PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 12, 2005

M I N U T E S


The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m., in the County Administration Center, 155 Indiana-Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Robert Detert, Commissioner Robert Harper, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Dan Whitten, and President Kevin Breitzke. Staff members present, were Robert W. Thompson, Fred Siminski, and Attorney Karen Tallian. Also present was Patricia Gibson.

Mr. Breitzke called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Correspondence:

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Thompson, do we have any correspondence tonight?

Mr. Thompson, Yes, we do.

At this time, Mr. Thompson read the resignation letter from Attorney Lilly M. Schafer.

Mr. Detert moved to accept Ms. Schafer’s letter of resignation. Mr. Harper seconded, motion carried unanimously.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Breitzke, Next on the agenda is the minutes of the December 8, 2004 meeting. I realize we do have three new members present here. But those of us who were there, do we have any additions, corrections or comments about the minutes? If not, do I have a motion to approve?

Mr. Harper moved to approve the minutes of December 8, 2004 as received. Mr. Biddinger seconded, motion carried.

Mr. Breitzke, At this time, I would like to recognize our new members. Liz Marshall is next to Mr. Harper; she has just joined us as the Republican appointment, from what I understand. Herb Read is the Democratic appointment from the commissioners. Off to my far right is Dan Whitten, who is also a newly-elected councilman, or council person. He’s also the delegate from the County Council. With that, we need to go onto pending business for the election of officers.

Election of Officers:
President
Vice President
Appointments
Executive Director
Plan Commission & BZA Attorney
TAC Appointments
BZA

Mr. Detert moved to nominate Kevin Breitzke as President of the Porter County Plan Commission for calendar year 2005. Mr. Harper seconded.

Mr. Detert moved to close nominations for President.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any other discussion?

Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have nominations for Vice President?

Mr. Whitten, Who has it been?

Mr. Breitzke, It’s been Bob Detert.

Mr. Harper moved to elect Robert Detert as Vice President of the Porter County Plan Commission for calendar year 2005. Mr. Whitten seconded.

Mr. Biddinger moved to close nominations for Vice President.

Mr. Breitzke, All those in favor.

Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Breitzke, So moved, Mr. Detert. We also have staff appointments, specifically, first and for most. I think Mr. Thompson is interested in retaining his job as the Executive Director. Is there a motion to retain Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Whitten moved to retain Robert Thompson as the Executive Director of the Porter County Plan Commission for calendar year 2005. Mr. Biddinger seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any other discussion? Any other recommendations? I shouldn’t kid Bob, he’s done an outstanding job, he really has. All those in favor?

Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Breitzke, Next on the agenda is the Plan Commission and BZA attorney. As you just heard, Lilly Schafer has just resigned.

Mr. Detert moved to retain Attorney Karen Tallian as the attorney for the Porter County Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals for calendar year 2005. Mr. Harper seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper, I’d ask for just a moment so we can look at…

Mr. Detert, We have some background information. Call for the question.

Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Breitzke, I guess you’re in too.

Ms. Tallian, Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, For those of you who don’t know her, Karen Tallian is an Ogden Dunes resident. You’ve been practicing law for quite a while from what I understand. So we’ll let you speak for yourself.

Ms. Tallian, Should I?

Mr. Breitzke, You could just say a few words.

Ms. Tallian, Yes. My name is Karen Tallian. I have been an attorney since 1990. I have been practicing in Lake and Porter counties during that whole time. I do have considerable experience in local government and municipal matters. I did a lot of work for several years for the Town of Griffith. So I look forward to working with you.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, thank you.

Mr. Whitten, Mr. Chairman, can I say a word?

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir.

Mr. Whitten, I just wanted to say for the record that I was much surprised and disappointed that Lilly Schafer had resigned. I had occasions to work with her both, in other cases as an attorney, plus also with the BZA and the Plan Commission. I think she did a fine job, and it should be a tough act to follow. I also know Karen Tallian, and I think we will be in good hands, and I welcome you aboard here.

Ms. Tallian, Thanks, Dan.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you so much. Next we have TAC appointments.

