PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
September 8, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 8, 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, 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 August 11, 2004 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Detert moved to continue the reading of the August 25, 2004 minutes. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Pending Business:

Case 04-FP-13. Petition of Charles White, Walnut Ridge LLC, 407 W. 500 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Walnut Ridge Unit 2, to be located at the Northwest corner of SR 149 and CR 550 N., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 9 Lots on 5.36 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Todd Leeth stated I am here on behalf of the petitioner, Walnut Ridge Limited Liability Company, the developers of Walnut Ridge Subdivision. He stated as was indicated this is a subdivision that was platted earlier and is zoned R-1. He stated the primary plat contains a total of 33 lots on 17 acres. He stated the first phase has been developed and now what is before you is the second of probably three phases. He stated this is 9 lots on 5.36 acres. He stated the cul-de-sac known as Walnut Ridge Lane extends to the southern boundary of the subdivision has been offset slightly. He stated that is the only change from the primary plat that was originally approved.

Mr. Mahnic asked why was that offset put in there because it fronts on CR 500 N.



Mr. Leeth stated the Highway Department does not want the road to go through to CR 500 N. He stated the offset was to, I believe, allow for snowplows to be able to put the snow some place.

Mr. Thompson stated also for a turnaround. He stated the reason they didn’t want the road coming out onto that is because there is a pipeline that runs parallel to the north side of the road that is not in very deep at that location. He stated there is also a force main for sanitary that is deep. He stated to be able to cross that pipe they would’ve had to raise the road considerably and then to come out and meet the County Highway they would’ve had to raise the county road up there considerably and there is a bridge not too far from that. He stated I don’t think the Highway Department wanted to put an additional load onto that bridge.

Mr. Mahnic asked will there be some type of barricade put across there so people cannot eventually make a path to access there. He stated it doesn’t say “no access” or anything else on my drawing. He stated I have no problem with anything else but something should be considered here to prevent people from making that a road.

Mr. Detert asked Mr. Leeth would you agree to that.

Mr. Leeth stated first of all and I noticed as well that the “no access” easement that runs across the southern boundary of Lot 20 does not carry through to the end, through the right-of-way. He stated I believe that is probably, while I caught that as well, correct. He stated the only persons who would be able to allow for that to go through is the public, is Porter County and through the Highway Department. He stated the owners of lot 20 couldn’t grant that access to go through if that is barricaded off, if the right-of-way is not improved to allow for the connection to the county road. He stated I think it is appropriate that the “no access” strip not go through the right-of-way because that would only be an impediment to the county and the public in the future. He stated as far as barricading and so forth, frankly I think that is a highway concern. He stated I know my client will work with the Highway Department in making whatever improvements are necessary as part of the safety features of that cul-de-sac and the end of it. He stated recognize the pavement isn’t going to butt up against the right-of-way.

Mr. Mahnic stated also when they clean snow that guy is going to come right around here and that snow has to go somewhere. He stated I don’t know if it is going to go west or where. He stated I would like to see something done.

Mr. Detert stated I think that is a good point because we have somewhat of the same situation at Four Seasons where people are accessing off CR 725. He stated I am thinking in terms of just like these bumper things that go around curbs and stuff that the State puts in.

Mr. Leeth stated that problem I have with agreeing to anything is I don’t think that the Plan Commission is the proper agency of the county to be able to give us the guidance, you and I, on what we ought or ought not to do in there. He stated I think the Highway Department needs to be consulted as to what they think of the safety features.

Mr. Poparad stated why don’t we just deny it tonight and you go visit the Highway Department and then come back next month.

Mr. Leeth stated deny would be a little strong.

Mr. Poparad asked why not just put up a fence.

Mr. Breitzke stated why don’t we not be specific and just say that we expect a barrier to be put in at the end of the street and I think you can work with the Highway Department and find something reasonable.

Mr. Leeth stated we will work with the Highway Department in installing an appropriate barrier to the liking of the Highway Department.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-FP-13 contingent on the developer going back to TAC to get some resolution on the type of barrier and the $127,600 performance bond. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper asked is this going to do what we are trying to do.

Mr. Thompson stated as far as…

Commissioner Harper asked if this is a binding action. He stated I understand the motion that the approval is contingent upon a plan for some type of barrier agreed upon with the Highway Department to stop traffic there.

Mr. Breitzke stated what we will do is to have him add it the construction plan and I think it is binding.


Mr. Thompson stated I guess to make it binding would it be possible to have that so that we can expect prior to any Improvement Location Permits being issued out there on that parcel.

Mr. Leeth stated the answer to your question is yes. He stated number 2 the developer is agreeing to that.

Attorney Schaefer stated this is a direct county interest and it is not something agreed to between a private party and the applicant. She stated this one is enforceable.

Mr. Detert stated if I understand the motion correctly it is mandatory to have a barrier. He stated the type of barrier is subject to his consultation with the Highway Department at TAC. He asked is that correct Frank.

Mr. Mahnic stated that is correct.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-FP-14. Petition of Tim & Helen Chupp, 528 N. 400 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary 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 here tonight representing Tim and Helen Chupp in this petition. He stated they are asking for final plat approval for Pivotal Pointe, which is a ten lot major subdivision. He stated the last time we were at TAC for final approval the only contingent was the increase of the drainage easement on the remnant ten acre piece, which was down. He stated the last time they were at the Planning Commission you suggested some side yard setbacks on the east side of lot 6 and lot 7 as well as lot 8, which has been added. He stated we have tried to comply with most of the recommendations of TAC and contingent upon a $7615 bond.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have a little problem with this. He stated at the primary or first reading with the private road that goes in there it is 60-feet. He stated to the right of lot 8 there is another space in there, which I don’t understand this configuration here. He asked what is that space between 8 and 9 going to be there for.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is the access for the remnant ten-acre parcel on the southeast corner.


Mr. Mahnic asked is that going to be another road or a private driveway.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is correct.

Mr. Mahnic stated this private road that you have to the left of lot 8 will access four lots.

Mr. Banschbach stated that is correct.

Mr. Mahnic asked how is that road going to be built.

Mr. Banschbach stated it is a private driveway.

Mr. Mahnic stated it is not a driveway but a road. He stated to me a driveway is going to one house. He stated I have a driveway at my house. He stated if I service more than one place it is a road. He stated this is my interpretation. He stated you are building a road in there and not a driveway. He stated that road is going to service lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 eventually. He stated we don’t have a drawing that I could access myself to so I can’t tell you what is going to go in there. He stated that was apparently approved as a minor sub, which does not come to us.

Mr. Banschbach stated correct.

Mr. Mahnic stated I am deeply concerned when these homes go in there and people are unaware of what is there they are going to complain to us that they have a road and nobody wants to clean it. He stated then you have an argument between four lot owners on who is going to clean it and the road is deteriorating. He stated I would like to see this road built to county standards.

Mr. Banschbach stated with all due respect the petition that we are asking for tonight does not involve the minor subdivision.

Mr. Mahnic stated I know but that will come. He stated it’s your unusual configuration that brings this problem to my attention. He stated this is a very unusual configuration.

Mr. Banschbach asked the 60-foot access to four lots.

Mr. Mahnic stated no, just the way it is laid out. He stated you have lot 3 and 4 and then you have a double driveway, then lot 7 and then open space for future driveway. He stated then you have lot 8 and open space again, which will be a future driveway or maybe even a roadway because it depends on someone is


going to do with that remnant. He stated that is a ten-acre plot. He stated you could put probably put in 10 or 12 homes in there. He stated I am looking at it not being organized the way we would like to see subdivisions go in. He stated lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 are laid out real nice on here, which is adjacent to you. He stated then all of a sudden we have where can we squeeze another lot in here. He stated it would be great to your client to do it that way but how about the people who are going to build houses in here eventually and I think they will be kind of blind sided to what is going to go in there. He stated I have to protect the unknown things that are going to happen here. He stated that is my side.

Mr. Poparad asked are we approving lots 1 through 10.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes.

Mr. Poparad asked have lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 been approved.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes by TAC.

Mr. Poparad asked how did they get there.

Mr. Banschbach stated by the private road.

Mr. Poparad asked when was this done.

Mr. Thompson stated it was going along in concert with this same petition here but with a minor subdivision since by our codes and through the Rules of Procedure TAC has the approval process of it and it can go quicker than a major subdivision.

Mr. Poparad stated you approved four lots two years ago on basically the same parcel and now we are doing ten lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated it hasn’t been two years ago.

Mr. Thompson stated the four that you are referring to was approved a couple of months ago.

Mr. Poparad stated they got approval for that on a private road, which TAC approved and three or four months later they come back and shoe horn this in. He stated the bottom line is this is headaches down the road. He stated the ten-acre parcel is going to come back to haunt us. He stated there is no access to it unless you use this lot.

Commissioner Harper asked what would it take to bring these minor subdivisions back before the Plan Commission.


Mr. Thompson stated change the Rules of Procedure and probably the ordinance. He stated I can give you a little history on the minor subdivisions. He stated back in early 1996, prior to myself coming to the Plan Commission, there was an ordinance proposed that minor subdivisions will build those private drives to county specifications. He stated it would be a dedicated right-of-way. He stated I think the Plan Commission did recommend approval of it and forwarded it to the Commissioners, which in that case it was tabled there and the ordinance eventually died.

Mr. Poparad stated nothing against you guys but we just had this last meeting and with the private road garbage has to go to the end there is no place for the school bus to turn around, no snow plow and the neighbors are fighting whose job it is to plow it.

Commissioner Harper stated then everyone leaves and pretty soon the county gets sued to take something over.

Mr. Poparad stated then the county has to go in and spend “x” amount of dollars to build it to county specs.

Mr. Breitzke stated the bottom line is we need to rewrite the ordinance and eliminate private roads altogether or put such stipulations on them.

At this time, the Plan Commission had a discussion on private roads and the minor subdivisions.

Mr. Thompson stated I would have to lean to Mr. Detert or Mr. Mahnic on the minor subdivisions because they would probably know more of the history behind it than I do because they were already being approved by TAC when I came to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Detert stated it became so voluminous that this was the reason that this Plan Commission turned them over to TAC. He stated it wouldn’t be much of a problem to bring them back. He stated all we have to do is propose to bring them back.

