land for residential and stick a subdivision in the middle of the parcel. He asked how big is the parcel that is zoned industry surrounding this.

Mr. Thompson stated there is a huge area of I-2 in there.

Commissioner Harper asked where is this.

Mr. Banschbach stated I-2 zoning starts right at the south line of this parcel here.

Mr. Poparad asked if this was off of Rt. 2.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is south of SR 2.

Mr. Banschbach stated the adjoining parcel to the south is zoned agricultural.

Mr. Poparad asked if we were talking about the area by the trailer park.

Mr. Thompson stated this is north of the airport. He stated SR 2 to CR 400 E. and if you go down CR 400 E. there is a number of industry's there. He stated continue south on that you will cross the railroad tracks and you will come into the intersection with Evans Avenue and CR 300 N. He stated go about a half mile further south of CR 300 N. and that is where the parcel is. He stated there is a storage facility north of this parcel but it is north of this parcel about 400 feet.

At this time, Commissioner Harper held up a picture and asked Mr. Thompson if he recognized this.

Mr. Thompson stated yes this is up on CR 325 E.

Commissioner Harper stated this is where we have commercial and people have their houses with these bright lights a few feet away. He asked isn't this going to create the exact same nightmare.

Mr. Thompson stated I would have to say this has that potential right now with our existing codes.

Mr. Poparad asked how long has this been industrial.

Mr. Thompson stated since 1983.

Mr. Poparad asked when were these lots purchased.

Mr. Banschbach stated my client owns what is currently being proposed as the minor plus a remnant of 10.38 and he did have a parcel to the south as well. He stated I am not sure what date my client purchased it.

Mr. Poparad asked how much land did he want to rezone.

Mr. Banschbach stated 4.9 acres.

Commissioner Harper stated let me pass this down. He stated this came up at another meeting. He stated this is the type of things that happen when we do this. He stated we have people who have their homes and then all of a sudden in their backyards there is this and they can't even sleep at night. He stated this is the kind of mess this creates.

Mr. Breitzke stated I am familiar with this too. He stated you can literally read a newspaper in their living room.

Mr. Poparad stated I have an issue with the fact that he wants to rezone part of his parcel residential and still retain the benefit of having an industrial parcel in the back.

Mr. Poparad moved to forward Case 04-Z-4 to the Board of Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Mahnic stated I went down that area and I thought that this is spot zoning in my estimation. He stated we are going to take a little parcel of land there and say that you can build houses here. He stated north of the railroad tracks there are four houses on the east side. He stated to me it is industrial. He stated on the west side of the road there are warehouses, for sale signs, for rent signs on buildings that are industrial. He stated across the tracks there are real big mini-warehouse area and then the greenhouse. He stated I think it is a poor choice to put houses over there that later people will complain to us about the amount of traffic, the activity going on and it is an industrial and agricultural area.



Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on August 17, 2004 meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Case 04-P-8. Petition of Timothy & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Pivotal Pointe Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of CR 500 N. and CR 400 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 10 lots on 13.88 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveying and I am representing Tim and Helen Chupp in their proposed major subdivision of 10 lots fronting on CR 500 N. and CR 400 E. He stated all the lots have the required frontage on the county roads, which doesn't facilitate the addition of county spec roads to access any of the lots. He stated they have the required frontage across the building lines. He stated another minor subdivision was approved, which is basically part of the original parcel and in addition a ten-lot remnant piece is in the southeast corner of this parcel.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko asked are we talking about lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Thompson stated that is a different development. He stated what we are talking about is this up here.

Mr. Mahnic stated lots 6 and 5 are going to have their own driveways.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is correct.

Mr. Mahnic stated what I see is 50-foot.

Mr. Banschbach stated the access way after the frontage of 96-feet is 50-feet on each side.



Mr. Mahnic stated the next drawing going south there is a space that goes through a previous minor subdivision of four lots. He asked how wide is that road.

Mr. Banschbach asked which minor subdivision are you talking about.

Mr. Mahnic stated the four-lot subdivision that is directly south of your development.

Mr. Banschbach stated no we did not develop that.

Mr. Mahnic asked do you have any idea how wide that private road is.

Mr. Banschbach asked what private road.

