PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
October 27, 2004

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, October 27, 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, Rick Burns, Robert Detert, Frank Mahnic, Bob Poparad, Mike Sheetz and Kevin Breitzke. Those members absent were Commissioner Bob Harper. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson, Patricia S. Gibson, Fred Siminski and Attorney Lily Schaefer.

Mr. Mahnic moved to waive the reading of the October 13, 2004 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Bucko seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Pending Business:

Case 04-FP-16. Petition of Frank Mendez, 388 N. Sedley Road, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for the Replat of Lot 14 in Moreland Estates to be located on the West side of Sedley Road, between CR 325 N. and CR 400 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 10.57 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Don Bengel stated I am a surveyor and engineer here in Porter County. He stated I am representing Mr. and Mrs. Mendez on this replat of Lot 14. He stated this does conform with the approval that we received with the primary plat we received a month or so ago. He stated there are still two lots and there is no impact on that private road and everything is like it was.

Mr. Mahnic stated I think that there is an injustice done with the people who were not heard to tell their argument over the fact that they purchased lots there from the original developer and they were told it cannot be subdivided. He stated the fortunate part for the developer and for the new owner who is relatively new there takes advantage of the bylaws and gets himself a good attorney, gets the bylaws changed to his advantage. He stated I will vote against this issue as I did for the primary even though I know it is a loosing cause.

Mr. Biddinger moved to approve Case 04-FP-16 for secondary plat. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the



following roll call vote:

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

Public Hearing:

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

Case 04-Z-6. Petition of ALMA Properties, LLC, 142 Regatta Court, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to R-2, Two Family Residential to be located at 1404 Robin Road, Valparaiso, Center Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Paul Nelson stated I live at 142 Regatta Court, Valparaiso, Indiana. He stated we are proposing to rezone an 80 by 100 lot located at 1404 Robin Road. He stated as you can see on the first drawing that I provided you to rezone the property from an R-1 to an R-2 to put either a townhouse or a duplex on it. He stated as you can see from the setbacks there is plenty of room to place that on the property as noted on the first drawing. He stated the second thing that I present to you is a proposed schematic of something that we are considering constructing if we would be approved. He stated it would be two three bedroom two or two and a half baths. He stated the third page I provided is a kind of a layout of the area. He stated on it shows where the proposed construction would be then where the current rental properties as you can see on the drawings, it is a mixture of rentals and residential properties in the neighborhood. He stated the green represents the ones that are rental properties. He stated the blue represent ones that are either residential or rental. He stated the fourth drawing is three properties in the neighborhood that we personally own and have considerably upgraded since we purchased them. He stated I would like to draw your attention to the top one. He stated that was a very run down piece of property about three or four years ago when we purchased it. He stated we upgraded it and these are the types of properties we like to do. He stated our purpose for going from a one-family to a two–family is looking at the economics of constructing particularly in today’s economics. He stated it is probably not worthwhile to construct a rental unit, a one family rental unit. He stated we thought it would much more economically advantageous to us to build a two-family on that piece of property.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.



Theresa Myrick stated I live at 1401 Whipporwill. She stated I have a question to ask about the order of things here. She asked are you able to approve this tonight if it doesn’t meet the square feet that it needs to maintain a duplex property or does that belong to another Board. She stated I want to know about drainage. She stated we don’t have any storm sewers or even any culverts that aren’t on private property. She stated the more houses that are built on this low lying area the more saturated the ground becomes and I don’t believe there is enough room on that property to absorb the runoff on the property itself without discharging it onto other properties. She stated I am concerned about my property and my neighbors. She stated also the fact of the mixture of rental property and private property. She stated there has been some changes in recent years although it has always been rental and it was more bungalows and many single story houses. She stated this has changed recently and not for the better in my opinion. She stated some of the rental houses are actually vacant. She stated the other thing is I know that there is property that is zoned for duplex and if a person wanted to have an economy of scale then he could choose to go to a place that is already zoned for duplexes. She stated her other problem is affordability of housing in Valparaiso. She stated Burlington Beach is one of the few neighborhoods in Valparaiso where a person with ordinary income could buy a lot and build a house or even rent a house under affordable circumstances. She stated I don’t think new duplexes are going to be affordable for somebody who works at a shoe store or Burger King. She stated my other thing that happens in rentals especially expensive rentals the neighborhood becomes transient and unstable. She stated you don’t know who is living next door to you from day to day. She stated the roads are private lanes and maintained by the property owners. She stated there is no shoulder for parking. She stated none of these rental places can accommodate the kind of parking that for instances a three bedroom two bathroom on each side duplex. She stated could you imagine how many cars could be there and if they have company there is no place to park those cars. She stated I object also to them taking over our neighborhood and changing the character of it.

Kathryn McKevitt stated I live at 1405 Whippoorwill. She stated my family is one of the original people out there. She stated they have been there since 1928. She stated originally there was just summer cottages out there and nobody lived there year around. She stated then about the late 1930’s people converted to year around homes. She stated we never did and we are still there just for the summer. She stated I have one of the biggest yards in the area now. She stated every vacant lot has been taken up. She stated I am sure if you rent to these people


and the building is put up those children will be playing in my yard and I am not there to supervise. She stated my yard is like the playground for the neighborhood. She stated there is no other open space around there and the kids want to play football in my yard and I am not there a lot of the time. She stated the whole nature of the neighborhood is being changed. She stated I agree with what the first person said about the drainage problems.

Clarence Schroeder stated I live at 1401 Robin Road. He stated I am opposed to this double modular going in there for a number of reasons. He stated there is not enough land for a double modular. He stated there is no runoff for the water and it all goes out to the road and it is all in front of me. He stated there were just two new homes put up east of me. He stated they took out all of the woods that were there. He stated if a university student rents it then they have parties and most generally they don’t care where they park. He stated I am very much opposed of this. He stated I am concerned about the drainage. He stated these two new homes that are east of me all their water or at least one of the homes and my next-door neighbor comes down on me. He stated my next-door neighbor and I put in a drain tile going across my property so we could drain from the road down. He stated then they come through and put a little 4-inch drain in there. He stated now we have water coming all the way from Cardinal Lane, which is a block away, and coming over onto Sumac Road and all of this water is coming down on Robin Road. He stated we went to a meeting for the Lakes Conservancy and I had some pictures. He stated the pictures showed the water running down and the mud. He stated my driveway was full of mud from the neighbor’s new homes going in there. He stated since they put in those new homes they took out all of the habitat. He stated I used to have canaries and finches out in the backyard. He stated now I have nothing.

Jim Whitcomb stated I live at 1307 Robin Road. He stated I can’t say too much more than what has already been said other than the fact that it is a private road and it is very narrow with one lane. He stated if there is a car coming at you, you either have to pull into someone’s yard or back into somebody’s driveway. He stated also you have to remember that everyone that is living on that road has to drive down Sumac in order to get down to CR 500. He stated Sumac is not that big of a road either. He stated there has been a lot of building going on in that area and there are a lot of little kids in that area and the only place they have to play is the road. He stated another aspect is the rental part of it because being that it is a private road and being that the neighbor’s have to maintain that road it is extremely if not even impossible to get a rental


property owner to kick in for anything for any type of repair that needs to be fixed. He stated we have already ran into this problem and of course they don’t live on the road and they don’t have to drive up and down that road so they don’t want to kick in. He stated the more rental property that is built it is going to be more difficult to get anything from them. He stated the construction that goes on there is absolutely no room for the construction workers to park while the construction is going on. He stated the road is probably built for maybe 10,000 pounds capacity to run up and down that road. He stated they are coming in there with 80,000-pound trucks and vehicles.

Jackie Whitcomb stated I have nothing to add to what Jim has already said.

Cary Andrew stated I live at 1304 Robin Road. He stated basically everything that everyone is saying is true. He stated they have a house next to me that is a rental property and the guy that rented it died and they are now trying to sell it and they can’t sell it because the biggest portion of the yard is ten foot. He stated the little neighbor kid new the people that lived there and said they could swim in the basement because there was so much water and nowhere for the water to go.

Ann Sandburg stated I live at 1310 Robin Road. She stated basically what all the neighbors are saying is true and she agrees with them. She stated I have a picture of the house that they are trying to sell. She stated it originally started out at over $200,000 and it has been for sale for over a year. She stated now it is $150,000. She stated it is a huge home and there is nowhere for the water to run. She stated most of the water runs onto my property because I own more property than most people. She stated a few years ago LAC helped us with the water problems. She stated they put drainage through my yard but it is not a legal drain. She stated so all this water from all these homes that they are building are running onto my property then to Mr. Schroeder’s property and then there are some more properties that it runs onto. She stated it goes nowhere and it sits there.