Mr. Detert moved to retain the present status of TAC appointees: Dave Schelling, County Engineer; Chuck Walker, NRCS Agent; Kelly Cadwell, Health Department; Kevin Breitzke, County Surveyor and Plan Commission Representative; and Robert Thompson for calendar year 2005.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have a second for that?

Mr. Thompson, Dave Schelling, County Engineer; Chuck Walker, NRCS Agent; Kelly Cadwell, Environmental Scientist from the Health Department; Kevin Breitzke is the County Surveyor and Plan Commission Representative; and myself.

Mr. Whitten seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, we’re done with that business.

Mr. Detert, We need a BZA appointment.

Mr. Thompson, BZA appointment, yes.

Mr. Breitzke, Oh, that wasn’t on my list here.

Mr. Harper, Now do we have, who’s up on the BZA?

Mr. Detert, The Plan Commission appoints one member, year to year.

Mr. Breitzke, Right, and currently its Mr. Detert.

Mr. Harper, Yes, I thought you had two year appointments. It’s just one year.

Mr. Harper moved to reappoint Robert Detert to the Board of Zoning Appeals for calendar year 2005. Mr. Whitten seconded.

Mr. Whitten, I’ve also had experience to see Mr. Detert’s work on the BZA, and it’s very impressive.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Detert has done an outstanding job on the BZA. That’s a very tough job. That’s a quasi-judicial type of function, and he’s done it very well for many years. Any other discussion? All those in favor?

Motion carried unanimously.

Pending Business:
Mr. Breitzke, Next is the business at hand. If I’m not mistaken now, I’ve got everything and everybody, so we’ll move onto pending business.

Case 05-SE-1. Inspection Committee Report for Rex and Janet Veach, 716 W. 1014 S., Hebron Indiana, seeking a special exception to permit a boarding and riding stable with stalls, for up to 28 horses, to be located on the South side of CR 1014 S., between SR 2 and US Hwy 231 in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, This is Case 05-SE-1, the inspection committee report for Rex and Janet Veach, 716 W. 1014 S., Hebron Indiana, seeking a special exception to permit a boarding and riding stable with stalls, for up to 28 horses to be located on the South side of CR 1014 S., between SR 2 and US Hwy 231 in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana.

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

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any questions or comments from the Board?

Mr. Detert, Mr. Chairman, you’ll recall that this is the same area where we turned down a proposal for a main warehouse. A lot of it had to do with the unpaved streets, and of course, there are other houses in there, and the traffic. I just pass that on for information.

Mr. Biddinger, I have another concern to raise, just for information. By ordinance, in getting into the ordinance is a whole other discussion, but. While 28 horses are acceptable on 11 acres, something to keep in mind is that, if this is anticipated being a pasture operation, a full-grown horse at 1,500 pounds is generally expected to graze on two acres of ground per year. And Obviously, with 28 horses, that would mean considerably more acreage is needed than what’s present on that lot.
So there’s some management issues. If this is not properly managed as a pasture/field, we could have some severe erosion implications on that property. So I strongly suggest that the owners of this property--if they go through with this--consult with anyone, or consult with somebody on proper grazing management--what’s called MIG--or management intensive grazing.

Mr. Breitzke, Eric Biddinger is the Purdue Extension Education Agent, I suppose.

Mr. Bidding, Close enough.

Mr. Breitzke, That’s, thank you. But he has a lot the agricultural interest in mind, so please work with him on that end. Is there any other comment? Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, I have to admit that my relationship with horses goes back to the early 40’s when I worked as a farm hand. My chief job was cleaning out the barn, so I share the concern of what we do with this waste. The farm where I worked had hundreds of acres to dispose of it. So I want this to be taken into consideration. Then the next spot, or the next thing that I have is, where do they intend to walk these horses or ride these horses? On the county roads or on private land?
Mr. Breitzke, These are questions we’ll just put in the record for the BZA, when we make our recommendation to the BZA.