Mr. Mahnic stated between lots 7 and 8. He stated there is a private road that goes to that minor subdivision. He stated between your lots seven and eight.

Mr. Banschbach stated there is no road there right now if that is what you are asking.

Mr. Detert stated there is 60-feet dedicated to be a road.

Mr. Banschbach stated it is a private road.

Mr. Mahnic asked do you have any idea how wide that road will be.

Mr. Banschbach stated it is a private drive so I would venture to guess about 12-foot. He stated it is only servicing the four lots for the minor.

Mr. Detert stated we understand that but what Mr. Mahnic wants to know what is the width of that right-of-way.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is really not a right-of-way. He stated that is fee title across there. He stated there is a 60-foot ingress egress easement.

Mr. Mahnic stated here is what my problem is. He stated we get into this argument or discussion when it is not marked how wide it is. He stated it doesn't tell me how big the right-of-way is. He stated it doesn't tell me if there is an easement on lot 7 and 8 to allow for a bigger road. He stated we have a number of problems in our county because the roads are narrow and


you can't get a garbage truck down there, you can't get an ambulance down there and things like that. He stated now all of a sudden I am looking at a subdivision that is platted but not developed yet and it says private road, and it is your drawing, and it doesn't tell me anything about that private road and how people are going to get in there or how they are going to get out. He stated if these seven and eight lots do not give anybody an easement that they can build a wider road then when we consider this we are going to be in a box and say, "Well, you guys approved it."

Mr. Banschbach asked how much wider would you need. He stated the minimum is 60-foot right-of-way. He stated there is a 60-foot area between lots 7 and 8.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is a minor subdivision that has not been developed but was approved several years ago.

Mr. Poparad asked are you talking about lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes and it is independent of these guys.

Mr. Mahnic stated I think it should be marked on there. He stated you will record this and then later on when somebody develops this we won't have an argument between people who have homes on lots 7 and 8 coming back and say, "You can't have my land and it doesn't show that."

Mr. Banschbach asked are you thinking that road services the four lots in the minor on that southwest corner.

Mr. Mahnic stated yes.

Mr. Banschbach stated it's not. He stated they have frontage on CR 400 E. and that is how they get access. He stated that 60-foot space between lots 7 and 8 services a second minor subdivision.

Mr. Mahnic stated that isn't there yet.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is correct.

Mr. Mahnic stated lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 have homes on them already.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes.



Mr. Mahnic stated I am not concerned with them. He stated they have access to CR 400. He stated there is no problem there. He stated what I am concerned about is to the right of this minor subdivision there is no access in there to the right of it. He stated the access is between lots 7 and 8.

Mr. Banschbach stated correct.

Mr. Bucko stated that is what it is, 60-feet. He stated he calls it 60-foot ingress egress utility service entrance.

Mr. Mahnic stated that is for utility.

Mr. Bucko stated that is right. He stated I understand what he is saying. He stated he is also saying that is 60-feet across and is suppose to be used for a road and it is not designated on the plat.

Mr. Poparad asked if lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this minor subdivision have not been built for this plat.

Mr. Banschbach stated correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated the thing that I would suggest is to put some building lines on the east and west sides of that right-of-way about 30-foot back from that easement just to take the high road and that will set the building back just in case there are some future issues.

Mr. Poparad stated it says on the 10 acre parcel will allow for another single-family resident. He asked which 10-acre parcel are you talking about.

Mr. Thompson stated the grade out numbers that are representing the minor subdivision that we have been talking about if you go in between lots 8 and 9 again, they have left frontage there, which is marked 96-feet, which meets county requirements and it goes back in. He stated this area here in the very southeast corner is a ten-acre parcel.

Mr. Poparad asked who owns that.

Mr. Banschbach stated the developer will own that.

Mr. Poparad asked if this was part of the subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated no.



Mr. Poparad asked do we want to put in there that this cannot be subdivided again.

Mr. Thompson stated if they do then they will have to build a road to county specifications to be able to access it and it would have to be a major subdivision. He stated it would be back in front of you.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-P-8 for primary plat. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Other Business:

Building, Planning and Zoning Budget for 2005.

Mr. Breitzke stated it was suggested by the Commissioners at their last meeting that we keep a position in.

Mr. Detert asked if it is the Administrative Assistant's position.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes it is and we are considering some new things for the Building Department.