Attorney Schaefer stated just so you understand it can only be going forward. She stated we can’t bring this one back.

Commissioner Harper stated why is it here if we don’t have any discretion.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have approved the preliminary plat for this. He stated one of the biggest issues is the private road. He stated if we eliminate the private roads that could eliminate a large number of the subdivisions.

Commissioner Harper stated in my opinion I don’t think that solves the problem.

Mr. Poparad stated let’s use this private drive for an example. He stated let’s say that was a county road extending down. He stated we can figure lots 5 and 6 and move lot 7 over. He stated you sure want lot 5 and 6 to get to the county road and move 7 over then put the county road in and turn 5 and 6 to meet the county road. He stated just redraw it.

Mr. Breitzke stated they have presented this drawing, as it is the last time. He stated it is the same drawing.

Mr. Poparad stated lot 5 and 6 would have access on the new county road.

Mr. Banschbach stated I am not following you.

Mr. Poparad stated lot 5 and 6 would have access on the new county road.

Mr. Banschbach asked what new county road.

Mr. Poparad stated the one that is going to take place of the private road.

Mr. Thompson stated the minor subdivision easement that is going back. He stated they’re requesting that this be dedicated to the county and built to county specifications and those two lots facing it.

Mr. Banschbach stated like the President said this has been before you, the primary plat, and if those suggestions were made then that might have been an option. He stated I am sure my client now feels the minor subdivision has been approved with the private driveway. He stated this was approved, the primary plat, from the Commission based on the same configuration.

Mr. Mahnic stated we did bring up the same argument during the primary plat. He stated Mr. Schelling even expressed it at a TAC meeting that he didn’t like it at all even though he voted for it because basically you meet the standards that we set forth for you to do. He stated when this private road gets in there the existing lot 1, which is built on and lot 2 will be able to access onto that road. He stated also lot 6 will be able to access on that road. He stated I see a problem with the people who have to maintain that road because lots 1, 2 and lot 6 access that road. He stated there is nothing on here that says that this shall have “no access” to that private road.


Mr. Banschbach asked for the minor subdivision to the southwest.

Mr. Mahnic stated no, for your subdivision lot 6 and 7. He stated nothing will prevent somebody to put an “A” frame back there and say that he will put his driveway right to the private road.

Mr. Banschbach stated they wouldn’t have the right because they wouldn’t have the easement for it because it is a private road.

Mr. Mahnic stated I know that. He stated all over the county we have private roads and we have complaints continuously about people driving on private roads that shouldn’t be.

Mr. Poparad stated so lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not been built on in the minor that was just approved.

Mr. Thompson stated I don’t believe any permits have been issued.

Mr. Poparad stated we have no discretion on the minor that was just approved.

Mr. Thompson stated by ordinance TAC is the one that reviews those and has the authority to give approval to them for primary and secondary. He stated the only time the Plan Commission will see them is through an appeal, which you will see tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is such a large number of them that odds are someone will appeal one.

Mr. Poparad stated I have to go back to the garbage and snowplow and the school bus. He stated we are not being fair to whoever buys lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. He asked how does the ten acres access that 96-foot gap.

Mr. Mahnic stated nothing prevents ten homes from going in there.

Mr. Breitzke stated this has been a historic issue. He stated the bottom line is they continue to permit the private drives. He stated I think it is time to change them but this predates that change in the ordinance.

Mr. Poparad stated we don’t have to approve this subdivision.


Mr. Breitzke stated you can make a personal decision.

Attorney Schaefer stated legally speaking you approve a primary plat based upon…

Mr. Poparad asked why are we here and why are we voting.

Attorney Schaefer stated the case law and the ordinance tells you no…

Mr. Poparad stated this is an issue and if we don’t have the authority to say “no” at this stage of the game they why are we sitting here.

Attorney Schaefer stated I know you don’t like it but I am telling you the law. She stated I have been doing this for 25 years. She stated that is the law and that is the case law.

Mr. Breitzke stated he didn’t bring in any changes from the preliminary and he is not introducing anything new. He stated I hate to say this too but this is an administerial task at this point. He stated the preliminary plat was the time to cut it to the quick and just so no.

Mr. Biddinger stated I just pulled up the minutes and it passed 6-1.

Attorney Schaefer stated what the court system would say is that it is unfair to have somebody come with one plan at primary when the Commission could have had them fix it the other way and then they go and spend all this money to do all this further stuff to come back here with the same thing and then we tell them no we don’t like it go reconfigure it. She stated they would slam us.

Mr. Mahnic stated my argument was when the preliminary came in I didn’t like the configuration, which I can’t do anything about. He stated number two I felt that this private road because of the future we are going to have a problem with it and it should be built to county standards.

Mr. Detert stated at one time we had extensive discussion at the Plan Commission about looking at these minor subdivisions with an overall view of all the property in the area. He asked are we doing that.

Mr. Thompson stated we did look at the remainder based on the definition that a parcel of land recorded prior to January 7, 1994. He stated if we look at a parcel of land in that situation


there is an existence prior to that they allowed one minor subdivision up to four lots per that parcel so we did review that.

Mr. Detert stated we did the minor subdivision ordinance to get away from what we call the spaghetti subdivisions that were popping up. He stated it looks like we are almost in the trick bag back to where we were but not quite as bad.

Mr. Breitzke stated to repeat what I said before a large part of this is due to the philosophy and the ordinance permitting these private drives.

Mr. Detert stated I understand that.

Commissioner Harper stated if we are going to change the drives then we need to change the ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated absolutely.

Commissioner Harper stated if we are going to change these minor subdivisions coming in front of us that’s all we need to do is change our procedure. He stated we don’t need to change our ordinance to do that.

Mr. Breitzke stated we need to change the ordinance as far as the…

Mr. Thompson stated I will double check the ordinance to see what the language is in there.

Attorney Schaefer stated if it is something substantive where you are permitted, a change in the rules isn’t going to help. She stated if you are by ordinance allowed to have a private drive instead of having it up to the standards of a public road.

Commissioner Harper stated we know what we have to do with the public roads. He stated now we are talking about what we have to do if we want the Commission to hear the minor subdivisions.

Attorney Schaefer stated that is procedural.

Mr. Thompson stated I will say this under the ordinance with minor subdivisions all it requires is a 60-foot easement and it has no standards whatsoever listed for any kind of construction. He stated it has been one of his complaints and that is why they tried to introduce that ordinance in 1996 making


them dedicated right-of-ways and built to county specifications but it stalled at the Commissioners.

Mr. Poparad asked if TAC approved this minor subdivision knowing that they were going to come back with a major.

Mr. Thompson stated TAC did know that there was a major being applied for at the same time during a minor subdivision hearing.

Mr. Poparad stated they applied for a minor because they could get away with it because if they lump these four lots together with the existing ten it would all be part of the major subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated I would just like to mention that prior to this developer going to Mr. Banschbach he was in a number of our offices, Engineering, Surveyor’s and my office showing three different alternatives. He stated he knows that our county codes state that there are no developmental standards for a minor subdivision. He stated the developer kept asking me if he could do this, or could he do that and I wouldn’t commit to it.

Mr. Mahnic moved to continue Case 04-FP-14 until the October 13, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

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

Mr. Biddinger moved to approve Case 04-FP-14. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

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

This case will be heard at the October 13, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Thompson stated at this time we have no new business for the September 22, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Detert moved to cancel the September 22, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Public Hearing:



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

Case 04-APP-2. Petition of Lawrence & Alyce Dvorak, 738 W. 50 N., Valparaiso, Indiana appealing the Technical Advisory Committee’s decision to approve Union MS 238-B-1 t be located on the South side of CR 50 N., between CR 700 W. and CR 750 W. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (con’t from August 11, 2004 mtg. The public hearing is open.)

Gordon Etzler stated this is a continuance from the August meeting. He stated we did have an opportunity to engage in an engineer and he went out there and looked at it for us. He stated this is a little different procedure than what you just went through. He stated what we have done in accordance with the ordinance filed here to the Plan Commission on the TAC recommendation. He stated you do have the authority to deny the application and in this case we feel that it should be denied. He stated the reason is this is that this proposed minor subdivision is a stack of three lots, one behind the other over a length of about 1500 feet from a county road. He stated that parcel is adjacent and adjoining my clients property. He stated the problem is this, again there is an abuse, I think, of the requirements of a minor subdivision and that they are putting in a private road from the county road south to service the three lots. He stated the problem is under the ordinance that requires all the improvements of the minor subdivision be shown by engineering drawings and that an appropriate drainage plan be submitted with the drawings. He stated for whatever reason that has not been done. He stated there has been only a sketch of an engineering drawing that shows, I believe, the profile of the road but it doesn’t show any drainage plans whatsoever. He stated the problem for my client the Dvorak’s who are the property owners to the east as determined by Great Lakes Engineering of Portage is that the Dvorak’s property, which has the common property line with this minor subdivision for approximately 1500 feet has three or four areas which drain onto this property for their surface water. He stated by building this road along the common property line, which is proposed, it will block this drainage or this surface water. He stated there are no plans whatsoever to show how that is going to be taken care of. He stated there is representation but there are no engineering plans. He

stated this is the problem. He stated I filed a copy of this letter with the Plan Commission earlier. He stated the letter states, “It is understood that the proposed road for the new subdivision is to be located along the property line and directly adjacent to the Dvorak property. It is therefore critical that the proposed new road be constructed so as not to interfere with the natural water runoff from the Dvorak property. Unfortunately the drawings in the file are not detailed enough for us to evaluate the proposed road construction in this regard.” He stated, as you know surface water drainage is a critical elements of any subdivision. He stated for that reason they ask that the application be denied.