Mr. Read, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, That’s the place for the public hearing. Any other comments? I’d just like to comment too, with 28 horses on ten acres, you want to look at some kind of dust abatement. We were concerned about the private road itself, as a gravel road. We could have some concerns. But one way, not to have a lawn is to have dogs; and one way not to have a pasture is to have horses, because they really tear up the sod.
One of the bigger problems we have with erosion is actually wind erosion. We think of it usually in terms of water, but wind erosion is pretty significant. So you want to have some kind of treatment for that as well as what Mr. Read suggested; some kind of waste control policy that you can protect yourself and your neighbors. There is also a residence on the property. Any other discussion? Ready for a motion? Mr. Detert.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 05-SE-1 to the BZA, with the understanding that there are some issues that need looking into. Mr. Read seconded, motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Biddinger - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - No Marshall - Yes
Read - No Whitten - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Thompson, The motion carries, five to two.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, when is this going to be heard?

Mr. Thompson, This case will not be heard until the February BZA meeting. We had to cancel the January BZA meeting, because of a lack of a quorum. February 16th at 6:30.

Case 05-SE-2. Inspection Committee Report for Nextel Communications Inc., c/o Michael Hennon, 3960 Brown Park Drive-Suite I, Hilliard, Ohio, seeking a special exception to permit a 190 monopole wireless communications tower and equipment shelter, to be located at 747 N. 450 W., in Portage Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, Next is, Case 05-SE-2, inspection committee report for Nextel Communications Inc., c/o Michael Hennon, 3960 Brown Park Drive-Suite I, Hilliard, Ohio, seeking a special exception to permit a 190 monopole wireless communications tower and equipment shelter, to be located at 747 N. 450 W., in Portage Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Thompson, I have an Inspection Committee Report.

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

Mr. Breitzke, Do you have any comments? Discussion? A motion from the Board?

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 05-SE-2 to the BZA, with no recommendation.

Mr. Breitzke, Is this a favorable recommendation to the BZA, Bob?

Mr. Detert, They go through these cell towers pretty thoroughly, and I don’t have any problem with them getting into the details. There will be much more information to be said at that time, so I’d rather not make it. Send it without recommendation.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay. Do we have a second?

Mr. Biddinger seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, More discussion?

Mr. Read, Yes, I had a, the thing that stuck out on that report was that the little league field is within the “failed falling area”. Am I correct on that or not?

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, a portion of it is.

Mr. Read, A portion of it is. Well I don’t know how many times these things fail, but I have great reluctance in having it within a little league field.

Mr. Biddinger, Kevin, I have a question.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Biddinger, Don’t we usually send it with a recommendation one way or the other?

Mr. Breitzke, Typically, yes we do; favorable or unfavorable.

Ms. Marshall, I have a question.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, This handout that you sent, this zoning brochure.

Mr. Breitzke, Right.

Ms. Marshall, It talks about these kind of towers, and it says that building within a two-mile radius of other ones, well we have three listed here, or four listed here, that are within two miles. So I think that the BZA should be cognizant of the fact of what capacity these other towers have to allow another one. If this is a Nextel tower, they sell space on their towers too.
So, you know, we can’t just do the countryside here with these towers. I know that they are increasing because there’s what they call dead zones. I have a Nextel, and when you get in certain areas, you don’t pick up, you know. I know that along I-65 and that, they are increasing the amount of those. However, out here in the country, I know there’s more need for it. But I think that the BZA should make a point of following the rules in this book.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, and that’s exactly the intent when we authored it, was to force co-location. I totally agree with you in every conceivable way. The BZA has been a real good watchdog toward that end. The other thing as far as fail safe, I’d really rather, I don’t know that the little league field, typically when its raining and windy, the kids are not on the little league, but we do have a county road there that that should be moved back away from, so the traveling public is not impaired. The existence of four towers within proximity to it, I would guess that there is a potential for co-location, so I agree with you in that, that stand.

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I think, you know. The BZA should be questioning that.

Mr. Detert moved to amend his motion to forward Case 05-SE-2 to the BZA, and include Mr. Read’s concern of the failed falling area; and Ms. Marshall’s concern of the number of towers located within a two-mile radius.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have that second?