Commissioner Harper stated one thing that we are considering is this unsafe homes and I would like to pass around a few pictures. He stated the first three are out at the lake area in the county and the last bunch is from the Lake Eliza area. He stated at the present time we really don't have an Unsafe Dwelling Ordinance in the county. He stated in addition to that we have a lot of issues going on. He stated I want to ask Bob a couple of questions. He stated this is one of the commercial ones where we had gone back into the records and they promised to put up trees, correct, and do a bunch of things out there. He asked am I right Bob.

Mr. Thompson stated developers know trees are required. He stated the people that I have been talking with "Lamp Shades by Delores" that went in there are suppose to be putting in a fence. He stated I told them that they had thirty days to do this. He stated I will go back out and check on it. He stated I did speak with the gentleman who built that building and he did agree to go out and put shields on those lights. He stated I did go out


there at 9:30 p.m. and it was just unbelievable. He stated I did talk to the builder and he agreed to go out there and do it. He stated I have been told since I have spoken with them that within a few days they did get shields up.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning this matter.

Mr. Thompson stated I would like to change our Certificate of Occupancy procedures because it is so important that we also have zoning checked and the compliance at that time. He stated I thought I had an agreement with the Building Department that whenever commercial and industrial site came up to please notify me because that way I would go out there and actually look at it and compare it to the TAC file and then come back in and tell the inspectors yes or no on issuing it as far as zoning goes. He stated somehow the communication broke down. He stated that is why I explained briefly to Bob that I want my name on that Certificate of Occupancy or the Director. He stated that needs to be on there and the purpose is if they call in for a CO there needs to be two signatures on there, the Directors to make sure it meets zoning and all Plan Commission requirements and also the Building Inspector to make sure that all building requirements are met.

Commissioner Harper asked why couldn't we make a motion tonight that this is done.

Mr. Thompson stated I have to take it to the Commissioners because of the fact that this was all set up by the Commissioners and they separated the Building Department from the Plan Commission back in 1996.

Mr. Poparad asked are we talking about Zoning violations that should have never got past him or are we talking about building violations. He asked if the Building Commissioner works for Bob or works for the Commissioners.

Mr. Thompson stated he works for the Commissioners.

Mr. Poparad stated then we need to get the Commissioners on board with this because obviously he isn't going to listen to you.

Mr. Thompson stated I would like to change that procedure and if we go even further with CO's and looking at the subdivision control what we could do is add more laws where I think in my opinion almost any CO requires two signatures on it,


one from the Plan Commission and one from the Building Department.

At this time, the Plan Commission members had a discussion on building code violations.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson to explain the problems that are going on in Eagle View Subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated this was approved I think secondary plat might have been approved on this already where a bunch of the neighbors were concerned about drainage. He stated one of the main things that they were concerned about was the protection of Clark Ditch, which runs to the south of them. He stated they complained about this with the Aberdeen development and they were complaining about it with this. He stated I did get a phone call from an employee of Bob's, Carol, asking me to check this out and I did. He stated Bob called me about it today. He stated I was out at the subdivision and I was also out at another subdivision in that area checking out erosion. He stated yes they have a problem and I told the foreman for the construction company that I had a complaint. He stated the foreman said, "because of the torrential downpours we did have a lot washouts and I came in and put silt fencing here and silt fencing there." He stated I did tell him he needed more. He stated the foreman told me that he had plenty of it. He stated I told him to put some here to block it off on the road. He stated I called the engineer that he needs to get out there and make sure that his development that he engineered is going along with what they have applied for with Rule 5 and IDEM and soil erosion. He stated I told him that somebody could call IDEM and complain. He stated he told me that he would get on it right away. He stated then I called IDEM.

Commissioner Harper stated we sit in here and tell these neighbors that everything is going to be okay and we are on top of it. He stated then the neighbors start calling the Commissioners office. He stated what typically happens is everybody blows them off. He stated I think what we need to start telling these guys either fix it or we shut them down.

Mr. Breitzke stated one problem is enforcement because we are really looking for people to try to cover this county. He stated we are one of the busiest county's if not the busiest in the State because most of the work is done out in the county.

Commissioner Harper stated I agree with you and that is why I am bringing this up.