Mr. Bengel stated I would like to direct your attention to the staff report dated August 11, 2004 discussing this project. He stated basically what the staff says is the water drains from the Dvorak’s all onto Farabaugh’s property. He stated if you look at the contours and the plans that we did submit to you and to TAC all the drainage goes onto the minor subdivision. He stated the drawings that I just passed out shows two high spots that is a profile of the center of the road as it is proposed and those two high spots will be cut. He stated the first one needs to cut because you can’t exceed 6%. He stated we made a 6% grade. He stated the second one we will cut the grade out of 1.2% and it goes back to take in the third lot. He stated I would point out that there are two new lots for this minor. He stated it is a total of three lots. He stated one with an existing house owned by the developers. He stated the second sheet I gave you is a cross section, which up to now has not been required by TAC but we have supplied this and we supplied this last month showing a cross section of the road and there will be a swale on both sides of the road. He stated the surface of the road will be no higher than the existing ground. He stated therefore we provide for drainage. He stated anything that comes from the Dvorak’s onto Farabaugh’s will go into the swale and it will carry it down to the wetland that is on the south end of the property. He stated I don’t know what else to say. He stated we get their water and we don’t shed any water onto the petitioner is this case. He stated technically I think this subdivision meets the ordinance and we have supplied everything that is normally required and we ask that you uphold the action of TAC.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the things I still requested were a couple of drains under the highway that you never shown.

Mr. Bengel asked under what highway.

Mr. Breitzke stated under the driveway. He stated you have swales on both sides and it would be best to direct the water from the Dvorak’s side back to the Farabaugh side under the pavement just in case. He stated it will keep the water moving down the swale on the Farabaugh side.

Mr. Bengel stated I disagree because there is a positive drainage down there. He stated the water is going to stay on the Farabaugh side.

Mr. Breitzke stated, Don it wouldn’t hurt.

Mr. Bengel stated it is not a matter of hurting it. He stated it is what is required and what is going to work. He stated in my opinion when you have a grade like we have there the water will go to the end of the road and entirely going to the Farabaugh’s.

Mr. Mahnic asked do we have drainage calculations for the minor subdivision.

Mr. Thompson stated yes he submitted them.

Mr. Breitzke stated understand, the concern here was the roadway and the natural ground impounding water uphill because the Farabaugh’s are very much below the adjoiners. He stated the concern was that they are going to have water ponding along the Dvorak’s side of the drive. He stated whether it was actually on Dvorak’s I don’t think that is the issue as long as the water kept draining. He stated that is why I think it would help just to have a couple culverts just in case you have those high points or high spots. He stated it will just keep the water moving back to Farabaugh and along the Farabaugh’s side of the property’s. He stated it eventually that ends up in a wetland down at the end.

Mr. Mahnic stated for my information the developer has shown us or has shown to TAC an approved drainage


calculations for this part. He asked when we have an appeal do the people just appeal without any cause or do they have to hire an engineer to show just cause for that appeal. He asked isn’t it the responsibility of the appealer to say that his engineer has drawings and here is what he shows.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t think it necessarily requires an engineer.

Mr. Detert stated they can say there is not enough information to evaluate.

Commissioner Harper asked did you hear what he said about the documents that weren’t at TAC.

Mr. Bengel stated there were documents submitted to TAC. He stated if he gave the documents that were submitted to TAC to his engineer and he did a good analysis of the project.

Commissioner Harper asked what does TAC require to submit to them.

Mr. Bengel stated we had to submit the drainage calculations. He stated in this case we additionally submitted a profile of the road.

Commissioner Harper asked is that all you have to submit is a drainage calculation.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated I take it that this driveway does this.

Mr. Bengel stated there are spots that are high and we are going to cut those down.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t think that is the appealer’s concern. He stated their concern is the low spot, isn’t it. He asked are you dropping it from 121 to 93 feet.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.


Mr. Poparad stated so you are going to put a swale on both sides and water usually does run down hill.

Mr. Breitzke stated they are cutting through hills. He stated part of their concern was the current topography would capture the water. He stated to get added assurance it would be good to put some culverts under the road.

Mr. Poparad asked what are we talking about 1500 feet.

Mr. Bengel stated it is about 850 feet.

Mr. Poparad stated you are dropping 27 feet and 800 feet.

Mr. Bengel stated yes.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Breitzke stated the minimum grades for roads are much greater than a percent…

Mr. Poparad stated I hate to be sitting on top of this trying to go out on the road.

Mr. Breitzke stated this goes back to the philosophy for private drives. He stated our minimum for county roads is 6%.

Mr. Poparad asked who is going to plow this baby.

Mr. Bengel stated the two people that will live there. He stated there will be a road agreement to that affect and it will state in the road agreement that this is indeed a private road and they don’t want a public road.

Mr. Etzler stated these drawings are inadequate for any engineer to go out there and build this road let alone the owner who I presume is going to build it himself. He stated that causes us a great deal of concern. He stated your ordinance says that the subdivider must have submitted


a drainage plan with a topography map including a written statement as to the adequacy of the subdivision plans to dispose of surface and subsurface drainage water for the public health and safety. He stated that has not been done. He stated this one drawing this profile I think he did it and was not presented at TAC but was presented at the last Plan Commission meeting and we had a continuance. He stated I sort of disagree with this idea that TAC can waive this requirement that a minor subdivision be fronted on a county road and that TAC has the right to issue road agreements for private roads or permit private roads. He stated that is not what your ordinance says. He stated I don’t have any history on it but that is all I can do is tell you as a lawyer what the words mean. He stated in this case the words say that this minor subdivision has to be on existing dedicated roads and to waive that by TAC and say we are going to permit a private road if you get something signed by the Commissioners violates your own terms of the ordinance. He stated it doesn’t give the right to do that. He stated as you know the Plan Commission can waive certain procedural issues or certain drawing issues or certain minor things but they can’t waive the general terms of an ordinance and definitely can’t do it where you have no standards. He stated that what’s been going on. He stated I respectfully disagree that what has been done is lawful.

Mr. Detert moved to remand Case 04-APP-2 back to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Mr. Bengel to submit what is missing for this minor subdivision. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 04-P-10. Petition of Bernard Madej, 5583 Paw Paw Lake Rd., Coloma, MI, seeking primary plat approval for Eagle Ridge Subdivision to be located on the Southeast corner of U.S. Hwy 6 and CR 200 W. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 112 lots on 63 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Bill Ferngren stated I am from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans and I am here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, Bernard Madej. He stated Mr. Duffy from the Duneland Group Engineering Firm is here this evening. He stated what we have tonight is our petition for our primary plat approval


of Eagle Ridge Subdivision. He stated this matter is forwarded to the Plan Commission from TAC. He stated the drawing over to your left is of the subdivision proposed. He stated the property is located at the southwest corner of U.S. 6 and CR 200 W. consisting of approximately 63 acres and it is in fact zoned R-1. He stated it is probably important now to identify how we originally got to this point. He stated I handed out to each of you an ordinance, specifically Ordinance 04-16, which was approved earlier this year by the County Commissioners after a series of discussions with this Plan Commission and a series of meetings before TAC discussing this very project. He stated the Plan Commission voted favorably to rezone this property from RR to R-1 based on certain conditions. He stated the County Commissioners then followed suite with that and voted to rezone the property unanimously to R-1 based on certain conditions being met. He stated if you look at Section 4 of the written commitments, which is attached to the Ordinance, these are the restrictions on the use of the development of this particular parcel of land. He stated each of the items addressed as A thru G are a part of this plat and are incorporated into this plat and this is in fact the same plat that this Body saw on several occasions and TAC reviewed the drainage calculations for and also approved. He stated the project for a brief summary of what they are proposing to do at this location is Eagle Ridge Subdivision consisting of 112 as proposed in the written commitments. He stated there is open space provided within the development consisting of wet bottom detention basins deep enough to support live fish life and also located on CR 200 W. there is a provision made for a Little League baseball diamond as well as an area for picnic tables and that sort of thing and also finally an area dedicated for the construction and placement of a basketball court. He stated TAC reviewed the drainage plan for this particular project again at our primary plat phase. He stated this is the same drainage plan that was in fact reviewed and proposed to this Body on two separate occasions, including drainage swales along the south and the west. He stated portion of the development off site drainage improvements on U.S. Hwy 6 and also providing a drainage from Mallards Point, which is located east of CR 200 W. onto this particular parcel to the detention basin located in the northeastern portion of our parcel. He stated all of those items are encompassed within your


written commitments that were provided to you and these written commitments run with this particular piece of land. He stated it is important to note that this development does meet the terms of your ordinance, however, more importantly it meets all of the enhanced conditions that this Body felt important and that the County Commissioners felt important not to include in the written commitments. He stated the commitments that the owner of this land has agreed and has asked for your approval within this plat this evening. He stated once again the plat is the same as you have reviewed on several occasions and the same as TAC reviewed. He stated it is the same exact plan that was shown to the County Commissioners earlier this year.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Dennis Hane stated I live at 39 Tower Road here in Valparaiso. He stated I am here tonight because our property is a nine-acre parcel, which is on the left hand bottom corner of that property. He stated I was never sent notice of this meeting. He stated I thought Mr. Ferngren took note of that and I would get a notice of this meeting but that has passed. He stated I got notice from one of the neighbors. He stated my biggest problem is since our property is on the southwest corner I understand that all the water from this subdivision will be dumping into our property. He stated I am not against that but what I am against is the fact that I have seen what happened in the past subdivisions going in that you get all the refuge. He stated I would like to see incorporated into their detention area before it spills onto our property some type of trash collection system. He stated other than that I am not against the development.

Tim Cole stated I live at 835 N. Calumet. He stated I guess I just can’t stay quiet. He stated I am not against this subdivision. He stated growth is inevitable and change is inevitable. He stated the only problem I have it says it in here with your Comprehensive Land Use Plan that you adopted there seems to be an infusion of high scale development in Liberty Township, which is still pretty rural. He stated I just want to caution you that maybe we can’t tolerate that at this point. He stated we don’t have the municipal services in Liberty Township to adequately supply denser subdivisions of this nature. He stated other


than that I don’t really find much objection to this.

Jeff Jirtl stated I live at 252 W. U.S. Hwy 6. He stated I am not to against this subdivision but as far as the lots go they are going to be small for septic and there should be something in there if they do not get the sewers then they need to at least have at two acres.

Steve Freeman stated I live at 772 N. 200 W. He stated he owns the property just south of this development. He stated I am also concerned with these small lots. He stated if you don’t get city sewers I don’t believe the soils there would be adequate for septic systems. He stated I think Mallards Landing to the east of this is a good example of that. He stated I think that this is a serious concern.