Nancy Catlin stated I live at 1408 Whippoorwill. She stated I agree with the rest of my neighbors. She stated I first bought out there 31 years ago. She stated I am one of the highest on the hill. She stated they raised all the land up and now my neighbor Katherine every time it rains good and hard I have to get pumps out in my yard to pump it out to the gully.

Pat Parker stated I live at 1406 Robin Road. She stated I agree with everything that the neighbors have said. She stated I am concerned with the drainage also. She stated all the water


comes to my yard and my sump pump works all the time. She stated we have had several bad experiences with the construction workers and all the equipment that was coming in and out. She stated they were parking in my driveway and I had just had a baby when all this was going on. She stated when I needed to get out and I had to ask them to move. She stated I would just like to see some loyalty from this county to the homeowners who are already paying taxes and have been living out there. She stated I am very close to this and I would probably going to have to move my driveway and I don’t have any place else to put a driveway and I don’t have the money to do that. She stated I am very much opposed to this.

Mr. Nelson stated I figured the big issue would be drainage. He stated let me explain that along Sumac Road there is enormous drainage issues. He state LAC, Lake Area Conservancy, which handles drainage and water issues in the area. He stated I have been the main property owner to get them to run a drain line in all along Sumac Road. He stated I have purchased very hard and I have been the only homeowner that has gone to the LAC meetings. He stated I have met the council out on the property and I have met the roads people out on the property to get that in. He stated I am very aware of the drainage issue because the drainage affects us. He stated as far as there being 5 and 6 feet of water at 3920 that is not correct. He stated I have personally looked at that property and there is some water that goes in there but the main reason for that is because the water that does not drain along Sumac. He stated this is going to be resolved sometime before the snow flies is my understanding. He stated a lot of that drainage issue that they are talking about that comes off of Sumac down Robin is going to go away very shortly. He stated I met with Lake Area Conservancy out there and I have observed that piece of property. He stated it does not have sitting water on it during heavy rainfalls. He stated I have met with Lake Area Conservancy and asked them if there was going to be an issue because if there was a water drainage issue there I would have to go in front of them to approve it from the drainage standpoint. He stated they asked me if I would be willing to tie into a drain which is like a hundred feet away and you can ask them, they said that it would be more than enough if I would tie into that drain. He stated I told them that I would. He stated 1404 whether you approve a duplex or townhouse scenario or not it a house will go in there. He stated it is zoned R-1 and that property was for sale for probably two years and anyone had the opportunity to purchase that property. He stated that property was purchased for $14,000. He stated this is not an extremely expensive piece of property. He stated it was available for that. He stated now as far as the tree line I can’t control that. He stated there are


trees that surround the property. He stated we have no plans on taking down any trees. He stated we want to maintain that. He stated as far as the parking there are parking problems whether you go down Robin, Whippoorwill, Sumac, Cardinal, which is the next street over, Bobolink or any other streets in that area there are driving problems as well as parking problems. He stated I don’t know why my property is being singled out as being the major problem. He stated as you can see from the drawing I have taken 25 feet back to where that property is going be. He stated there would be a drive there as well as a garage. He stated if there is going to be a party in any one of those houses, regardless whether it is a duplex townhouse or an individual residence there is parking problems there. He stated responding to the construction issue I personally will be involved in the construction and so I would hope that there would not be a problem. He stated as any of my neighbors could attest to over at 4003, 5 or 2 when we did the construction there we made sure that everything was alright with our neighbors and we talked to them both prior to and during construction. He stated as far as maintaining Robin Road I would be more than happy if you guys want to write into based upon the approval that I have to contribute to the maintenance of that private road I have no problem contributing for that. He stated I am not an absentee landlord. He stated I am very active in my properties and I am there on at least a weekly basis. He stated I am more than happy to contribute to that fund and if you want to make that as part of this for approval.

Mr. Thompson stated this board is a recommending body and they will be giving a recommendation to the County Commissioners and the County Commissioners are the ones who can approve or deny an ordinance. He stated they are the legislative body. He stated as far as the lot size not conforming that is correct. He stated with you changing this from R-1 to R-2 you must conform to the new lot size, which is 10,500 and you have 8,000. He stated even if you did get this approved as an R-2 you will still need to seek a variance for the lot size.

Mr. Poparad asked if it was proper to ask for rezoning before the variance. He asked can he ask for a variance first.

Attorney Schaefer stated we have discussed this and frankly, this was more suitable to ask for a variance altogether. She stated I would tend to agree with you and I think it would be appropriate.

Mr. Schroeder stated as far as this drain this drain that goes out to my property goes across Ann’s property is not a legal drain. He stated this was not put in by the County and is not on


the County plat. He stated now I have been after the county to try to get some drains put up on Sumac Road to accommodate some of the water that comes down Robin Road. He stated they were out there yesterday and marked it.

Mrs. Myrick stated when I bought property that was zoned Single-family and I was counting on the zoning to protect me from multi-family units. She stated I don’t have a subdivision ordinance to protect me and I have to rely on you people to protect me from these kinds of changes.

Mr. Andrews stated I would also like to agree with Mr. Schroeder about the drainage. He stated we did that all ourselves to get rid of some of the water. He stated say they do put a drain in on Sumac that still doesn’t help the drainage on Robin that much because the drainage is there already that we put in and it can only hold so much water. He stated we are totally against this. He stated he doesn’t think that they are going to let someone tie into their drain that is trying to build a duplex or whatever. He stated there is another problem there. He stated we are not saying not to build a house period. He stated we don’t want the duplex and we are kind of sick of the rental property too. He stated as Mr. Nelson is saying that there are parking problems and this and that, on our road there isn’t that much parking problems. He stated we all park in our driveways and we don’t park in the street on our road except the construction workers and people building these houses.

Mr. Nelson stated that’s all I can do is speak to the local drainage district or LAC and that’s what they told me is being able to tie into the line. He stated we walked the whole area and they said it would be fine. He stated I am going on what the general manager at Lake Area Conservancy said. He stated I take very good care of my other rental properties.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Bucko stated I looked at the homes that are there in reference of 4003, 4005 and 4002. He stated I am quite unsure of the drainage situation. He stated if the drains were put in there by the public I don’t know if LAC has the right to tell them they can or can’t put attachments into the drain if it isn’t a legal drain. He stated I don’t know if it is or isn’t a legal drain. He stated the one thing that is fairly consistent in here is the fact that it is all R-1 and it would remain in R-1 and be a single-family dwelling either if it was moved into by a single individual or leased to a single family as an individual R-1 housing. He stated in my estimation it probably should remain as such.


Mr. Sheetz stated I have no comment.

Mr. Burns stated I feel the same way and it is not zoned for R-2 and it should stay as R-1.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have to come back on Mr. Poparad’s comments and I am sure he will address this more. He stated the minimum for an R-2 zoning for lot size requirement is 10,500 square feet. He stated according to the staff report it is an 8,00 square foot lot. He stated in order to do any building you are going to have to be right back in front of the BZA in order to get a variance on that lot.

Mr. Detert stated I feel that this is spot zoning.

Mr. Mahnic stated I think that the people who live there have the right because they bought into an R-1. He stated we have an ordinance that you have to meet and you don’t meet that. He stated that means you have to get a variance.

Mr. Poparad stated this is spot zoning.

Mr. Breitzke stated I totally agree with you. He stated I actually bought into a rental neighborhood that is now all privately owned again. He stated in this case we have private streets and they are typically unapproved. He stated we don’t have any other R-2 zoning in there and now we are going to set precedence.

Mr. Poparad asked when did you purchase this lot.

Mr. Nelson stated I purchased it six months ago.

Mr. Poparad asked did you purchase this as R-1.

Mr. Nelson stated yes.

Mr. Poparad stated so there were no surprises and you knew it was R-1 when you bought it.

Mr. Nelson stated we intended on doing an R-1 on it.

Mr. Poparad stated you told this Commission earlier that you are going to put a house on it whether it is a duplex or a single-family.

Mr. Nelson stated yes.




Mr. Poparad moved to forward Case 04-Z-6 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on November 16, 2004 at 11:00 a.m.