Mr. Breitzke stated we need to write an erosion control ordinance. He stated we don't have one. He stated this is one of the things we need to work with our new consultant. He stated this is the last year that the Department of Natural Resources or next year, I'm not sure when their deadline is, that they are going to inspect and enforce erosion control. He stated the State is pushing more of these responsibilities on us and they have the law behind them to enforce and act.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Thompson to tell the members about the Nancy Hawkins situation.

Mr. Thompson stated Mrs. Hawkins is a taxpayer and she is in the unincorporated area and she is on SR 2. He stated she has a neighbor by the name of Rhoda. He stated he is in constant violation. He stated the Zoning Inspector previous to Fred had him going through trying to get his property cleaned up. He stated he would clean it up and it would be back six months later a mess. He stated there are tires all around, an old school bus with no wheels, a couple of old dump trucks in the back. He stated it is a junkyard. He stated I have turned this over to Lily.

Commissioner Harper stated this has been going on for a long time.

Attorney Schaefer stated a letter just went out stating he has thirty days to clean it up.

Commissioner Harper stated I want to bring up another one. He stated I want Bob to tell us about Golf Creek Trailer Park Development along SR 130.

Mr. Thompson stated this was approved as a Special Exception and they came in and got a rezone. He stated it used to be an old trailer park and I was explained that it was housing for the military for the old Nike Missile site there. He stated it is south of Portage. He stated he did come in and removed all of those trailers and put in a new road. He stated he did get the Special Exception. He stated he has three existing trailers there now. He stated he called me and he wanted to put in Indiana Modular Housing, which goes on full basements or crawl spaces. He stated I told him no that he was approved for what is considered a residential mobile home with the red tags. He stated he told me that I am not working with him. He stated he is trying to do something different there. He stated he has not met up to the requirements. He stated I am speaking with his attorney right now.


Commissioner Harper stated he came into these meetings promising to put up trees and fencing and all kinds of stuff and he hasn't done it.

Mr. Thompson stated he just put up trees on one of the homes on the west side of the road but those trees are only for that lot and that home only.

Commissioner Harper stated the neighbors say that he has cut down some of the trees.

Mr. Thompson stated I think he probably has. He stated he has not installed the fire hydrant in the center of the development like he was supposed to do by requirement.

Commissioner Harper stated I want it turned over to the attorney right now. He stated we cannot continue to let these people…neighbors call…I got calls on this the first month I became Commissioner.

Mr. Mahnic stated this is right next to that upscale development.

Mr. Thompson stated Duck Creek.

At this time, Commissioner Harper read a letter concerning the Golf Creek Trailer Park.

Commissioner Harper stated to Mr. Thompson to just tell him that you are not working with him any more and it is coming up at the next meeting and we are going to shut him down and we are telling him we are going to shut him down.

Mr. Mahnic asked if we could send him a letter and ask him if we could have him appear before TAC to explain why he hasn't done what he was supposed to do.

Mr. Breitzke stated let's have him come to the next Plan Commission meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated the last thing I want to bring up is the Falling Waters subdivision and the promise that they made to pay the Fire Department $250,000 and that has gone by the wayside. He stated I understand that there are problems because of the lots. He stated the promise to pay the $250,000 isn't contingent upon that. He stated I have said it before privately and I want to say it at a meeting, I think we should have that researched not so much because maybe he should be given some time


for the subdivision to get straightened out but I'm afraid we are going to get past some sort of Statute of Limitations and he is going to get everything straightened up with the State and the problem is going to be unenforceable by anybody. He stated I think we should take a look at it and find out.

Mr. Thompson stated I will make a few phone calls.

Mr. Thompson stated after the last Plan Commission meeting where the Budget was approved with the elimination of the Administrative Assistant position. He stated I took it in front of the County Commissioners since it is also a part of the Building Department and because the fund said that by the ordinance creating the fund it had to go in front of the Commissioners in the expenditures for their approval prior to Council. He stated the Commissioners did not want to approve the budget based on the elimination of the Administrative Assistant position.

Commissioner Harper moved to keep the Administrative Assistant in the 2005 Budget. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on the Unsafe Building Ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will discuss this at another time and Attorney Schaefer will do the research on it.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/Kevin Breitzke, President

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