Mr. Biddinger seconded.

Mr. Read, So now the procedural question, Mr. President. A yes vote would pass it on, but expressing our concerns. A no, what happens with a no vote?

Mr. Breitzke, It still gets passed on. It’s either favorable or unfavorable.

Mr. Read, It is passed on without comment.

Mr. Breitzke, No, there’s always comment one way or the other.

Mr. Read, Okay, so all of our comments would be passed on all of these cases to the BZA?

Mr. Breitzke, Correct.

Mr. Detert, One of the problems we’ve run into, Herb, is that we really get all the detailed information until it gets to the BZA. Then we get the distances, and normally they give us a map, and they show all the areas. Then if it’s too close, they’re not going to get it. That would be my guess.

Mr. Breitzke, And the BZA part of it, it becomes a public hearing. So then we hear from the neighbors.

Mr. Detert, They’ll come up with a whole book of details, usually, that’s what they do.

Mr. Breitzke, Fundamentally, what we do here is steer this to the appropriate body.

Mr. Whitten, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, sir.

Mr. Whitten, I understand the motion is to send it with no recommendation, and leave it up to the BZA. However, my understanding of this vertical real estate, some of the concerns that are intrinsic with that, a couple of things sort of jump out at me here in the proximity to the other towers, houses, and ball field, leads me to believe, that we should perhaps--as you said--steer it in the right direction. It should be, with some of the things that are glaring, leads me to believe it should be unfavorable.

Mr. Breitzke, Well there’s a motion on the floor.

Mr. Detert moved to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Detert, If Mr. Whitten cares to make a motion he can.

Mr. Breitzke, Does the second withdraw his?

Mr. Bidding withdrew his second.

Mr. Breitzke, Eric made the motion.

Mr. Biddinger, Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. Breitzke, That’s alright, you and I are both inpatient. Mr. Whitten, would you like to make a motion?

Mr. Whitten, I certainly would.

Mr. Whitten moved to forward Case 05-SE-2 to the BZA, with an unfavorable recommendation. Ms. Marshall seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, seven to zero.

Case 05-SE-3. Inspection Committee Report for Century 21 Alliance Group, c/o William A. Ferngren, 103 East Lincolnway, P.O. Box 2357, Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking a special exception under Section 6 of the U.S. 30 Overlay Zone, to permit a billboard, to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 375 W. and CR 250 W. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, Next is Case 05-SE-3, inspection committee report for Century 21 Alliance Group, c/o William A. Ferngren, 103 East Lincolnway, P.O. Box 2357, Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking a special exception under Section 6 of the U.S. 30 Overlay Zone, to permit a billboard, to be located on the South side of U.S. Hwy 30, between CR 375 W. and CR 250 W. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. Mr. Thompson.

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

Mr. Breitzke, Discussion from the Board? Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, No.

Ms. Marshall, What is going to be the size of this sign? Do you have any…

Mr. Breitzke, Yes.

Mr. Thompson, Let me take a look here.

Ms. Marshall, And I’d like to know what the purpose of the sign is.

Mr. Thompson, It’s for advertising the Century 21. I was contacted by Century 21 Alliance Group--I think is the name of it--that is located within that commercial district on the South side.

Ms. Marshall, So it’s an advertising sign for promoting building here in Porter County, right?

Mr. Thompson, Yes, it’s Century 21 Alliance Group, it’s advertising it. It is off the parcel for that business.

Mr. Read, Mr. President, I’m…

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read. Let’s back up. What was the size of that sign, by the way?

Mr. Harper, It looks like 10 by 20.

Mr. Breitzke, Ten by 20.

Mr. Harper, And 35 feet high at the top.

Mr. Breitzke, It’s intended to be specific to Century 21 Alliance Group, to say they’re at the next right. They’re on the West, facing the building, and they feel that they have no visibility for point of sale.

Mr. Thompson, The application does say 200 square feet.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, so this is not a national signage company. This is not like Lamar or like Whiteco.