Case 04-P-11. Petition of Tom N. Galouzis, 141 Westchester Lane, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Shorewood Forest Subdivision, Section 29, to be located on the East end of Surrey Hill Lane between Shorewood Dr. and Dorchester Blvd. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 10 lots on 16.82 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am here from Emil Beeg Land Surveying and also here with me is Lee Nagai from Nagai Professional Engineering. He stated we are representing Boski Developments in this petition. He stated we are seeking primary plat approval. He stated we are proposing a 10 lot major subdivision on 16.82 acre parcel, which was previously part of 27.8 acre owned by the Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association. He stated my client purchased the 16.82-acre parcel conditionally from the Shorewood Forest POA to develop the parcel as part of the Shorewood Forest development and in fact this will be Section 29 of Shorewood Forest. He stated there will be no more than 10 lots and they would have access from Surrey Hill Lane and the POA would retain the 100-foot strips along the north and east sides as shown on the plat for lake frontage on the south and leave 198-foot strip on the north. He stated this development will be part of Shorewood Forest community and adopt the covenants and restrictions that apply to the existing sections. He stated the configuration is consistent with the existing sections having the extended block length to a cul-de-sac turn-around thus maintaining the advertised beauty, serenity and privacy of lots in this community. He stated this block is going to be actually one of the smaller ones in the overall development. He stated it will incorporate decorative and functional bridge entrance to traverse the ravine on the west side. He stated we do have an endorsement letter from the attorney representing the POA and he is here today. He stated we have preliminary correspondence from Shorewood Forest Utilities and the Indiana American Water expressing the capability and willingness to serve the proposed development and the Union Township Volunteer Fire Department acknowledgement. He stated



preliminary plans have been provided to the appropriate utility companies and pending their review and comments the construction drawings will then be completed.

Ted Fitzgerald stated I am the attorney for the Shorewood Forest Property Owners Association. He stated this is Highway 30. He stated this entire piece at one time, which is surrounded on three sides by Shorewood Forest, was originally an undeveloped farm ground. He stated you may remember several years ago Edgewood Development came into plat this piece and there was quite the furrow. He stated the Shorewood residences were extremely upset. He stated they were refusing to hook into our sewer and they were having a wetlands sewage treatment plant, which we thought would break and endanger our lake. He stated I, at that time, received a call from Commissioner Larry Sheets who said, “Ted make this go away. We don’t want to fight this fight.” He stated we made it go away, folks. He stated we spent two years negotiating and we spent over $20,000, the property owners out of their own pockets to increase our certificated area of service before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. He stated today it is all single-family half the density that it was before and it is on our sewer system. He stated we removed that problem from you. He stated at that point in time, the POA said you know this piece is still for sale and wouldn’t that make a nice subdivision up there against our lake. He stated so the Property Owners Association with their own funds went out and bought all of this property and at that time after we bought it it was determined that the POA would keep this strip because we didn’t feel that you or Shorewood would ever want yet a third entrance off of Rt. 30 to Shorewood. He stated we would keep a buffer zone around it and this would become a part of Shorewood. He stated we have 28 sections and this would be section 29. He stated we actually took bids from prospective buyers. He stated Dr. Galouzis was successful because he had the highest quality and lowest density and we thought the best plan. He stated so this plan is a culmination of literally years of cooperation between us. He stated I know that there have been some arguments concerning a second entrance. He stated Edgewood doesn’t want to be part of Shorewood and we don’t want them to be part of us. He stated this is nothing more than a cul-de-sac. He stated we would very much appreciate your approval on this so that we can put this to bed once and for all. He stated my office is located at 107 N. Main Street, Hebron, Indiana.

Marylyn Johns stated I live at 437 Scarborough Road. She stated I am not against this. She stated I just want to know how far it abuts up to my backyard.

Mr. Banschbach stated there is a 50-foot utility easement and a lot in between.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t see any problems with this. He stated it is a public road and there is no one against it.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have a lot of problems with this. He stated unfortunately TAC only approved this by a vote of 3-2 and Schelling who is our Highway Engineer and Kelly who is our Health Department representative voted against this. He stated one of the things that Schelling brings up in the meetings is that it is a very poor design. He stated Mr. Schelling had problems because there are no outlets to this. He stated I have that problem too. He stated I am not a proponent for cul-de-sacs. He stated we have to think of the health and safety of the people who live in there. He stated I see no reason why another outlet can’t come in through Edgewater Drive. He stated you have the property there and the ability there. He stated just because the Home Owners Association says we are not going to let you build on that 100-foot quarter, there are two 100-foot quarters there. He stated the Home Owners Association is telling us this is what we want and I say this is what we want. He stated I feel that we need another outlet in there. He stated there is room to put that road in there. He stated since this is going to be a public road in a very segregated area and pretty far out we have to maintain that road. He stated we have to take the snow off that road. He stated again we have no place to turn around. He stated I agree with Mr. Schelling. He stated this is a poor design.

Mr. Nagai stated this design as it has been characterized as, is entirely consistent of all of Shorewood. He stated secondly, understand that we are representing this property here. He stated we don’t own that 100-feet. He stated we as the property owner in front of you can’t give you an access to that 100-feet even if we wanted to. He stated we don’t own it and it belongs to the Property Owners. He stated thirdly, I understand that it looks fairly simple to connect based on the plat map but if you actually go out and walk the site there is a lot of topography changes out there. He stated there is a giant ridge and a pretty good ravine. He stated from a standpoint of minimally disturbing the ground it would be maximum disturbance if we went and put a road in there. He stated we would have to cut 20-feet or better through a hill in order to put a road there and that would absolutely destroy the natural beauty of the parcel. He stated from a practical standpoint it is just not practical to make that road connection. He stated as Mr. Schelling also pointed out his main concern was utilities and connectivity for the utilities. He stated we have sent plans to all of the utilities and we fully anticipate connecting the utilities to the surrounding areas through easements that we left


for that very purpose. He stated we anticipate that Indiana American Water will put their water main through there. He stated we will be going through the utility easement with our sanitary sewers and we fully anticipate NIPSCO doing the same.

Mr. Mahnic stated you said you don’t own that 100-foot piece of land. He stated you didn’t own the whole plat. He stated you negotiated to buy it so you go back and negotiate to buy the 100-foot piece.

Mr. Detert stated I would like to hear from Ted or from someone else from the POA why they didn’t want to have access from this.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated one of the people that is not on TAC is the sheriff, as I understand it. He stated what happens to our security if someone can come off of U.S. 30 and loop through our subdivision and right back out to U.S. 30. He stated we are talking about some of the best access to the subdivision and it goes right up here. He stated that is one of the least restrictive parts. He stated we have been at this for almost 30 years and has anyone ever heard of a problem out there with getting anywhere or a snowplow problem. He stated Four Seasons went with one gate for 30 years before they put the back gate in. He stated it was designed that way and we want to keep it that way. He stated you mentioned earlier that people bought into a R-1 District and our people bought into a secured community with one entrance. He stated we have had public hearings on this. He stated this just didn’t happen that there aren’t 200 people from Shorewood here tonight. He stated we had public hearings out there and got the public input. He stated they were very much concerned about getting another access into their subdivision. He stated ask the sheriff what it means when you can go through and right back out.

Mr. Bucko stated I have nothing to say.

Mr. Sheetz asked how far off U.S. 30 is it?

Mr. Banschbach stated one mile or a half a mile.

Mr. Sheetz asked is the road 24 feet wide.

Mr. Banschbach stated it is 30 foot wide.

Mr. Burns stated I have no problems with cul-de-sacs. He stated they have 60-foot radius and most people want to live in cul-de-sacs for security reasons and for less traffic.



Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Detert stated since you mentioned the sheriff, did he look at this plan and is he aware of it.

Mr. Fitzgerald stated actually I had an independent traffic analysis who works for the Indiana Department of Transportation who said it is a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Mahnic stated we have not given this primary plat approval yet. He asked if this is subject to an open space, 20% or not.

Mr. Breitzke stated no.

Mr. Mahnic asked when does that take affect.

Mr. Breitzke stated as of the signing of the ordinance a few days ago.

Mr. Thompson stated any petitioner that comes in for primary plat after the Plan Commission recommended approval at the last meeting will be subject to the open space ordinance. He stated any primary plat application prior to that or any primary plat that was approved with phasing of the secondary plat is not subject to the open space ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated we had gone through a lot of stuff between the Edgewood Development and the community to the north and I really wanted to see everybody on public utilities out there. He stated John Phipps and Nies Engineering worked very well with you guys and I think you came up with the best plan possibly.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-P-11. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Biddinger stated I was looking at lot 8 and it has a delineated wetland on it. He asked is that lot still planned to be developed.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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

Mr. Breitzke stated we need to have a motion on the “Findings of Fact” for the decision on this case.

Mr. Detert moved to accept the Findings of Fact. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Biddinger moved to combine the hearings for Case 04-P-12 and Case 04-P-13 with separate votes on each. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Poparad asked is it an established fact that this land is going to be annexed by the City of Valpo.

Craig Phillips stated the petition is going to be submitted soon for this annexation that you are speaking of. He stated whether or not it is a done deal or not has not been decided.

Mr. Poparad stated you are extending utilities on the premise that you are going to annex this land.

Mr. Phillips stated that is the intention.