Mr. Ferngren stated I would like to point out in respect to the septic system issue. He stated written commitments that we have agreed to provide that if there are no sanitary sewers than the property will be developed as RR property. He stated at that time, we will be required to submit soil borings and all the necessary items to be included with that for the Health Department to review and approve. He stated certainly it is not our intent to develop in that manner but if that should come to be we will comply with the Health Departments wishes.

Mr. Duffy stated with response to Mr. Hanes comments the two northern ponds are going to have a swale in between them, which should filter out any trash as well as also being wet bottom so sediment will take place for any suspended solids within the water. He stated those two ponds then discharge into the larger pond, which you have is wet bottom so any further sediments should take place there. He stated then it will be piped to a spot on our southern boundary, which then it is released over land and it should collect any remaining elements in the water.

Mr. Breitzke stated it seems to me that you have a standpipe control at your outlet with the trash rack on the top as well.

Mr. Duffy stated that is correct.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper asked what type of plans do you make for erosion control when you start a subdivision like this for the building phase.

Mr. Duffy stated we have to comply with all the rules set forth for silt fencing, hay bales, seeding.

Commissioner Harper asked you are talking about the State rules.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked before you start digging do you start your ponds first so you have a place for your water to go.

Mr. Duffy stated it is done primarily based on them doing the earthwork moving first, which will involve digging the ponds and also stripping the top soil for the roadways. He stated the ponds will be completed and ready for the storm sewer before any pipe installation will take place.

Commissioner Harper stated we have had the problem if you get in the middle of this thing and you have heavy rains what stops mud from flowing down to this fellow where the water is going to go. He asked what stops this.

Mr. Duffy stated the ponds themselves are required to have an erosion plan and they will be silt fenced as well. He stated the ponds cannot be dug to their full bed until the pipes are starting to get installed otherwise they will fill up with water and installation will be impossible. He stated if it is done in that manner and seeded properly it should eliminate most of anything getting into the pipes, along with the hay bales.

Commissioner Harper asked do you usually use hay bales.

Mr. Duffy stated hay bales and others. He stated you can stage the silt fence accordingly to also block it. He stated it depends on the slopes and the amount of erosion that you are seeing; you have to continually adjust to make sure you don’t create a situation.


Commissioner Harper asked is this pond going to be deep enough for fish.

Mr. Duffy stated yes. He stated all three of them will be.

Mr. Poparad asked are you trying to bring Portage sewer down.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated you are supposed to have a letter from Portage.

Mr. Ferngren stated we have provided a letter.

Mr. Thompson stated yes there is a letter in the file and it was sent to me by the Portage City Engineer, Craig Hendrix.

Mr. Poparad asked are you going to form a conservancy district.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Mr. Thompson stated I did receive a letter also from Indiana American Water saying they have the capacity and willingness to serve the development.

Mr. Mahnic asked are you definitely going to be R-1 based on the fact that you have city water and city sewers.

Mr. Duffy stated yes.

Mr. Mahnic stated under subsequent owners it says, “This agreement shall run with the land and be binding on the subsequent owner of the real estate unless terminated hereafter.” He asked what do you mean by that.

Mr. Ferngren stated that would be if the County Commissioners elected to change this commitment for some reason.

Mr. Mahnic stated in other words after this thing gets platted and somebody decides to change it, you can change


it. He stated lets say the ownership changes.

Mr. Ferngren stated I think that this agreement runs with the land and will not be changed except with the County Commissioners.

Mr. Thompson stated we have had a situation where someone has to have a commitment changed and since it is an agreement with the rezoning with the County Commissioners it must go through the procedures for the Plan Commission to review and recommend it into the Commissioners for changes in a commitment.

Mr. Mahnic stated I don’t find anything else with this and in fact I think Duneland’s done a real nice job with this.

Mr. Detert stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Bucko stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Biddinger stated I was just trying to figure out I was looking specifically at lots 69, 68 and 67 and reading this it says that they have a drainage and preservation easement running through them on the southern half of the lots. He stated I was just trying to figure out how there is enough buildable area in those lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated I have been watching the development of this conservancy district and I think what is important here too the City of Portage will be extending the sewer to SR 149 with their city departments doing the inspections up to that point. He stated we need somebody not from the county, either someone contracted through the developer or somebody representing the conservancy district to do inspections on all of those sewer works. He stated I want to make sure for the sake of Portage Waste Water Treatment Plant that we don’t have infiltration issues and that we have good quality service extended. He stated I think that the City of Portage is a little bit guarded because they want to make sure that people understand that this is not an attempt at annexation. He stated this is more of an attempt at water quality issues as the waters run into the City of Portage and they are getting hammered by EPA and IDEM to improve the water quality of Willow


Creek and Salt Creek in their dealing with the package plants of the mobile home parks along Rt. 6 and northern Liberty Township of other developments that have issues. He stated hopefully one day these things can extend to them. He stated I emphasize our expectation is that we are presented with some kind of evidence of a responsible party in charge to make sure that there is an inspection going on of these extended sewer works throughout your development and on the offsite to where it makes the connection with the lift station at SR 149.

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-P-10. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Case 04-Z-5. Petition of Starwood Properties, LLC, P.O. Box 404, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-2, Offices and Institutions, to be located on the West side of Calumet Avenue, between Bullseye Lake Road and Burlington Beach Road, in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Richard Anderson stated my office is at 9211 Broadway, Merrillville, Indiana. He stated I am a Porter County resident and I represent the owner, Paragon Group and the petitioner, Starwood Properties, LLC. He stated Starwood Properties, LLC is part of the Grand Corporation, which has been based in Valpo for twenty years. He stated other projects that they have done in Valpo include the complex on U.S. 30 in the Shelbourne area, the Social Security Building in Eastport and numerous projects in Lake County. He stated the location of this is Calumet Avenue. He stated it is between Bullseye Lake Road and Burlington. He stated it is on the west side of the road and basically there is a computer store here and multi-family behind it. He stated it is currently zoned R-1 and it is 5.69 acres and our proposal is to rezone it to C-2, Offices and Institutions District. He stated this district has been established to allow selective commercial and professional
uses having only limited and specific contact with the


public not involving large scale of merchandise. He stated that is quoted from your ordinance. He stated let’s talk about the surrounding area. He stated a lot of the area around this project is now in the City of Valparaiso. He stated the Porter County zoning map, as far the county’s map isn’t real clear, as far as this area. He stated we know it is R-1 and we know the area behind it is R-1 but when we look across the street what we are talking about is this is all inside the City of Valparaiso. He stated this would be where Miller’s Pizza is and that is the C-2 area on the corner. He stated the new PUD is Coolman’s project, which is currently going through the process in Valparaiso and has commercial on the front and multi behind it. He stated so that is getting its approval process according to Christine Owens. He stated the green area is the area that we are talking about. He stated we have C-2, which is an area you approved for a computer store on the corner of this. He stated further on to the north you have the Dish and the strip mall there and this is also C-2. He stated basically the area around this is C-2. He stated this is Calumet Avenue we are talking about. He stated we have gone a step further than what you normally do. He stated we are here for land use. He stated we are not here for development standards at this time. He stated because we have an audience and they are all interested in this we went a step further with this project and went into some of the development issues so that you can look at the development issues and see what we want to do so you would know where we are going and how we are doing it. He stated Mr. Krull provided us with a site and drainage plan, which you have copies of there. He stated I want to touch on that just for a few minutes just to kind of show you where we are going with this. He stated there are three buildings and the plan provides adequate parking. He stated as you can see on the backside with the pond there is also wetlands back there. He stated we are not disturbing the wetlands. He stated we are buffering the residential, which if you look back at the drawings again and the pictures there is a lot of multi-family duplexes back there and also three single-family homes on one end. He stated there is a tennis court here and a swimming pool here. He stated the building is up against Calumet Avenue. He stated the NIPSCO easement is basically through the middle of the two buildings. He stated basically now we want to talk a little bit more about this plan. He stated we have


gone to a lot of trouble to try to show you that this plan works for this site. He stated this is the highest and best use for this area. He stated this should be zoned C-2. He stated what we have done is I have from Mr. Krull the green space calculations for the site and in addition to what he has here after reading in the newspaper this morning the discussions that were had at the Commissioners meeting last night they went back through, figured it out again and basically you can see on this one we have green area of 55.49%. He stated we have building, walks and pavement of 44.51%. He stated if you take away the wet pond which is located right here, you take away .888%. He stated so then you go down to where you come up with 40%. He stated it is actually 39.89% without the wet pond of green space. He stated there is adequate green space in this. He stated on the drainage calculations and those were submitted with the plan. He stated there is a mistake on the drawing. He stated basically you have two times the required amount of drainage with the pond that is shown. He stated if you look at the drawing it says .50 acre-feet. He stated Mr. Krull was reviewing it again for me and he realized it is .887. He stated we are required based on the amount of building and parking that we have to have .416. He stated I would like to submit this also. He stated as I indicated earlier to you we leave the wetlands, which are designated. He stated if you look carefully at the plat on the little “x’s” on the backside next to the residential down through here we flagged the wetlands and basically that is undisturbed. He stated we are not asking for wetland mitigation. He stated we are leaving it alone. He stated again, we are going way outside the land usage. He stated we have to come back for subdivision approval. He stated I think that it is important to see that we are serious about this project. He stated we think it can work. He stated water and sanitary sewers is going to come from the Valparaiso Lakes Area Conservancy District. He stated we have a letter from them indicating they have the capacity. He stated they also like to look at drainage so not only is the Plan Commission going to get another shot at this with regards to drainage but so is the Valparaiso Lakes cause they want to look at the drainage. He stated this is a letter from Dave Hollenbeck of Blachly, Tabor, Bozik and Hartman indicating that VLACD has sufficient capacity to provide sanitary sewer and water service to the proposed development. He stated obviously you have to


comply and pay the fees. He stated it also says that they need to approve our site plan for drainage. He stated that would also be done. He stated I know this site has been controversial and that is why it has never been developed. He stated what I have also done is prepared a zoning commitment for the review of the Plan Commission, which indicates that my client is not interested in multi-family dwelling. He stated if you look at your C-2 ordinance, I went down the C-2 ordinance and looked at everything that was objectionable, we are talking about office building, professional building and so basically we don’t need auto repair, mini-warehouses and we don’t need a filling station. He stated we are willing to make that commitment also. He stated I have Jeff Vale who is with Milo Vale and Company.