Mr. Thompson, No.

Ms. Marshall, This is just a local person interested in an advertising sign.

Mr. Thompson, Yes, an outside advertising sign, correct.

Mr. Breitzke, To make sure their customers find their place of business just down the street. It’s kind of difficult to see; they’re in that credit union building.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, and…

Mr. Breitzke, To the back.

Ms. Marshall, So then this is going to be West of that complex, right?

Mr. Thompson, Correct.

Ms. Marshall, It’s going to be in Union Township.

Mr. Thompson, Correct.

Mr. Ferngren, Let me, if I might give a thought. If my understanding is correct, on your zoning ordinance, it’s going to try to concentrate on some of our major thoroughfares, and what they are going to look like in the future.

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Mr. Ferngren, Including Highway 30.

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Mr. Harper, And US 6, and so forth. The one thing that I’m hopeful, and I think our new zoning ordinances are going to address the signs and size and so forth, to ensure the future look of the area. So I might, and further I think that we’re hopeful that’s done shortly. I wonder if we might be better off recommending to the BZA, drafts, at least our recommendation, that they wait and they see what that new zoning ordinance is going to require. That’s just my thought.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read.

Mr. Read, From the description of the location, 250 W. 375 W, that’s a mile and a quarter?

Ms. Marshall, Yes.

Mr. Read, I was trying to locate, what’s in the location of a mile and a quarter. I went up and down 30 several times.

Mr. Breitzke, Specifically…

Mr. Read, It’s very scenic by the way.

Mr. Breitzke, Specifically, it’s by the entrance to Shellbourne at 375 W, end of things.

Mr. Read, Well.

Mr. Breitzke, It would be in the field behind the Shellbourne Convention Center sign, which is relatively small.

Mr. Read, Yes. There was a, quite a rolling area, wooded area, agricultural fields on some of the high, so it was quite varied topography. And not knowing exactly where it would go, bothered me for that time. There’s no signs other than now on the South side, other than the, a couple of the signs for the businesses that are located there. I saw the sign, the one sign on the North side. But then, what is Highway 30 going to look like in the future. If Century 21 gets a special exception, what about their competitors. Where will that lead? Or people in other businesses. So I think that we ought to take a good hard look at Highway 30 before granting this. I can sympathize with a guy who wants a sign out there that says, make a right turn at the next road-- or whatever, the next right--to lead him there. But I think we should study Highway 30 in its entirety in our area.

Mr. Breitzke, Well at this point, I don’t disagree with you, but we need to make a recommendation to the BZA, and leave it up to the petitioner, what they decide. If they want to risk the petition or not, you know. The decision will be in the hands of the BZA. We’re just going to send a message to them.

Ms. Marshall, I think that we have a mixed bag here because this Plan Commission has allowed signs on Route 30. We have a directional Aberdeen sign up at the corner of 250 and Route 30. That’s just for one builder that gained approval to put a sign there.
Further, we have had other petitions for signs on Route 30. We have an attorney that was turned down. We have a business that was turned down on 250 and Route 30. We have had a number of non-approval for other people, and yet, Aberdeen gets one there.
So I would look at this very carefully, it’s Century 21. I don’t know how the sign got on 250. Is this going to be notified, is the state highway going to be notified? This is a busy highway here, U.S. 30.

Mr. Thompson, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, I would be reluctant to give it a favorable recommendation. Just that we’re pinpointing one company to have, we’re just going to have, we can’t turn them down once they start coming in.

Mr. Breitzke, Is that a motion?

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I’ll make it a motion.

Ms. Marshall moved to forward Case 05-SE-3 to the BZA, with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Read seconded, motion carried on the following roll call vote:

Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Whitten - No
Biddinger - Yes Detert - Yes
Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, six to one.

Case 05-FP-1. Petition of William Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Whisper Hollow subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E., between CR 600 N. and CR 500 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. To contain 3 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, Case 05-FP-1, petition of William Rensberger, 1105 N. 100 E., Chesterton, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Whisper Hollow subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 400 E., between CR 600 N. and CR 500 N. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. This contains three lots on ten acres. The property is zoned Rural Residential. Mr. Rensberger.