Case 04-P-12. Petition of LIVE OAKS, LLC, c/o Edward Froberg, 2700 First Indiana Plaza, 135 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Beauty Creek Estates At Windsor Park Subdivision to be located on the East side of CR 400 N., between CR 150 W. and CR 450 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 110 lots on 72 acres. Property is zoned R-2.)

Case 04-P-13. Petition of LIVE OAKS, LLC, c/o Edward Froberg, 2700 First Indiana Plaza, 135 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Beauty Creek Estates At Windsor Park North Subdivision to be located on the East side of Froberg Road, between CR 150 W. and CR 450 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 118 lots on 56 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Rich Hudson stated I am with Bonar Group and our address is 158 S. Napoleon Street, Valparaiso, Indiana. He stated I am here before you tonight representing the developers LIVE OAKS, LLC and the owners of the property both the 56 acres and the 72 acres. He stated both developments are on one plat because they are contiguous and adjacent to each other and serve common roads. He


stated the 56 acres is this piece of property here in green and the 72 acres is the remainder. He stated this is R-2 and this is R-1. He stated this is in here is the existing Windsor Park development. He stated on the north is Ransom Road and on the west is Froberg Road. He stated through the Windsor Park development is the continuation of CR 400 N., which in Valparaiso is known as Vale Park Road, which we plan on continuing through the 72 acre R-2 parcel. He stated both of these developments have a similar name and have been confused back and forth with each other. He stated I will refer to them as the 72 acres R-2 parcel and the 56-acre R-1 parcel. He stated when Windsor Park was initially developed back in the mid to late 1990’s the 72 acre parcel at that time was zoned R-2. He stated Windsor Park is currently zoned R-1. He stated the 72 acre parcel was zoned R-2 with written commitments that were agreed upon between the Commissioners at that time and the developers the owners of the property, the Froberg’s. He stated there were three written commitments that were incorporated into that document. He stated I believe Mr. Thompson has it is the file. He stated one of those commitments and what has taken a long time to evolve from March to April of this year and onto this meeting tonight is the conservation or protection of Beauty Creek Corridor. He stated this alignment not exactly along this east line is about the route north south of Beauty Creek. He stated I shared with you a smaller plat only so that you had something close to you to look at. He stated we have a very, very large portion of this 72 acre R-2 development that meets that number one, paramount written commitment in that R-2 zoning. He stated the second written commitment was the continuation of what a lot of people know as County Road 400 N., which hits Froberg Road about this location and continues on through Windsor Park and now we are committed by that written commitment of the R-2 zoning to continue that on through our property. He stated that will continue on over and maybe not in a straight line but will connect to the existing Vale Park Road and what is known as Key Stone Commons, which is north of Valparaiso High School and the west side of Campbell Street. He stated as Kevin has indicated we have proposed 110 lots although lot 74, which is about in this area here, is designated on all the drawings that you have received and on all the drawings that I have in front of you tonight, as a park lot. He stated it is not as central as one would think if we are considering this whole area as one development, which we are trying to do because of the commonality. He stated that does become specifically set out on our plat as a park lot. He stated we proposed a minimum of square footage on the lots of 12,000 square feet and I believe the requirement is 11,000 square feet. He stated I am going to jump over now to the north Beauty Creek portion of Windsor Park. He stated this is 56 acres and R-1 zone. He stated here we are proposing 118 lots with a minimum


square footage of 11,700. He stated bouncing back to the 72 acres when you consider the number of lots over the area we have a net density of 1.60 lots per acre, a gross density of 2.7 and we propose on that 72 acre R-2 development minimum lot width of 90 feet and it will go up from there. He stated on the 56 acres we have an R-1 development with a net density of 3.1 lots per acre and a gross density of 2.08 and again a minimum lot width of 90 feet. He stated let’s talk a little bit about open space and I am going to run a couple different scenario’s by one just looking at the 72 acre R-2 parcel and then looking at the 56 acre R-1 parcel and then combining them to give you some numbers. He stated in the 72 acre R-2 parcel we have 3 open space parcels. H stated one of them is Parcel A where that blue area is, which indicates that it is a detention pond not that it is water. He stated there is a Parcel B in this location here and then in an irregular shape through this area, which protects the main body of the Beauty Creek watershed encompasses two detention basins. He stated we have a third open space parcel. He stated Parcel A, which is up in the northwest corner of the 72 is 1.27 acres, Parcel B, which is in this location is 4.04 acres and Outlot Parcel C is in this area and it is 14.66 acres. He stated before I add those up and give you some percentages both this pond and this pond will be up out of and away from the sensitive banks of the Beauty Creek Corridor. He stated not only have we protected the corridor and its banks but we brought our ponds up out so that we are not interrupting those sensitive areas with any construction. He stated we have a total of open space in the 72-acre parcel of 19.97 acres, almost 20 acres. He stated if you take that 19.97 and divide it by 72 we have 28% open space. He stated included in that open space are the detention ponds and also the Beauty Creek Corridor. He stated now considering the 56 acres up here we have a detention pond parcel here and a detention pond parcel here. He stated plus a Beauty Creek Corridor protection parcel up here. He stated Beauty Creek comes into us probably right here and wiggles through us and goes out of us and actually is about at our property line when we cross with CR 400 N. or Vale Park Road and comes back onto us in this parcel here. He stated so we have Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C, which are open spaces. He stated Parcel A is 1.99 acres, Parcel B is 1.63 acres, Parcel C is 2.30 acres for a total of 5.92 acres. He stated if you take that 5.92 and divide it by 56, which is the total area in that parcel we have 11% open space. He stated a little history about this the 72 acres started first through the planning process and it was shortly after that as we were waiting for a decision on how we were going to service this with the utilities it became very obvious that a that time the 56 was not far behind. He stated I suppose they both could have gone through at the same time but since the 72 had started first we added a second petition for the 56. He stated if we consider


these two as Beauty Creek Estates At Windsor Park and total up the total gross acreage of the development we have 128 acres between the 72 and the 56. He stated we have a total of 25.59 acres of open space if you divide that by 128 total acres we have 20% open space. He stated I only present those facts to you because I think we comply with the intent of the ordinance, which will soon take affect. He stated I think that the developer of both the R-2 and the R-1 development along with considerations from your TAC and the City site review committee, which encompasses all the City department heads. He stated we have been before the fire department, the Parks Department is very interested in our open space because of their desire to have a west side city park. He stated we have agreed to continue their pathway project, which if you think about Campbell Street and go to Campbell and Ransom Road or Cook’s Corner there is an eight-foot pathway that extends south into their newest park on Campbell and goes up into Rogers Lakewood Park. He stated we have a link here so that hopefully when the two 80 acre parcels between the city limits now and our development we will have a pathway that will not only have we agreed with the city to provide that eight foot pathway on the north side of Vale Park Road but the Froberg’s have also made a commitment to continue that through their development, Windsor Park, by virtue of some funds that have been either in escrow or have a commitment to continue with the sidewalks. He stated the sidewalks have not been placed there and they have agreed and the City has agreed that it is acceptable that they come in and combine their two four foot walks, which would be on either side of Vale Park Road and continue that eight foot pathway the city’s eight foot pathway their vision of connecting the city on out to Froberg Road. He stated both the 72-acre parcel and the 56-acre parcel will be serviced by the City of Valparaiso. He stated we have a commitment letter from the City of Valparaiso’s Mayor, John Costas, that they are willing and able and have the capacity to provide both sanitary sewer, which is under construction right now and to provide the City of Valparaiso’s water into not only the Windsor Park portion of this development but throughout the R-2 development and the R-1 development. He stated they will also be serviced by Verizon for telephone, NIPSCO for gas and electric, Comcast for cable and I might add that on all of the road frontage there will be a 20 foot wide utility easement that will be within the 30 foot wide building setback as per your standards. He stated we have taken the most restrictive portions or the highest standard parts of both the county and the city. He stated we have 60-foot right-of-ways and 30-foot building lines. He stated in the city we could do 50-foot right-of-ways and 25-foot building lines. He stated chose to keep those at the county standards. He stated we also might add on the sanitary sewer there are a few areas…a little bit of history on this. He