Jeff Vale stated I am a commercial real estate appraiser in Merrillville but I do extensive appraisal work in Porter County. He stated part of what I am here to talk about is whether this commercial use would have a detrimental affect on the surrounding residential properties. He stated in my professional opinion, since they have committed through this zoning commitment not to do either gas stations or auto service or mini-warehouses I do not believe that commercial uses as limited as such by that and also the C-2 zoning would have a detrimental affect on the surrounding properties. He stated the C-2 zoning itself also tends to limit the commercial uses to smaller as opposed to the large-scale type things. He stated I have considered this affect before on some rezonings and I think when you are talking basically offices and small commercial uses that are somewhat limited I do not believe there is any affect on value.

Mr. Anderson stated you all know that when you are considering this petition under State Statute 3674603 there are five different things. He stated one is the Comprehensive Plan. He stated my understanding of the Comprehensive Plan for this area for you is Neighborhood Commercial and mixed uses. He stated “The current conditions and character of current structures and uses in each district” I think we have covered. He stated it is basically Calumet Avenue. He stated we are not going to build residences on Calumet Avenue, anymore. He stated R-
1 is not going to be a place where you are going to build a


house on Calumet Avenue. He stated number three “The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted.” He stated that again this land is adapted for commercial. He stated across the street in the City of Valparaiso it is adapted for commercial. He stated this can be annexed into the City of Valparaiso and be commercial. He stated number four is “The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction.” He stated Jeff Vale has talked about that. He stated number five is “Responsible development and growth.” He stated one of the things I think we need to point out here is that you talk a little bit or we talk a lot about urban sprawl and how we keep going out and taking more land and taking more land. He asked what are we doing here. He stated we are taking a piece of unused land that has sat there, sat there and sat there, which whose highest and best use is commercial and we are now proposing to you that you make it commercial. He stated when we talk about urban sprawl this is the opposite. He stated this is something that we are utilizing land, which is already in the compass of development. He stated we have also gone the extra steps with regards to confirming the engineering here. He stated we believe this project is a responsible development and growth. He stated it buffers the multi-family, the duplexes and the residences. He stated it places restriction on uses and the developer is a known in this area. He stated he has done a good job on anything he has built so far and he has projects in Porter County to show that. He stated what we are asking for tonight is a positive recommendation by the Plan Commission to the Board of Commissioners.

Bob Wright stated I am a Broker with Jack White Realty and I have been there for some thirty some years. He stated, as most of you probably know Jack White is out of commission now. He stated he has a problem and he is in a hospital in Chicago. He stated before that happened his intention was to get the area together because there has been at least one that I know of zoning change denied and it was for much rougher stuff. He stated but he was going to get the people in the subdivision together and show them what was going to go in there or at least what he was anticipating and he is for it. He stated Mr. White lives immediately behind this right on the west line of that property. He stated that is why he is here tonight to let


you know why Mr. White is not here.

Tom Kruse stated I live at 1205 Cross Creek Road in Valparaiso. He stated I am the President of the Ridge Wood Creek Property Owners Association. He stated I am going to speak for quite a few of the people who are here. He asked the people who live there to please raise their hands. He stated commercial property will involve parking lots. He stated parking lots will involve a lot of fast water runoff. He stated granted there is a wetland there and a whole lot of land around it that mitigates the water runoff into this wetland. He stated it is not going to mitigate it with a bunch of asphalt all over it. He stated this thing floods on a pretty regular basis. He stated the basic property is nothing more than a bog throughout pretty much. He stated putting commercial property there is going to nothing but exacerbate the situation and create more of a flooding issue in the wetlands that are right behind it. He stated we fear that we are going to have residents that are going to have water in their houses. He stated we also fear that our tennis courts will become swimming pools and we just don’t feel building there is a good idea. He stated granted it is not being used for R-1 but there is nothing on God’s green earth that says that every piece of land in the world has to be developed. He stated I also have petitions signed by the other people. He stated a lot of the people are here and some that are not here that are against this that number 50. He stated we are all against this. He stated it is just not the right thing to do. He stated we also have a letter from Bonar who is an engineering firm here in Valparaiso and it quotes in their letter that says, “The SWMS should strictly control and regulate the runoff for excessive rainfall events.” He stated last week we had six inches of rain. He stated we had excessive rainfall. He stated the letter also says, “The area for the runoff release will be very sensitive since the downstream VLACD watershed is nearing or exceeding conveyance/storage capacity.” He stated it would seem foolish to me to destroy some more wetlands and tax the Lake Area Conservancy Districts watershed more than it already is. He stated it doesn’t make very good sense and I think we should just leave it the way it is.

Ken Miller stated I live at 3730 Chimney Hill Dr., Valparaiso. He stated I would like to refer to the Porter


County Land Use Plan as it pertains to the zone in question. He stated we have all been here before and spoke
on these same issues four years ago in April of 2000. He stated basically the land is physically been the same throughout that time probably for forty or fifty years before that. He stated it is a wetland area and maybe larger than what they are indicating adjoining Bullseye Lake Road. He stated I think we can directly correlate some of the proposed zonings in long term planning and the development goals the county describe in the Land Use Plan. He stated from the beginning the plan on page 8 speaks to Porter County strengths like biodiversity and to its threats like urban sprawl. He stated this zoning change involves both of these references. He stated in matter of fact the zoning would decrease the biodiversity in the area and it would increase urban sprawl. He stated the proponent over here said that this was the opposite of urban sprawl but I would say this is the exact definition of urban sprawl. He stated the Land Use Plan on page 50 discusses a mixture of uses extending from the urban area. He stated the plan expressly discourages residential and commercial strip development along county roads. He stated the plan does not foresee building over lowlands because the land can be had for a price. He stated the plan does foresee green space, wetlands and low-density development between areas of commercial concentration. He stated these nodes of commercial activity, according to the plan, should be located at major arterial intersections like Rt. 49 and I-94 or Rt. 6 to the north. He stated between the major commercial nodes the plan discourages status quo development. He stated the status quo would say “lets continue building where we left off at Bullseye Lake Road.” He stated in a heel to toe fashion and continued northward or southward filling in all the available space. He stated the Land Use Plan discourages this old way of plan and recommends a transition from the urban fringe to conservation areas where low-density residential property can exist. He stated a modify status quo plan speaks against this current proposal, page 65 of the Land Use Plan. He stated Calumet Avenue near Bullseye Lake Road is already been measured and determined to be a congested traffic area. He stated there is a pretty good study done and the data tabulated in the Land Use Plan that show it is a congested traffic area, page 96. He stated according to the plan it is currently operating at about 125% of maximum


traffic capacity. He stated the area is considered to be at 135% of the recommended traffic flow for the area. He
stated it is one of the heavily congested areas in the county. He stated the Land Use Plan does not envision adding to this problem through further commercial concentration but speaks to alleviate the congestion by improving Vale Park Road and limiting commercial development to specific nodes of activity. He stated this is not one of those specific nodes of activity. He stated to the south perhaps, to the north to future arterials yes, but not here. He stated that is on page 75 of the plan. He stated the County Plan Commission has done a good job it seems to me instituting many of the planning concepts that are represented in the Land Use Plan. He stated I think the Plan Commission in past years has been very reluctant to rezone wetlands in adjacent properties from R-1 up. He stated it may be the highest use of the land but it certainly is not the best use of the land. He stated the best use of the land right now is green space. He stated it is designed for it because it is sitting under water. He stated it is home to waterfowl. He stated it is an almost perfect preserved area separating very low density uses right now. He stated if you continue in the heel to toe fashion you have defined urban sprawl and that is what this would be. He stated we are definitely opposed to that.

Bernard Hillila stated I live at 3715 Chimney Hill Drive. He stated I am a resident in Garden Homes Association, which is adjoining the area that we are discussing this evening. He stated a number of us are here to oppose the change. He stated this matter came up some years ago that has been indicated and at that time felt to be proper. He stated we feel even more strongly about that at this later date. He stated the trend in our area to provide more green space. He stated we seem to be going in the other direction. He stated I applaud the presenter, the advocate for the plan, for being conscious of this and sweetening the picture for us by consideration of the percentage of green area and so on. He stated still with parking lots and with business buildings we are going in the opposite direction. He stated secondly we have a concern that some of the inhabitants will as the engineering report indicated possibly are impacted very badly by such a change. He stated we ask that it not be permitted.

Richard Manago stated I live at 3904 Wildwood Road. He stated we live in this house behind the Dish Restaurant. He stated we used to own this property. He stated this water drainage runs right through our back yard on its way down to Flint Lake. He stated I can seriously say the biggest mistake that I let happen to our family property is to allow this to be built. He stated they changed the elevation of it from the original plan and now when you look out the window you see the hill going up to the building. He stated there are lights, garbage removal that they do at 3:30 in the morning. He stated we are concerned about the drainage. He stated most of the top water from here goes right down through that area.

Bob Jacobs stated I live at 3806 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated I had to replace my sump pump several times since I have lived there because it runs constantly. He stated the water table here is so high that a modest little one-inch rain will flood clear up to our back porch. He stated I can imagine that with paving most of this area and directing all of that water down in here that it could get a lot worse. He stated my problem is that this property has been zoned residential for a long time. He stated it was zoned that when we bought here. He stated if the developer bought it as residential then I think he should use it as residential and not try to shove 20,000 feet of commercial space into that small space. He stated I hope you will deny that proposal.

Kevin Sessna stated I live at 3602 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated as you can see this parcel of land narrows. He stated my home is right there. He stated this green area here and all of these trees filter out light and sound very well in the summer. He stated when there are no leaves on the trees in the winter you can hear the road and you can hear what is happening across the way. He stated in the winter that is usually not a problem because the windows are closed. He stated in the summer that is going to be an issue there. He stated as you can see that is a very small area. He stated I don’t know what that would measure. He stated I would be opposed of them building anything in there and taking away any of those trees. He stated we also have a path that goes around. He stated families use that, children use that and if you build a commercial area here that is going to affect the recreational use of that


area there.