Mr. Rensberger, Hello. I’m William Rensberger of Davies-Rensberger Land Surveying. I’m here for the property owner. This was approved primary a couple of months ago through this Commission, a couple of different people.The property owners live on Lot 1, and the house is built already. They purchased ten acres originally. They would now like to divide it up into three lots, total. Five acres in the back; a couple of acres on the second lot; and their house area of two and a half acres. Like I said, its been approved primarily; we’re asking for secondary approval.
Mr. Breitzke, Any questions from the Board?

Ms. Marshall, Yes, does each of these lots have access to the road?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, ma’am. They all have the required…

Ms. Marshall, The minimum? So somebody bought ten acres, and now decided that they’ve built their house, they want to further subdivide it, because of the rules in the County here. Right? Is that what they are doing?

Mr. Rensberger, I think they wanted to subdivide it, because they didn’t want all of the ten acres. I’m not totally sure.

Ms. Marshall, How far back is it to that lot in the back? How far is it down there?

Mr. Rensberger, They have frontage on the county road for the lot in the back.

Ms. Marshall, I know they have frontage there.

Mr. Rensberger, This distance here is about 350 feet.

Ms. Marshall, Is that going to be a private road?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, ma’am.

Ms. Marshall, So they’re going to maintain it?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, ma’am. They will probably have a gravel/asphalt driveway, ten feet wide.

Ms. Marshall, And you say that the first house is already built?

Mr. Rensberger, Yes. Here is the existing house where the property owner, the people that own the property, they live there.

Ms. Marshall, It’s kind of coming in through the back door.

Mr. Rensberger, I…

Ms. Marshall, I’m just saying, you know. You buy ten acres, then you further subdivide it.

Mr. Rensberger, They thought it was too much to mow. I don’t know.

Ms. Marshall, It is.
Mr. Breitzke, Too little to plow; too much to mow. Do we have any other discussion from the Board?

Mr. Read, Mr. President, this is secondary approval. I assume then there was a public hearing.

Mr. Rensberger, Yes, sir.

Mr. Read, Was there any objections?

Mr. Rensberger, Not that I recall, sir.

Mr. Read, Okay, you’ve answered my question.

Mr. Breitzke, Any other questions from the Board?

Ms. Marshall, I think once they have preliminary, and they come in for secondary, it’s simply, if you haven’t changed it from the preliminary, I think then that you should get approval after the hearing that the public has participated.

Mr. Rensberger, That’s the way it usually works.

Ms. Marshall, I mean that’s usually the follow up.

Mr. Breitzke, So do we have a motion?

Mr. Biddinger moved to approve Case 05-FP-1. Mr. Whitten seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, Any other discussion? This is a voice vote too.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, seven to zero.

Case 05-FP-2. petition of Patrick and Brenda Kleihege, 10 Washington Street, Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Troon Subdivision-Phase 1, to be located on the North side of CR 700 N., between Meridian Road and Calumet Avenue in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. To contain nine lots on 20.28 acres. Property is zoned R-1.

Mr. Breitzke, Next on the agenda is Case 05-FP-2, petition of Patrick and Brenda Kleihege, 10 Washington Street, Valparaiso, Indiana, seeking secondary plat approval for Troon subdivision, Phase 1, to be located on the North side of CR 700 N., between Meridian Road and Calumet Avenue in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. To contain nine lots on 20.28 acres, property is zoned R-1.
Mr. Hennon, Good evening, I’m John Hennon with Great Lakes Engineering, up here with Pat Kleihege. We’re here for Phase 1 of Troon, on the North side of 700 N. The primary plat calls for 29 lots; we’re only proposing for the final plat, nine at this time. So we have 29 lots proposed on a 50 acres parcel. We’ve been through the public hearing phase. We’ve been before TAC. We’ve been before the Drainage Board, and we’ve received the approval of all of those Boards. The Drainage Board has set an assessment for the drains. We have the soils reports that are necessary for these nine lots, that show that the lots are sized properly, and we are here hoping to get secondary plat approval tonight.