stated there were quite a few more cul-de-sacs here. He stated the three cul-de-sacs that you see here now are exclusive cul-de-sacs that protect the sensitive areas. He stated the city had even thought about we would loop these around and do away with two cul-de-sacs and we tried to get them to understand that we wanted to protect this with a minimum of exposure and a minimum of traffic. He stated the same way down in this area. He stated if you take a look at the plat these lots are quite large. He stated there are a handful of lots around this cul-de-sac, two lots along Vale Park Road and I believe some lots around this cul-de-sac right here that the City has agreed to allow us to use what is called the Environmental One System, which is a grinder pump low pressure sewer system. He stated the City has agreed to maintain the low-pressure sewer lines. He stated the individual lot owners will have to maintain the grinder pump stations. He stated this is very similar to an area out in the Lakes Area Conservancy District on the north side of Valparaiso where due to the grades and the desire not to have any more lift stations then we have to have they put in about 20 out there. He stated they have functioned since the early 1980’s. He stated the city was in favor of that and we were encouraged by their desire for us to do that because we had two lift stations designed for those areas to service with sanitary sewer. He stated throughout the development we have proposed 4-foot sidewalks on the frontage of all lots. He stated the lots along Froberg Road in this location and along Ransom Road will not have vehicular access. He stated there will be no driveways out onto either road from those lots. He stated the buildings will all face this road and this road here and only interior roads. He stated again on Vale Park Road we have tried as hard as we could to make the commitment that we would not have any lots fronting on Vale Park Road. He stated we even had these two lots here with a little eyebrow cul-de-sac a great expense to provide that. He stated the city encourage us to do away with that and indicated from both the county level and the city level that they would allow us and we have the right to do that but we made an initial commitment but we only have two lots that would access onto Vale Park Road. He stated our right-of-ways are going to be 60-feet and we will have 30-foot pavements within the 56 acres and the 72 acres. He stated a 30-foot building line. He stated there have been some negotiations and some indications from the city that they would like us to narrow the pavement down on Vale Park Road through our development to 28-feet back of curb to back of curb, which is only two feet less than the standard pavement width in our development. He stated the thinking was to allow for more green space between the pavement and the lots that were not going to have any access to allow for a more open feeling there. He stated we have worked with the Park Department extensively and the City Engineer, Dave Pilz, to come up with that. He stated


they worked very extensively with the Park Department and Dave Pilz on the Beauty Creek Corridor. He stated our standard for our detention basins are a two-year outlet release rate, which currently in the county is ten and our detention ponds is designed for a 100-year rain event. He stated Froberg Road is a half of a right-of-way on our side is a 50-foot wide right-of-way along Froberg Road. He stated on Ransom Road the actual pavement lies totally within in the Froberg property. He stated actually the centerline of the existing pavement that is there now is 20-feet south of the half section line. He stated so in that particular case we have a 60-foot right-of-way from the section line down or 40-feet from the center of the pavement that is existing there now. He stated I have spoken to you about the ponds. He stated we have a unique situation here. He stated when we were going through both the city and county site reviews. He stated one of the standards or items that we have to comply with or we have to state is how much water comes onto our property. He stated we are in a unique situation because everything essentially goes off of our property. He stated the only thing that comes onto us is at this point here Beauty Creek comes onto us goes back off of us into the Ransom property and comes back onto us and back out of us. He stated there is really no additional water that we have that is coming onto us. He stated it is our water that is shedding off. He stated another unique thing is the property is almost split in half about in this location with this portion going onto what is called Pepper Creek, which would be in this location. He stated the other portion going then into Beauty Creek. He stated it became very clear early on that this situation with the annexation might raise some questions. He stated it was probably about half way through the process for the 72-acre parcel that we were given the approval letter from the city stating that they would provide us with sanitary sewer. He stated we have chosen to again develop to the higher standard whether it be by the county standard or the city standard. He stated everything that we have done on both parcels have been in conjunction with some joint site reviews. He stated one thing I would like to say is that some people may have noticed some work being done along Froberg Road in this area and Ransom Road along this area. He stated the developers along with the people that they have in place to be building the homes in these two parcels committed for over 120 very, very mature trees. He stated there is only a certain window when those can be moved and placed back in the ground before it becomes a detriment to these trees. He stated we also started to try to clean up the side ditch along the south side of Ransom Road. He stated I am not sure if everybody has in their packet the Engineering report that Dave Schelling presented to everyone. He stated Dave’s last comment was “by the way the right-of-way clearing and tree planting looks good.” He stated


we have had comment from the city as well. He stated everything that we have done from the beginning process back in March and April, the concessions on both sides were very, very productive and a pleasant process. He stated what you see here tonight is the best we can offer for this area. He stated it is a growing area and a residential area. He stated it is planned for this type of development. He stated the R-2 development is there and has been in place approximately 8 to 9 years. He stated there is R-1 to the north and R-1 to the west. He stated this fits the county’s master plan and it fits what the city wants to see in this area and I think that we have a good development.

Craig Phillips stated I am the City Planning Director for the City of Valparaiso. He stated I am here tonight to kind of reiterate some of the comments that have already been made. He stated particularly I want to state that this was a joint effort between the City and the County and between the TAC and Site Review Committee’s. He stated what they started out with was substantially different in terms of design for this subdivision. He stated we have come a long way and made a lot of improvements in the way of several things. He stated particularly conservation types of elements that have been incorporated into the subdivision, the road layout, the elimination of the cul-de-sacs as Rich mentioned and just some various other quality of life elements such as the pathway connection, which is very important to the city that is part of our Master Plan and some other Park and Recreation projects and plans that we are working on right now. He stated it is in compliance with our city comprehensive plan. He stated it is compatible with the types of development that you would see around this part of the city the northern and western parts of the city. He stated the fact that it has been held to the higher standard is okay with the city because it meets or exceeds all the city requirements with regards to subdivision standards and zoning requirements. He stated we think it is a pretty good effort between the City and the County staffs and boards to come up with a development that we think is a good extension of what is already started out here and what we are going to see as an extension of what the city has already presented on the west. He stated also I want to state that there was a lot of consideration given to particularly the Beauty Creek situation. He stated at first the lot layouts that were presented were not exactly what the city wanted to see in terms of the size and the layout but substantial improvements and efforts have been made to preserve the Beauty Creek Corridor and the park and recreational elements that have been incorporated in this project are definitely endorsed by the city as well. He stated overall we are very pleased with where we are at with this project and endorse it as proposed.

Chuck Williams stated I am on the Valparaiso City Council and I am also an affected landowner. He stated I own property at 2501 Ashborn Crt. He stated I would just like to comment that the lengths of the developer in this area did do to save the Beauty Creek Corridor and also to maintain the green space along there. He stated abutting the City of Valparaiso I don’t think we could have asked for much better cooperation from the developer if it is going to be developed.

Frank Carullo stated I live at 2500 Barnard Drive. He stated my lot is right here. He asked are there lots in the NIPSCO right-of-way. He asked how close is Vale Park Road to Campbell. He asked where will the traffic lights be. He asked how many units are here. He asked what is the meaning of a primary plat. He stated this area is already all ready under development. He stated there are lot numbers and the site has already been cleared. He stated I walk this area every morning. He stated from Prentiss Drive up Norbest Drive onto Kickbush. He stated lot 9 and lot 8 is my major concern. He stated my other major concern is the extension of CR 400 N. He stated that will make this a raceway. He stated last time I was here was to oppose Wagner’s development.

Doug Montgomery stated I live at 2700 Kickbush. He stated I don’t oppose this. He stated I think that folks in Windsor Park most of us are aware that before this is developed the sequence of getting the city water in. He stated the existing well system, I looked at the file that is open to the public, I think a saw something on there that says the existing well system is adequate to get started on this. He stated I welcome any of you to come to my house and hope in the shower during peak hours. He stated we have had some problems with reliability with the pump recently. He stated it is just going to compound on it if we don’t try to get the water main in as soon as you can. He stated I am interested in timing for developing this. He asked if there is going to be any type of barrier between the existing Windsor Park and the R-1 area. He asked what type of homes are you proposing to put in. He stated this is a high spot and everything drains off. He stated in the southwest it drains onto Windsor Park and we have had issues in Windsor Park with some flooding in some homes. He stated please be mindful when you start construction there are some low spots down here as well that have some potential to do the same thing that Windsor Park has had. He stated I don’t know if anyone else in Windsor Park was advised about this and it would’ve been nice.

Chris Herman stated I live at 2903 Prentiss. He stated the mature trees do look beautiful. He stated the plan looks very nice as well. He stated to reiterate the drainage issue the new section of Windsor Park or the last section of Windsor Park to be


developed as Doug mentioned do appear to have some drainage issues as things as draining down in that direction. He stated if you go right now one would think that there is one of those detention ponds where I believe there are a number of lots to be developed. He stated the concern is to ensure that this doesn’t continue flowing down into existing subdivisions. He stated I do know a number of people whose basements were seriously affected. He stated my only other question is the R-2 for condo’s or double units there or are they intended to be single unit homes as is the R-1 components of the development there. He stated on the Froberg entrance it appears that is directly or close to across the street from the Pepper Creek entrance, which is already under construction. He if there is a plan for a stop light because one would guess that the traffic for two entrances coming out simultaneously on an already busy road might be a bit difficult. He asked are the detention ponds similar to the ones in Windsor Park, which are similar to a lake that always has water in it.