Charlie Bowman stated I live at 3724 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated a few of us think there is a far better use for this property then what is proposed. He stated look at Chicago and look what they did around the lake. He stated they preserved all of that property and put in millions of dollars per square inch. He stated I would like for us to consider that. He stated I think the two principal problems that I see is noise and pollution. He stated there is no question about that. He stated we do a lot of talking about east and south and west and north. He stated I would like to see an attractive entrance to Valparaiso on this property. He stated it could be landscaped very reasonably and showing our educational institutions and all of those kinds of programs that Valparaiso is really up there and we all like it for that reason.

Jane Shotton stated I live at 3810 Chimney Hill Dr. She stated I just wanted to bring some reality to this because I think that the picture is deceiving. She stated when we came in last time and talked about the drainage. She stated when this picture was taken the drainage comes straight down and back through here as the gentleman mentioned. She stated that is in my backyard through the trees after a rain. She stated this is such a small area for a building with parking for seventy-five. She stated I just want to know where is it going to go and why would we squeeze in wetlands in between concrete buildings and parking lots.

Dominic Damato stated I live at 3701 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated I would like them to explain to us what he is going to do with the water drainage when it is an asphalt parking lot. He stated you can’t walk behind the wetland there and further on without sinking in the lawn. He stated the water is approximately 11-inches below the surface. He stated when it rains real hard a lot of people back there can’t walk in their backyards. He asked where is this water going to go. He asked what is going to happen to it. He stated they couldn’t explain last time they were here.

Tom Shotton stated I live at 3810 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated all you have to do is go a quarter of a mile north


of us in County Seat there are how many vacant commercial buildings there and we are going to build more commercial buildings. He stated I don’t understand with all the vacant buildings in County Seat why people can’t use that. He stated why cover up the green space.

Elaine Sievers stated I live at 3701 Chimney Hill Dr. She stated when all of us bought in this subdivision or when this was developed this property was wetlands and could not be challenged or changed. She stated now the law has changed and apparently we can take wetlands and build on it and dedicate it elsewhere. She stated this has impacted on all of us that live in that subdivision. She stated I may only be five houses away and I am in the single-family section but it does have affect on the value of our property and the value of the subdivision. She stated we have to go by and look at this. She stated she lies in bed at night and hears Buddy and Pals music and I’ve listened to Bin-Willy’s bouncing through the subdivision. She stated we don’t need any more and we like the buffer that we have. She stated there are wetlands flagged on this map and the statement was made that they weren’t going to impact on that. She stated you can’t flags and say this is wetland and draw everything around it and build around it. She stated it is a full area that is encompassing a wetland area. She stated I ask that you in your rezoning know that if you go to commercial use that we are going to loose all of the wetland.

Walt Hettinger stated I don’t live any where close to this parcel. He stated I live at 608 Academy. He stated I think the highest and best use of this property is to leave it alone as a swamp or as a wetland. He stated I happen to be the President of the Valparaiso Chain of Lakes Watershed Group. He stated our mission is to protect Flint Lake and the surrounding watershed. He stated the last thing we need is more impervious surface whether it be from this parcel or the proposed one across the street. He stated we can get plenty of concrete, plenty roofs, plenty of basketball, parking lots, roads and all the water that washes off those roads picks up gasoline and oil and salt and all of that stuff it eventually washes into Flint Lake. He stated it is also going to pick up pesticides, herbicides and everything else that there is on that property. He stated I don’t know how many of you walked the property or stepped


down from SR 49 you really drop down. He stated I don’t know how many inches it is. He stated my guess is that it is over a foot just as you enter the property. He stated I know that there are some delineated wetlands over in one corner of one side of it. He stated there are cattails covering that whole area. He stated the cattails are maybe 7 feet tall. He stated right in the middle of that property there is a lot of other vegetation. He stated I get the impression that there is quite a bit of water on this property most of the time. He stated I think that the property should be left alone.

Mr. Poparad asked you are the President of the Chain of Lakes Valparaiso Conservancy District.

Mr. Breitzke stated no. He stated lets make this clear. He stated he is with Valparaiso Chain of Lakes Watershed Group a not for profit. He stated his mission is to protect the water quality.

Mr. Hettinger stated however, they notified me about this meeting and I recognized that they submitted a letter stating that they could provide sewer and water. He stated when one of their Board members called me they were concerned about drainage.

Mr. Poparad stated this letter signifies that they are going to grant them sewer and water or they have the capacity.

Mr. Breitzke stated they have the capacity.

Mr. Poparad stated do they have a commitment from Valpo.

Mr. Breitzke stated they are a public utility. He stated I don’t know if they necessarily have a choice if someone requests it.

Tim Cole stated I live at 845 N. Calumet, Liberty Township. He stated I don’t live anywhere near this. He stated I don’t think it takes an education for a person to drive past there as I have for the past 60 years and look out there and say that this is a wetland. He stated I also look at this plan and say if you had to build here that is


probably the best thing you could do but like it was said do we have to build. He stated some properties are not meant to be built on. He stated like the gentleman said, it sat there for a long time unused and there must have been a good reason for that. He stated another thing a good engineering friend of mine a very well respected engineering friend of mine who is now retired has always told me that water always wins. He stated some of you who are living in those homes in that subdivision directly to the west of it I have often wonder how soon you are going to experience wet basements. He stated they can only hold water back for so long. He stated there is a significant geological feature called Bullseye Lake down there somewhere. He stated it has been disrespected by just about everybody in the area and now there is just clumps of dirt and debris surrounding it. He stated it used to be a very thick little lake and very significant lake in the way that it must have been formed by the classier at one time. He stated it is also a good visual reference of just how high that water table is. He stated there is no water entering that from a stream or from a visible spring. He stated that is the water table and that is how high it is. He stated if you have an average basement it would probably come up to your basement floor and maybe higher. He stated I just thought I would point out that water wins and a good example of that is the intersection of CR 900 N. and Meridian Road. He stated I think that the Planning Commission and some of the engineers that are involved in the county business are well aware of the wet situation that intersection that have not been solved and may never be solved.

Jason Gilliana stated I live at 3808 Chimney Hill Dr. He stated I just want to attest to the fact of the amount the sump pumps do work even now and even when we don’t have the rains. He stated I am all for development and things of that nature but once again a quarter of a mile down the road with all the vacancies it just doesn’t make sense to rezone lands that aren’t meant for it. He stated I am against this.

Commissioner Harper stated somebody mentioned that there was a PUD that was recently been approved. He asked where is that.



Mr. Jacobs stated right across the street there has been some sort of commercial development approved.

Commissioner Harper asked if it abuts this piece of property.

Mr. Jacobs stated no. He stated it is across the street on Calumet.

Mr. Anderson stated lets start by going back through the plan a little bit. He stated the drainage calculations go through the Plan Commission again. He stated we are not here for drainage tonight. He stated we are here under 603. He stated I have to meet the drainage requirements at the time that we come back to the Plan Commission. He stated I have showed you we can do it now because I have over twice the amount of acreage feet calculated in the pond already. He stated I know drainage is an issue in this area. He stated there is no question about it. He stated I heard about the fact that the wetlands are going to disappear. He stated well the wetlands are not going to disappear. He stated the wetlands are where the wetlands are and I have told you and made the statement. He stated we are not mitigating wetlands. He stated we are leaving them alone because the wetlands are creating a nice buffer. He stated a lot of the people who spoke who have the residences lets look at the picture again. He stated where Mr. Jacob and Mr. Gilliana live. He stated they are in here. He stated I think that the lady who showed you the water is in here. He stated basically look at my plan again. He stated the plan that I proposed has the pond and detention area. He stated we are buffering all that. He stated that is the whole point of this. He stated you talk about going down to the County Seat. He asked are we going to tear down the County Seat and then rebuild it as commercial and business and professional.

At this time, a number of the people in the audience stated yes.

Mr. Anderson stated lets get back to what we are talking about under your State Statute. He stated I have tried to help you with expanding so you could see where I was going in the future so you wouldn’t have to worry about the fact the I will prove to you that the drainage will


work or you are going to deny it. He stated that is what your Subdivision Ordinance says. He stated that is what your lawyer will tell you. He stated basically we are here number one, is the Comprehensive Plan, which I think we fit into. He stated number two is the current conditions and character of current structures and uses in each district. He stated we have talked about the fact. He stated the City of Valpo, when I talked with Christine Owens this morning, has already approved this site for commercial. He stated they are going through now for the specific planning of it. He stated basically this is C-2 commercial and you already know that this is C-2 commercial. He stated granted the land has adapted to stay green space forever. He stated I totally agree with that. He stated this is not the issue here. He stated everybody has the right to develop his or her land. He stated you as Plan Commission members have the right for responsible development and growth. He stated we came to you with a plan that is responsible development and growth and what do we hear, we hear about the fact of drainage, which basically the second drainage was Bonar. He stated Bonar is the engineer for the Valparaiso Lakes Conservancy District. He stated they are going to review this. He stated if I don’t get their approval with regards to the drainage plan then this plan doesn’t fly anyway. He stated with regards to the height of Bullseye Lake, I hope you all know that the water is flowing this way. He stated of course we have the guy who sold to the Dish Restaurant who now has their…I don’t know what you did for their detention but I am telling you we have the detention to do it. He stated we have two plus times. He stated we have talked about the fact that the wetlands are not affected. He stated we have Jeff Vale indicating that you are not going to put residences up here. He stated sure you can leave it and say it is green space. He stated they can control somebody else’s land. He stated that is fine but that is not the way it is done. He stated you are supposed to be looking at in terms of what is best. He stated you are also supposed to be looking for responsible development and growth with regards to bringing tax and revenue to this. He stated this is not urban sprawl to fill in an area that has already been developed. He stated urban sprawl is to go out there at the corner of Froberg Road. He stated that is urban sprawl. He stated this is filling in an area that should have been done. He stated basically we fill that this is a


good plan for this and yes there might be fewer deer that come through here but basically there is an owner of this and they have the right to develop it as long as we followed the rules.

Mr. Mahnic asked could you show where the high line goes through.