Mr. Hudson stated there is an overhead power line that runs through here. He stated it is incorporated in our Beauty Creek Corridor and it also falls within lot 8, 7, 15 and 25 and a portion of lot 14 and a portion of lot 13. He stated it is an easement and that portion of the easement will be incorporated into those lots. He stated we are not inhibiting in any way the use of the NIPSCO easement and NIPSCO will come through there periodically and do whatever clearing that they do. He stated as far as where this road, which is designated as CR 400 N. or Vale Park Road is relative to Campbell, it is a mile from Campbell and a half a mile from the west side of Key Stone. He stated this distance from here to here is a half of a mile so Key Stone is about right here. He stated there are essentially two 80-acre tracts that are privately owned. He stated the westerly 80-acres is commonly known as the Ransom farm. He stated the next 80-acres to the east is known as the Detert’s property. He stated the City of Valparaiso through an agreement with the Deterts have continued and connected the water out of the existing Vale Park Road about 80-feet into the Detert’s property and then south and southwesterly into Manchester Meadow’s so that there is a water connection. He stated the plan is to continue in some fashion Vale Park Road. He stated I can’t tell you when that is going to happen. He stated it is on the city’s master plan and it is on the county’s master plan. He stated at this time the development proposes no traffic lights. He stated we have complied with both the city and the county standards of regulatory signs, which consist of street identification and stop signs. He stated on the R-2, 72-acre parcel, which was zoned R-2 at the time Windsor Park went in. He stated it has written commitments and approved by the Commissioners. He stated R-2 lots allow for duplex units, two family units. He stated there are 110 lots, which would mean


there would be 220 single-family units in a duplex building. He stated I believe there was a comment that this portion was developed. He stated that is incorrect. He stated the portion that has been developed I believe is in this area here. He stated the gentleman walked down this road and then down this road to Vale Park not in this area here. He stated this development has nothing to do with anything that is completed in here. He stated the only commonality is the Froberg name. He stated as far as entrances I think this gentleman here talked about this entrance. He stated if you look at our entrance here and flipped it over it would be exactly almost to the measurement what Pepper Creek has and it is at the exact same location. He stated we have a boulevard and a lane in and a lane out. He stated I believe it is 18-feet on each side. He stated early on we only had one entrance here coming out onto Froberg and it was apparent that both the city and the county wanted that other connection north and south since there wasn’t one. He stated it makes for good traffic flow and for good emergency vehicle access and for exiting out of the subdivision by not only the new development but by the existing development. He stated again traffic lights along Vale Park Road I have no idea. He stated I think the city’s plan to narrow down this portion and continue that narrowing down through the Detert and the Ransom property they have already narrowed down the last piece of Vale Park Road over here in Key Stone to get it down to the 28-feet wide no parking to slow the traffic down. He stated we really only have one connecting road north and south from Vale Park up to Ransom Road. He stated I believe this intersection is a major stop here and the fact that we have the jog in the road and that stop at that particular intersection does nothing but add to the safety of the vehicular flow in and out. He stated we have done everything we could do to keep from having a direct route out. He stated the routes that we have here this entrance and this entrance were talked very highly by the safety people both in the county and in the city more from the city standpoint from the police department and the fire department. He stated we have complied with both the county’s wishes and the city’s wishes for those two entrances. He stated I may have spoken out of turn concerning the water connection in Windsor Park. He stated my understanding is that there is in the works now to connect these people. He stated that connection has nothing to do with our development. He stated we have agreements that would if things work out, the water would come from Harrison West down here along this line and up to this cul-de-sac and possibly through this route. He stated another alternate route would be to come further down along the NIPSCO right-of-way and go out this direction and make the connection. He stated when that is going to happen I can’t tell you. He stated it is my firm belief that this is being worked on right now. He stated if I over spoke in


stating what I did I apologize. He stated in regards to timing we would like to be out there tomorrow but we have a weather issue here. He stated if we receive primary plat approval for the 72-acre R-2 development and the R-1 56-acre development we will proceed with finalizing our construction plans and getting those both to the county and going through the City Board of Works for approval of sanitary sewer and water and storm sewer system. He stated there was a question of a barrier. He stated we are not providing any sort of barrier because the housing that we are providing is comparable in value and square footage I have been told to what is being developed in the Windsor Park area. He stated I have some numbers here that I can share on the 72-acre R-2 property the starting square footage per unit so this would be half is 1600 square feet and would go up from there. He stated the value of that per unit cost would be $199,000 on the low end and go up from there. He stated they would be duplexes and they would not be rentals. He stated I made the statement that everything falls off and we have attempted with our design to pick up except for maybe the backs of some of these lots to get all of the lots to drain to our streets and into our storm sewer system and into our ponds. He stated the impact or the runoff that you could conceivably see along the backs of these lots and the backs of this lot and these lots here would be minimized by forcing the water into our streets. He stated now there are designed into this whole development here a whole series of overflows so that when the streets should happen to…the sewers should either back up by debris being placed over the top of the grates that the water would flow out of these into the general location of Beauty Creek and then on through some culverts in this location and this location into the Pepper Creek area. He stated concerning drainage the way these ponds were set up now the plans right now are for all of these ponds to be dry bottom ponds. He stated I will tell you though that we are giving strong consideration to a wet bottom pond amenity for this pond and for this pond, which would be very similar to what you have here. He stated it is being driven by the quality of the soil to hold water and how extensive we have to go to develop a bottom in that, which would hold water and hold quality water. He stated right now we have no plans for a traffic light by Pepper Creek.

Mr. Carullo asked is there any chance that there will be more than one duplex per lot number.

Chris Wirsing stated he lives on Ransom Road and I am concerned about the traffic on Ransom Road. He asked what is the average size of the lots.

Mr. Hudson stated I stated earlier on in my presentation in


the 72-acre R-2 development the minimum lot width is 90-feet and the minimum square footage of the lot would be 12,000 square feet and we go down to 11,000. He stated there will be one duplex unit per lot. He stated lot 8 yes your boundary and I believe you are on this lot here so whatever your backyard distance is that would be your commonality to lot 8. He stated I cannot speak to what the county or the city has in mind there but I can tell you is that if we go into the county right now the county does not want us to make any more improvements to make this any better from a speeding wide corridor to go through there. He stated I think the biggest problem on Ransom Road in my opinion is this up and down. He stated the city wants us to make improvements to that road. He stated it is not in any certain negotiation but that has not been identified 100%.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad asked Mr. Carullo when you moved to Windsor Park it was already R-2 behind you.

Mr. Hudson stated it all happened at the same time.

Mr. Poparad stated so there were no surprises to the Windsor Park people and it wasn’t rezoned after Windsor Park was built.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have no comments.

Mr. Bucko stated the two cul-de-sacs on the northeast corner you stated something that you were going to do in relationship to drainage.

Mr. Hudson stated it had to do with something that came from the city. He stated they wanted us to connect these two and to keep this exclusive for these people down along here.

Mr. Bucko stated my question was something more about the handling the sewage.

Mr. Hudson stated these lots right here and it is because these slope down naturally this way and to get the sewer deep enough we would have to have a lift station here and here. He stated the city agreed that we could use what is called the Environmental One System, which is a grinder pump system that grinds up the sewage and pumps it out into a smaller pipe. He stated the city agreed that they would maintain that small main and that would be pumped into a gravity system so that there would be no major lift stations.



Mr. Bucko stated those lots right there will they have individual driveways.

Mr. Hudson stated we tried to eliminate all access here but it was agreed on that it would be better instead of putting an eyebrow in here and have extra pavement the city agreed…

Mr. Bucko asked if there could be a single entrance and then split.

Mr. Hudson stated I am not sure that the lot is big enough to do that.

Mr. Bucko asked if the county’s road width is 30-feet.

Mr. Breitzke stated there are a couple different standards for road width.

Mr. Thompson stated we could go down as low as 24-feet back-to-back curb.

Mr. Hudson stated the city would like to have less pavement so they have encourage us to do this. He stated in Key Stone Commons the road starts out at 44 and narrows down to 36 and now we have narrowed it down to 28 at the far west end. He stated the city would like that to be considered all the way through that so there is no chance of any parking.

Mr. Poparad asked if that is in our standards.

Mr. Thompson stated the 24-foot back-to-back curb with no parking on one side is in our standards.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are trying to encourage them to build a bike path too and create a real good separation of pedestrian bicycle traffic from the road traffic.

Mr. Poparad asked if the road was just going to end at the end of the subdivision.

Mr. Hudson stated for now we will probably build it short so that it is at the top of the bank, which probably is going to be somewhere out in this area right here. He stated it will probably be a “T” turnaround.

Mr. Sheetz stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Burns stated I have no problem.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no problem.

Mr. Mahnic moved to approve Case 04-P-12 along with the “findings of fact.” Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Poparad moved to approve Case 04-P-13 along with the “findings of fact.” Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 04-Z-7. Petition of NSP Trust NO. 1-2004, 99 N. Shorewood Drive, Valparasio, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to repeal Ordinance No. 98-23 PUD, Planned Unit Development and rezone it to C-4, General Business to be located on the East side of SR 49, between U.S. 6 and Calumet Road in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Don Bengel stated I am here tonight representing NSP Trust that owns almost 30-acres of land on the north side of Rt. 6 immediately east of the 49 Bypass and west of Liberty Bible Church. He stated the existing parcel is part of an existing PUD, Ordinance 98-23 that includes the existing Liberty Bible Church and the parcel running south of the subject parcel. He stated our request is to vacate that part of the PUD that lies within the 29.85 acres. He stated we are asking to repeal that part and be rezoned to C-4. He stated the reason for the request is to develop a private recreational development to include indoor basketball, indoor hockey and outdoor soccer. He stated our nearest neighbor to the north is Mr. Bob Rhoda who owns a farm on the north side. He stated Liberty Bible Church is to the east and SR 49 is on the west. He stated Aqua-Land Communication abuts us a little bit on the south. He stated that is a tower site up there and it has been there for a long time. He stated we have letters that I passed out with the plat from Mr. Steve Osborn who is Athletic Director at Ben Franklin Middle School. He stated also a letter from Liberty Bible Church endorsing the project. He stated while we are developing we will be working close with Liberty Bible because as part of their PUD they abut us on the north they decided an outdoor arena and on the south a baseball field planned and this fits in very well on what we are trying to do. He stated under the PUD the site was designed for a retirement center. He stated I understand that went defunct for one reason or another. He stated there was no financing and


it didn’t go. He stated according to Bob Thompson if the project didn’t happen within five years the project itself expires although the PUD zoning doesn’t. He stated the site lends itself well for storm drainage. He stated it was developed before with ponds and will end up with the ponds in pretty much the same place. He stated this project will end up with probably a lot of green area so the drainage calculations will be easy to make and pretty easy to satisfy. He stated our access to Rt. 6 and being right there on SR 49 it makes it a good spot for everyone to get to. He stated I visited one of these facilities in Fishers, Indiana and it was very successful.

Edmond Soliday stated I represent Liberty Bible Church at 824 N. Calumet. He stated we have submitted a letter and we have part of the PUD and we have no objection to vacate that part of the PUD or the rezoning.

Tim Cole stated I live at 845 North Calumet Ave. He stated my concern of course is the C-4 zoning request. He stated I don’t know that C-4 is necessary for a project of this nature. He stated C-4 allows for a lot of things. He stated it might be undesirable in that area and in that community. He stated if this project should fail or if it should get built and then fail then we are stuck with C-4 zoning and anybody could put a lot of different businesses in there. He stated I think maybe a more restrictive zoning would be better. He stated maybe something that would be a little bit more in line with that community would be in order. He stated certainly there is a significant topography out there. He stated there are rolling hillsides and woods. He stated we would hope that the developer would see to it that he doesn’t go in there with a bulldozer and just flatten everything and knock down the woods. He stated he hopes that they maintain some of that scenic beauty that is there. He stated traffic is a big concern. He stated there is only one way into this. He stated that is west bound on U.S. 6. He stated there is a little spot east bound on U.S. 6 where you could cut across the median down by the mini warehouses and then double back and make a “U” turn. He stated I don’t know if that is the ideal spot. He stated if this is going to be a sporting complex there is going to be a lot of people a lot of kids. He stated this is the country. He stated there is no city sewer, nor city water, at least at this time. He stated I don’t know if there are plans to get some. He stated I believe this was rural residential zoning before it was a PUD. He stated we would like to see it return to rural residential because we feel that maybe rural residential can accommodate this. He stated that would protect the remaining property in that area from any other undesirable. He stated I am happy with the project itself. He stated I understand that an ice skating rink might even be


involved. He stated certainly kids need recreation and this would provide that. He stated I am concern with the mention of private. He stated I am not sure what private means.

Mr. Bengel stated private recreational development I discussed this with Mr. Thompson and it seems to me that it is owned by a private entity. He stated it will serve the public but the ownership will be private. He stated Mr. Cole is correct. He stated there is a lot that can go into a C-4. He stated we did present the Church with a list of what is there and we have “x” out many of the things that are permitted. He stated we went for C-4 instead of any of the other zoned because in C-4 is where it is permitted. He stated it is permitted in C-4, I-1, I-2 and I-3 without a special exception. He stated when we get to the County Commissioners we will be glad to agree to written commitments. He stated the topo is certainly rolling and part of the area we will have to do some dirt work and level it out but try to maintain the character of the ground. He stated we will have to take some trees out but we do want to maintain as many trees as we can. He stated that was a former nursery and we have a lot of trees to do landscaping and we intend to use everything we can there. He stated first of all you do want traffic coming out on a state highway or a U.S. highway and that is what we have. He stated we will have to work with INDOT to get a permit and we will have to do what they request. He stated we feel that there is adequate means to handle sewer and water. He stated wells will work to supply the water and the sewage will be by a State approved septic system. He stated it will probably be a mound. He stated if sewer and water becomes available we would certainly look at hooking into that. He stated I am not sure why the senior citizen center failed. He stated I don’t believe it didn’t fail due to the septic concern because they had three mounds designed that were going to take care of at least part of their requirements. He stated I think our requirements would be less than what the retirement center had. He stated we will have a lot of people but they won’t be living there.

Mr. Cole stated I am still in a quandary why the word private had to be entered in there. He stated I wonder if this is in direct connection with Liberty Bible Church or is this opened to the public without religious interest being entertained on the people visiting the site. He stated I still think C-4 zoning is too much.

Mr. Bengel stated this is a private enterprise and it is owned by the trust and is not connected with the church. He stated the trust or the trustee maybe a member of the church but there is absolutely no other connection. He stated the only



connection that we would see is that we would work with the church. He stated it is completely private and there is no legal connect or business connection with the church.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert asked Mr. Bengel if he wanted to share any of his deletion of C-4 with the Commission.

Mr. Bengel stated I only have one sheet.

Mr. Detert stated I hate to see something open up to C-4 because it doesn’t belong there.

Mr. Bengel stated we will strike nightclub, hunting or fishing lodge, shooting range outdoors, tavern, theater indoor and outdoor, gas station, and truck freight terminal.

Mr. Thompson stated warehouse.

Mr. Mahnic stated there is a warehouse directly east of there.

Mr. Thompson stated contractors storage yard.

Mr. Bengel stated yes strike that.

Mr. Thompson stated materials storage open but that kind of falls along with the contractors.

At this time, Mr. Thompson went through the list of uses.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Bengel should know that he should bring this in here and we need to forward something tonight.

Mr. Mahnic stated Mr. Bengel needs to work this out and have him present it to us later.

Mr. Bucko stated if I see a C-4 zone go into place there without either it being under a permanent use variance or clearly defined that as a C-4 and what it can be used for that this Board could approve and visually understand what it is voting for then I couldn’t support this.

Mr. Sheetz stated I like the idea of what they are trying to do there but again to rezone it to C-4 I don’t feel comfortable with that. He asked if this would have more traffic than a PUD.



Mr. Bengel stated if you look at what they had there it was pretty dense and I don’t believe we would have as much traffic.

Mr. Sheetz stated another thing that concerns me in a neighboring county there was a building somewhat like this. He stated it was an ice hockey place and they had some financial problems and now they are using it for something else. He stated I like the concept but I am just not sure if I feel comfortable with rezoning it. He stated I would rather do it as a variance.

Mr. Burns stated I feel pretty much the same. He stated I don’t have a problem with the project but I do have a problem with the C-4. He stated I would like to see it as a permanent use variance.

Mr. Thompson stated the only way they could do the permanent use variance is if the PUD was repealed. He stated as long as the PUD ordinance is in place they must develop according to the ordinance.

Mr. Poparad stated why don’t we just repeal the PUD and let it flop back to what it was and then he could apply for the use variance.

Mr. Thompson stated it would go back to the RR zone. He stated what they are asking for can go forward in an RR but they would need a special exception approval from the BZA.

Mr. Bengel asked if they could get an R-1.

Mr. Thompson stated I thought it was RR.

Mr. Detert stated I just don’t feel comfortable not knowing what are limitations are going to be in C-4.

Mr. Mahnic stated why we are asking to repeal the PUD are we asking for the entire PUD. He asked what is going to happen to the other part.

Mr. Thompson stated they are repealing what is legally described within their application. He stated the remainder of the land whoever owner is if they want to develop it they will either have to go by that ordinance, which has now been chopped or come in and ask for a repeal and go back to an RR again.