Mr. Anderson stated it goes over the tennis court.

Mr. Mahnic stated it goes between a bunch of houses in the other subdivision and then there is a pond in that subdivision.

Mr. Anderson stated there is a pond in that subdivision.

Mr. Mahnic stated it is southwest of the tennis court and that drains that subdivision and that is the City of Valparaiso.

Mr. Anderson stated no this is the only area that is not the City of Valpo. He stated this is like an island. He stated this is the City of Valparaiso out here and this is the subdivision where most of the residences live right here and this is the piece in question.

Mr. Miller stated the petitioner said a number of times he wasn’t going to be mitigating any wetlands. He stated if he would indicate on his plat there where he sees the wetlands ending and dry land beginning I would like to know because everything there is a wetland. He stated if wetlands are defined and I think Mr. Breitzke can check me if I am right here it is where the ground water is up to six inches below ground level. He stated we have standing water throughout that entire area and so if he is saying they are leaving the wetlands alone then they are leaving the whole thing alone and I am a happy guy. He stated I don’t see that though.

Mr. Manago stated we have lived at that property for forty years and my family has been there for seventy years. He stated we just got this notice in the mail on Saturday and there was no attached plan to it. He stated I was just wondering what the protocol was at for notifying the


residents on what is going on. He stated I didn’t even see the plan of this thing until I got here tonight.

Mr. Breitzke stated simply that is all they have to do is put you on notice that there is a public meeting tonight. He stated they are not required to send out plans. He stated you could request them and usually they will send them on request but I can’t speak for the developer. He stated I just want you to be aware that there is a protocol that has been followed and currently tonight we will be making a recommendation to the County Commissioners. He stated they ultimately make the decision and the legal commitments for all rezones. He stated there will be another hearing at the County Commissioner level after this.

Mr. Manago stated they were talking about the buffer zone that is on the west side of the development. He asked what about the north side. He stated what I saw there was parking lots.

Mr. Damato stated I sit on the Board of the Garden Homes and it was mentioned that Jack White was going to call a meeting and explain the whole situation. He stated that was never brought up at our Board.

Mr. Gilliana asked what is the different usage between what is going at County Seat as compared to what they have going on here. He asked why do they think that they are going to build as compared to those stores being left empty at this time.

Mr. Jacobs stated I am definitely an advocate for developing or the property’s right to develop. He stated I also think that if a property is zoned for a particular use when you buy it you should have the intention to use it for that purpose. He stated this property has been zoned R-1 when the preceding owner bought it and perhaps the succeeding owner. He stated it should be developed as residential. He stated that is what it is zoned and that is what it should be used for.

Mr. Sessna stated I don’t think he addressed the security issue of kids walking along the path.



Ms. Siever asked what kind of uses would be allowed under the category that is being considered if two, five or ten years down the road the current plan doesn’t prove to be economically feasible. She asked what other types of things are we going to be seeing and feeling that fall under the category that you are asking to rezone.

Ms. Shotton stated I would like them to explain the third building over behind all of these people that is crammed right in there. She stated I want to know if they have walked that part where that third building is going to be.

Mr. Hettinger stated I would just like to point out that the water that is going to run off from the parking lots are going to run off untreated from the parking lots into Flint Lake. He stated there are little children that swim on the south side of Flint Lake and several other beaches. He asked the petitioner if he would like his children or grandchildren swimming in the run off from the parking lots from this development.

A gentleman asked who owns Flint Lake. He asked if it is county property or city property.

Mr. Anderson stated with regards to the notice to the Garden Homes Elaine Siever got a copy of this drawing the day I filed this petition. He stated if the rest of the people in that subdivision didn’t see it I can’t help it but I know they have one floating around back there and they have had it for two weeks. He stated this isn’t something that I brought up tonight. He stated drainage again will be taken care of at the time of the subdivision level. He stated when Mr. Jacobs says that residential development is going here I don’t think he honestly in his heart can believe that he can sell any house that is located along Calumet Avenue. He stated this is not residential property anymore. He stated we all know that. He stated across the street is not residential. He stated nobody is going to…you talk about people arguing about the fact that they are on a private road. He asked what do you think that they are going to say about it when they have their driveway for their residents on this. He stated with regards to the wetland designation either you believe what engineers tell you or you don’t. He stated this drawing a


site and drainage plan, was taken from the survey that was done by Bill Arden from McMann and Associates where they went out and designated the wetland. He stated it has been done by the engineers who are the professionals in this area. He stated we are not going into the wetlands. He stated this isn’t the only time. He stated what we are talking about tonight is land use. He stated we are talking about what kind of land use is the best land use for this area. He asked what is responsible development and growth. He stated responsible development and growth is not leaving this as residential. He stated maybe residential is great for everybody that is out there because what does it say, “I get to control my neighbors property without buying it.” He stated that is not the intent of the zoning ordinance. He stated to say to them is, “Okay you don’t have to buy it. You can just say you don’t want anything there and it is okay.” He stated that is not the right answer here. He stated the right answer is I think that we have done a good job of buffering more than anybody I think would do. He stated you can mitigate wetlands in the same water shed. He stated you all know that up there. He stated you can take this wetland completely out of there and as long as it is in the same watershed you can move it down the street to a less desirable place. He stated we are not even doing that. He stated I think that we have gone over backwards and pass the extra mile with regards to zoning to show you that this plan works. He stated for them to say we want to leave it like it is, well fine but that is not a fair answer. He stated somebody owns this property and they have the right to utilize it also.

Mr. Gilliana stated I still want to know why they think that they are going to be able to rent this property out when we have so many vacant properties to the south. He asked do they have residents in there already or are we going to have more vacant buildings sitting there. He stated Mr. Vale would definitely know vacant buildings would sure be a detriment to the surrounding area.

Mr. Demato asked what are the office buildings by the Dish. He asked how many of those are occupied.

Mrs. Manago asked why do they think it is necessary to tear down the County Seat.


Mrs. Shotton stated I just want to clarify that my concern is not what we do with the County Seat but that this is definitely wet property. She stated it is wetlands and so small. She stated he keeps talking about the best use of this land. She stated they are squeezing something in there that doesn’t belong in there and it is not designed to be built on.

Mr. Anderson stated lets go back to the percentages that I gave you on 55.49% is green space. He stated that is not squeezing a project when you are more than 50%. He stated then you take away my pond because that is what you talked about last night as far as ponds that are wet should not be considered. He stated I am at 40%. He stated I don’t think I am squeezing anything in here. He stated lets go back to the fact that this is a five-acre site. He stated this isn’t a little one-acre site. He stated this is a parcel that is developable. He stated Grand Corporation who is buying this has been very successful in their development. He stated they are not going to build something that is going to have vacancies in it. He stated obviously, Mr. Coolman doesn’t think that there is no demand on that side of town because he is willing to go to the City of Valpo and build on that side the same thing.

The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to make a couple of comments. He stated if we aren’t here for the good of everybody out there, which I take as the citizens of our community, then what are we here for the good of. He stated one of the remonstrators talked about Bin Willy’s and I have driven down that street. He stated I think how sick it would be if I brought my family and bought a residential home in that area and had that bar put up across the street and I had to listen to that every night. He stated just that makes me sick. He stated it is happening all over this town and we all know that we can make money along Calumet Avenue. He stated the builders come again and again and again. He stated we don’t listen to the people out there. He stated I think of that Dish Restaurant. He stated these people buy in a residential area. He stated I am going to be against this but I am afraid that you will probably be annexed and they will keep pecking at it until they finally get you. He stated if you


don’t come out in arms and fight things like this and not just in your area. He stated they are not just going on in your area. He stated you should’ve been here when they were on Froberg Road and had the commercial across from the brick house that the people just came out from Valpo and bought. He stated they needed you here. He stated you better get involved in your community cause this is happening to everybody. He stated I think we represent the people and if you buy in that area and that is zoned residential and you see it is a wetland I think there is some expectation that it is either going to be residential or not used. He stated I think they are going to cramp commercial and the traffic is going to get bad. He stated I am against this. He stated another thing is we have this letter from Blachly, Tabor, Bozik and Hartman and apparently it says that the Conservancy District needs to improve the site plan. He stated the letter says that. He asked Mr. Breitzke if that is correct.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Commissioner Harper stated basically it says that they can’t conform. At this time, Commissioner Harper read the letter. This letter is in the rezone file. He stated there are a lot of wetlands here and there is some drainage problems but on top of this all there are these people who are living right there. He stated we run into this problem. He stated we put in commercial and then they have the bright lights on the back and the people are trying to live there.

Mr. Detert stated I had this underlined on the same letter that you brought up Bob where it said the Board was skeptical of their ability to satisfactorily resolving those drainage concerns. He stated let me go to another letter that I have and I don’t know if the rest of you have it or not but it is from Bonar Group who did the engineering report back to the Valparaiso Conservancy District. He stated I have underlined here, “Area for runoff release will be very sensitive. The downstream VLACD watershed is nearing or exceeding conveyance/storage capacity.” He stated I don’t see the pressing need here to take this particular piece of property, which obviously has serious drainage problems and convert it to a business type operation. He stated Mr. Anderson with all due respect you


said your client should have the right to use this land. He stated he does have that right and if you were before us with an R-1 zoning proposal we would have to hear it because that is what the property is zoned. He stated I don’t see any pressing need to change the zoning to C-2 when we have these problems. He stated there is plenty of area in Valparaiso, which can be developed in the Valparaiso area that can be developed that, is already zoned properly. He stated I don’t see the hardship here or the need to take a questionable piece of property like this without knowing what the drainage is going to be. He stated I do understand that you don’t have to have that before us but to me it is very questionable. He stated everybody says so. He stated the engineer says so, the conservancy district says so. He stated it just doesn’t make any sense to me to upgrade this to a business.

Mr. Anderson stated with regards to the Valparaiso Lakes Conservancy District they have never seen that plan. He stated those letters are dated in June because I started with the fact of saying do we have the ability of getting sewers and water and that was the letter that came back.

Mr. Detert asked had they approved that plan.

Mr. Anderson stated they never seen it. He stated first we don’t do drainage until after we do zoning. He stated this isn’t about a hardship case. He stated this is about responsible development and growth along Calumet.