Mr. Mahnic stated since the Liberty Bible Church has no objection to this they have entrance to Liberty Church on the north side and the south side. He asked why can’t they since they are in favor of this put a driveway easement on the north


side. He stated they do get 300 to 400 cars in there on Sundays. He stated traffic is horrendous over there because we have the gas station; we have the mini warehouse and the turnoff to get on the Bypass. He stated if you come back or when you come back you need to come back with written commitments and restrictions as to what you are going to do in a C-4 or whether you agree with some argument here and revert back to what it was originally.

Mr. Thompson stated from the zoning maps it appears that the original zoning classification for this was R-1 prior to the PUD.

Mr. Biddinger stated everything I was going to say has already been said with one exception. He stated if you look at the allowable uses table page 249 in Title 17, under private recreational development, C-4, I-1, I-2 and I-3 are where you can put this without a special exception. He stated it is also allowable with a special exception in AG, RR, R-1, R-2 and R-3. He stated if it would be insane that C-4 is too far where that is the zone where it is allowable here. He stated I don’t know if I necessarily like that but that is the way the rules are written at this point. He stated I think I agree with everybody else. He stated if we got a few exceptions off the list and know what we are exactly dealing with I think this is going to be an excellent idea.

Mr. Sheetz asked what happens if the exceptions are taken off and they end up selling it cause it doesn’t work. He asked if the things that we strike are legally binding that no one else can do that.

Attorney Schaefer stated yes it would be in the ordinance.

Mr. Bucko stated the biggest majority of the property except for a small portion of C-2 is R-1. He stated there is the impact. He stated the impact is less if it were a special exception under the AG, RR, R-1, R-2, R-3.

Mr. Breitzke stated just for clarity the ice rink in St. John’s seemed to be more political issues rather than private enterprise issues. He stated ice hockey clubs are really catching on in this area. He stated the high school team was the best in the State this year. He stated they had to go to Calumet City or to South Bend for ice. He stated there are a lot of people looking for something like this and it is going to be a well used facility.

Mr. Breitzke stated one of the things that we could look at is making if this is C-4 exclusive to this sports use and if they


are going to change that use come back later. He stated the other option is have it R-1 and have them come back for a special exception through the BZA and that is probably a tighter control. He stated the problem with a special exception is in the lending industry. He stated one of the problems we have tonight is that this was not presented in a way that is should have been with the limitations for proposal for use. He stated I don’t know how Mr. Bengel and his client want to approach this.

Mr. Bengel stated we would like to ask for a continuance to the next meeting.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case o4-Z-7 until the November 10, 2004. Mr. Mahnic seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 04-M-4. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 204, Valparaiso, Indiana to consider a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 97-38, Chapter 16.32 (Improvements), Section 16.32.020-A (Streets) of the Porter County Code.

Mr. Thompson stated as requested by the Commission I have prepared an ordinance amendment and it is within Chapter 16.32 (Improvements) in particular Streets. He stated I have added the sentence “all proposed lots within a major subdivision shall have the required frontage on publicly dedicated right-of-way with the street construction per the Porter County Highway Engineering Department Standards and Specifications.”

Mr. Poparad asked are you are going to take out the word major and put all subdivisions.

Mr. Thompson stated that is something we can do. He stated we could state all proposed lots in a major and minor subdivision shall have the required frontage.

Mr. Poparad stated why don’t you just put in subdivision.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mr. Bengel stated I live at 73 E. Division Road, Valparaiso. He stated I am not sure if I am speaking in favor of or against. He stated I would like to see some discussion on this. He asked do the County Commissioners really want to take every road that is constructed and maintain it whether it is a minor or major. He stated it seems to me one of the things that you should look at is having the developer come in and if he wants a private road then he comes in with a written very legal


maintenance agreement for the owners in that subdivision. He stated it would be a matter of record and recorded before hand and therefore you could have a private street and the Commissioners wouldn’t have to maintain it, especially with the minor subs. He stated I don’t have a problem with a definite specification for the road. He stated I think that the County Commissioners should understand that if you have a minor subdivision or a major and they can’t have a private road they wouldn’t have all that maintenance to do.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Poparad stated I have been one of the advocates of this eliminating the private drives. He stated Mr. Bengel does a disservice when he uses the road when we just passed plat that shows gravel driveways to get to the property. He stated I have been here for almost two years and it seems like every problem that we deal with comes from private roads in minor subdivisions. He stated now if a guy wants to do a minor subdivision with four lots put a road in and maybe we could grant them a restriction or allowance on the width but not the depth. He stated it becomes a road for the garbage truck and the school bus and fire truck and they can put a turn-around at the end and get like everybody else who wants to be a developer. He stated that is my opinion.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have no comment.

Mr. Detert stated I have no problem with the ordinance.

Mr. Bucko stated if you make a road, no more private roads, and you go down to the end basically the end of the road is a cul-de-sac because it is a turn-around. He asked at one point in time I know we had some rules and concerns that is no more than a single road with a cul-de-sac at the end of it and we didn’t want to do that. He asked did we open a Pandora’s box there. He stated does the fact that it applies specifically to a minor subdivision eliminate that.

Mr. Poparad stated I have to respond to that. He stated I don’t care if it is a private drive, but build it to road specs with a turn-around.

Mr. Sheetz stated I agree.

Mr. Bucko stated I agree a lot with what Bob is saying. He stated at the last meeting we had a situation where we had a string of private drives with a few specifications that quite honestly fed two or possibly three different minor subdivisions. He stated as you create these private roads you still end up with


this parcel of land in the center and you have to deal with methods and whatever to get to it. He stated if you say you have that private road to get out there and that is an undeveloped piece of land beyond the end of that drive do you have to leave some kind of an easement for that to be a connecting road back out to a county road.

Mr. Poparad stated I don’t know if this is the answer to the problem and I am just throwing something out there.

Mr. Detert stated there are some extenuating circumstances they could still come for a variance. He stated we are not closing them out completely.

Mr. Sheetz stated I agree with Bob when it comes to making the roads meet county specs but I wonder if there is a way if there are four houses back there that is a minor sub versus two houses what type of road you put in. He asked if that could be specified.

Mr. Thompson stated I think it could very easily be specified. He stated it is something that I would ask that it go through the ordinance revision process that we have going on now.

Mr. Burns stated I don’t have a problem with it. He stated the only question I have is if you have a land owner let say a farmer and wants to divide a couple of parcels off to his children and he wants to put a road back to two parcels. He asked will he have to put it to county specs or can he ask for a variance.

Mr. Breitzke stated he could ask for a variance.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mahnic stated I have one item. He stated on a one-lot subdivision. He stated that guy has a driveway does that driveway get built to county specs.

Mr. Thompson stated if it is on an existing county road and they just put the one lot up on the existing county road then it meets the one part where it is fronting on a public maintained right-of-way.

Mr. Breitzke stated private roads were part of the Lake Communities in the early 1900’s and we had Burlington Beach Addition here where the people’s major complaints were the drainage, roads of that community. He stated they are hard to maintain. He stated we started our planning ordinances back in


the late 1950’s early 1960’s and we started to go to all public roads and publicly improved roads. He stated then in the 1980’s the Commissioners got real sensitive to the cost to maintaining the inventory and went back to looking at things such as the Aberdeen community and permitted those roads and go back to the private roads and they could write their own specifications. He stated then also our minor subdivisions themselves. He stated what we are finding are people bullying the school bus drivers and our public response vehicles into getting back to their lots on roads that might not be appropriate for the loads or the use of it. He stated the Commissioners have been getting a lot of negative feedback and the Highway Department because of the condition of the roads. He stated it typically isn’t the first owner and not the person who develops it but the third or fourth person who assumes when they buy the house in July that there children are going to get picked up at their front door or they are going to have regular police patrols down by their house and the snow plowing.

Mr. Poparad asked if we could allow them shrinkage so they don’t have to build 30-foot curb to curb.

Mr. Thompson stated right now they would have to go through a variance to allow that.

Mr. Poparad stated instead of making them build a full-blown road could we say you can build a 24-foot curb to curb without a variance.

Mr. Thompson stated in my opinion 24 is in the standards.

Mr. Bucko asked if you reduce the width of the road does that have any impact on whether there is parking on that road.

Mr. Thompson stated if you have a 24-foot wide road you can only have parking on one side and that is by code.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 04-M-4 and to strike the word major and refer it to all subdivisions. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Bucko - Yes Burns - Yes
Detert - Yes Mahnic - Yes Poparad - Yes
Sheetz - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Thompson asked if we wanted to cancel the November 24, 2004 meeting and December 22, 2004 meeting.




Mr. Detert moved to cancel the November 24, 2004 and the December 22, 2004 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Poparad seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/Kevin Breitzke, President

Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr., Executive Director