Mr. Detert stated that is your opinion sir.

Mr. Anderson stated my opinion and Mr. Vale’s opinion is that R-1 is not what supposed to be along Calumet.

Mr. Detert stated my opinion is the best use of the land would be to leave it at its present zoning.

Mr. Poparad asked do you have a Corps of Engineers report on the wetlands. He asked if this was delineated and does the Corp do that.

Mr. Anderson stated the Corps does not do delineations of wetlands. He stated the Corps does mitigation of wetlands.


Mr. Poparad asked if there are wetland maps in the office out on SR 2.

Mr. Breitzke stated they have a general one. He stated when we do specific sites we require that the developer delineates the wetlands in which case I assume you hired a Soil Scientist because you marked out some of them and that would be one of our questions. He stated we have not reviewed this at TAC.

Mr. Anderson stated this is an isolated wetland so you are not going to have a map of the Army Corps of Engineers with every isolated wetland in any county.

Mr. Breitzke stated Krull and Sons out of Hobart did this and not McMahon.

Mr. Anderson stated McMahon did the survey in which that site and drainage plan is taken from. He stated the delineation was taken off the cad system of McMahon.

Mr. Poparad asked what is the outfall of the pond.

Mr. Anderson stated it is right here.

Mr. Poparad asked where does that go from there.

Mr. Anderson stated basically that is going to go the way the normal drainage goes. He stated we’ve taken two times the number of drainage that is currently going through this site and put it in here. He stated we are actually helping the neighbors.

Mr. Poparad asked if this is going to have a wet bottom or a dry bottom.

Mr. Anderson stated it will have a wet bottom.

Mr. Mahnic stated I happen to agree with the developer that this is good use of this piece of land. He stated I am familiar with this area and I got to look at it this way. He stated when the Dish came here for a rezone and the property to the north we allowed it. He asked why is this so different than that. He stated the Dish and the property on the corner also had neighbors and we worked


around that. He stated they have received the rezone to put their property in. He stated now all of a sudden here we are going to yield under the pressure of a bunch of people and say, “I will tell you how to develop your land.” He stated I have to agree with you. He stated this land belongs to someone who wants to develop it. He stated the best use of this land is not for an R-1. He stated you can only get about five houses in there. He stated the best use of this land is to do what they have here to the north and what you will have on the east side of Calumet Avenue, which I believe will be basically a C-1. He stated you have C-1 by Country Club Road. He stated you have all of that in there. He stated the only thing I wouldn’t want to see in here are apartments. He stated according to one of the letters I seen that is a possibility. He stated I feel that if this is going to be office space and you have to build office space to what you are going to put in there. He stated you just don’t go down to some empty building and redo this because that costs a lot of money. He stated I think that this is a good use of this provided the drainage is resolved and approved by the Conservancy District and the city water and city sewer is there. He stated I think that in a short time not only this but the Dish and the subdivision across on CR 500 N. is going to be part of Valpo.

Mr. Anderson stated the zoning commitment excludes multi-family.

Mr. Poparad stated directly across SR 49 is the City of Valpo.

Mr. Breitzke stated correct.

Mr. Poparad stated one of my fears here is we rezone this then Valpo annexes it and now it is a whole new different set of rules for these people. He stated I think everyone knows that this is going to be annexed by Valpo. He stated I don’t know why the petitioner doesn’t go to the City of Valpo and be annexed. He stated we are going to make the hard decision and we are going to be the bad guys here. He stated if we rezone this and Valpo takes over and they have a different set of rules these people are going to burn us at the stake.



Mr. Anderson stated the zoning commitments stays with the property and it runs with the land and any restrictions that we put on.

Mr. Poparad stated their C-2 might be different than our C-2. He stated I don’t know what Valpo’s C-2 looks like.

Mr. Anderson stated any use that we don’t put in there and exclude will stay out of there.

Attorney Schaefer stated it will be grandfathered. She stated in other words if they are annexed the City can’t retroactively change what we have done here.

Mr. Breitzke stated additionally there are some agreements that I am not totally familiar with that VLACD encompassed areas will be not be annexed but of course that could change at any time. He stated my understanding is that this will not be annexed in the near future.

Mr. Detert stated we have a petitioner here who wants to rezone this to commercial. He stated we have people here who are telling us about the water problems. He stated don’t we have enough water problems in Porter County that we have to rezone questionable land to a business zoning. He stated this thing is getting completely out of hand with the water problems.

Mr. Bucko stated I was reading the Bonar letter and some of the stipulations that they made in there. He stated this gentleman, I believe, said that this was the engineering group that does all the work for the Lakes Conservancy Group and they are the ones who are going to define the drainage and everything else that would be approved by the VLACD. He asked are they the group that does that.

Mr. Anderson stated yes.

Mr. Bucko stated I was reading the points that they made in their letter and they talked about the current drainage as being a serious problem. He stated they make a suggestion that basically the water that drains through the property runs undetained. He stated then in the next


sentence they say that the storm water management should regulate the water and runoff. He stated that was contradicting themselves in less than two sentences. He stated then it goes on to say that it is nearing and or exceeding storage capacity. He stated it seems to me that they might know, since they are the group that does what they do for that conservancy district, whether or not it is exceeding. He stated then there is a letter from BTBH that says that there is capacity. He stated there is a discrepancy there for me. He stated you are developing more to the easterly side, which makes sense to me. He stated you are showing the parking spaces and the parking spaces over at the north end there is nothing to say that some of that parking can’t be eliminated to lessen the impact on the wetlands to the west of the buildings. He stated I image the parking area is designed the way it is to give you maximum usage of the building depending on what you want in those buildings. He stated you could possibly eliminate some of those parking areas. He stated that would help to reduce the impact to the west as defined in the letter from the Bonar Group. He stated it says that the westerly edge of development should definitely be discouraged and it seems that you are trying to do that. He stated also it should be maximized in the green space. He stated I am not so sure maximizing green space is this small 10500 square foot building. He stated I have concerns about this. He stated there is a piece of property here that I understand has been controversial. He stated they have tried to put different things on there. He asked have they been more or less of an impact on the wetlands. He stated, as I understand it there were storage sheds proposed for this area. He asked did this have a lesser or greater impact of what is proposed here today. He stated there are a lot of things hanging out here for me to say yes or absolutely no.

Mr. Biddinger stated he does have a few things that he would like to talk about. He stated sometimes terminology just bothers me and this is just a clarification. He stated the words delineate and mitigate have been thrown around quite a bit. He stated just for clarification delineate is the practice of going out and finding the edges of wetlands. He stated mitigation is actually physically destroying a wetland and then recreating another wetland to take its place in another location. He stated two very


different practices. He stated I have mixed feelings on this. He stated I have a feeling for how wet the property is. He stated I haven’t walked the property. He stated I have been by there a number of times. He stated looking at the aerial maps you can see a good idea of what type of plant life is there and get kind of a scope for how wet that property is based on the density and type of plant life. He stated I think water is going to be a problem here. He asked if it is a stopping problem. He stated I am not sure. He stated that is for another time and another group. He stated I totally agree with the fact that residential is probably not the best thing to put on Calumet. He stated commercial development is probably a better use of the property. He stated highest and best use, I don’t know. He stated to say that undevelopment is the highest and best use; to me for a farm field the highest and best use is to leave it as a farm field and use it for agricultural purposes. He stated that is my opinion and that is my background. He stated one thing that we definitely have is a number of stopping points. He stated if this property does not get rezoned this project stops. He stated if they do not get approval from another group for the wastewater treatment the project stops. He stated if the drainage at the primary plat approval cannot be overcome the project stops. He stated we have a number of significant barriers excluding getting this property rezoned that can stop this project. He stated I am skeptical about overcoming the water and the drainage problems on this. He asked is this possible? He stated maybe it is. He stated I have a couple of notes here where we talk about a couple cases where several people mention high value and appearances upon the entrance of a major thoroughfare of Valparaiso. He stated I’m always one of those people who’s not afraid to try something new or suggest something new. He stated often in cases like this where everybody talks about permeable surfaces I scratch my head and wonder why does a parking lot have to be 100% impermeable. He asked why can’t it be like the GM parking lot up in Detroit, Michigan that has 50% permeability. He stated it is basically open pavers that allow water absorption. He asked why can’t we try something like that in a commercial development. He stated we would get more absorption down and it would totally change the runoff values off the parking lot. He stated it is something that I have never seen. He stated think that there might be some


novel solution to this development to help redo some of the runoff and some of the water issues. He stated one other thing the drainage pond is actually higher in elevation according to the map than the wetland. He asked does that mean more water and does that mean the wetland is going to flood out. He stated I don’t know and I don’t have the answer to that. He stated if you start to pour more and more water into a wetland what do you get. He stated another pond. He stated basically you flood out the vegetation. He stated these are all drainage issues and again that is not one of the criteria that we are to decide on tonight. He stated I have some concerns but I am also optimistic that this could be a really creative solution to a very difficult piece of property to use.

Mr. Poparad asked who approves the drainage, us or VLACD.

Mr. Breitzke stated ultimately we will.

Mr. Detert asked how many places do we have in Porter County where we have drainage problems that went through on a developers say so that he was going to take care of where this is true.

Mr. Breitzke stated they are countless but let me say this. He stated they are historic too. He stated as Mr. Cole brought up one problem that is twenty or thirty years old that had nothing to do with the people on this Commission. He stated there are drainage problems. He stated the issue here tonight isn’t so much drainage. He stated the issue here tonight is growth and zoning and whether you believe, as a Commission, that you want to forward a recommendation to rezone this residential property into commercial property. He stated in view of the relationships with the neighbors, the adjoiners and with the overall growth plan, as you perceive for the county.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 04-Z-5 to the Board of Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation based on the adverse impact that it would have on the other residential area and it does not fit into




the type of growth in that area. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of a majority vote:

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

This case will be heard on October 13, 2004 with the public hearing closed.

Mr. Breitzke stated to the public that when the public hearing is closed this means that we will not entertain questions at the hearing. He stated if in the meantime you want to contact one of us individually hopefully we can help you answer your questions and get information.

Commissioner Harper stated a member of the Commission can recognize you to speak.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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