Mr. Breitzke, Any discussion from the Board?

Ms. Marshall, Is there only one ingress/egress road into this whole subdivision?

Mr. Hennon, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, Into the entire subdivision, only one ingress/egress.

Mr. Hennon, That’s correct.

Mr. Breitzke, Any other questions from the Board?

Mr. Read, Mr. President, as Elizabeth Marshall has said, when it gets down to the secondary, there’s not much reversal that may be done, perhaps. But I’ve got to tell you, that I wish at least the North part of your property could have been added to the Porter County Parks Department, which it abuts. It would be ideal from the aerial photograph. It’s wooded. I’m familiar with the area, because I’ve been there, and the county parks right up at that monument on the upper left-hand corner of your map.

Mr. Hennon, Yes.

Mr. Read, I’ve been there, and looked out over it. You know, it’s not too late for your client to change their mind.

Mr. Hennon, That’s fine, I’ll pass that message on.

Mr. Read, Please do, yes. There is another couple of points here. I know that it has been the long cherished hope of the Porter County Parks Department to make a connection with the old Gary Inter-Urban right-of-way, much of which is still owned by the County. And their tentative plan was to run Eastward from Porter County Parks and make a connection with the North end of the old cut that’s there, just South of the curve of Bypass 49. Take this back to your client, and ask him if he’s willing to grant at least a narrow right-of-way somewhere across the property, maybe at the North end, where the, what’s that, the NIPSCO line there--possibly there. Along 700, what is that, is that 700 N?

Mr. Hennon, Yes.

Mr. Read, That’s another possibility, but it’s not a very good one. I’m familiar with the road, it’s got a lot of lined hills on it. It has some driveways that I would consider hazardous, and some of the roadways coming from the lake region, houses there, the streets that exit onto this area. So I wish I had been here during the initial public hearing. But all I can say at this point is, please take my request back to your client.

Mr. Hennon, Certainly.

Mr. Read, Thank you.

Ms. Marshall, It would be difficult to put an easement along there, because you’re going to cut the lots down so they don’t meet the requirements of the ordinance.

Mr. Read, Yes, that’s why I realized that this is kind of late in the game. I would have suggested it initially. I’m sure that he could have peeled ten feet width or so off of that with some readjustment. But on the other hand…

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read, there’s still…

Mr. Read, We’re not considering this now.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, there’s still opportunities on Phase 2.

Mr. Read, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, This is the first phase, and there’s a lot of connectivity with the Parks to the West, and I’d be surprised if they would be entertaining some way of having a connectivity, if it’s welcomed by the Park Department.

Mr. Harper moved to approve Case 05-FP-2. Mr. Whitten seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, seven to zero.

Mr. Hennon, Thank you, and we will talk about your suggestion.

Mr. Read, Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Public Hearing:

Mr. Breitzke, Now we’re going to get into the meat of the meeting. This is the public hearing, so I need to read the conduct of hearings for those of you who are new.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the Rules of Conduct for the public hearing.

Case 05-P-1. Petition of Wightman Petrie, Inc., 4703 Chester Drive, Elkhart, Indiana, seeking primary plat approval for Morgan Farms subdivision, to be located on the West side of SR 49, and the East side of CR 150 E., between CR 112 S. and CR 250 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. To contain 104 lots on 163.17 acres. Property is zoned R-1.

Mr. Breitzke, The first case on the agenda is Case 05-P-1, petition of Wightman Petrie, Inc., 4703 Chester Drive, Elkhart, Indiana, seeking primary plat approval for Morgan Farms subdivision, to be located on the West side of SR 49, and the East side of CR 150 E., between CR 112 S. and CR 250 S. in Morgan Township, Porter County, Indiana. This is to contain 104 lots on 163.17 acres, the property is zoned R-1. Sir.

Artie Bucher, Good evening. My name is Artie Bucher, and I have four brother and sisters.

Mr. Breitzke, Could you give your address too for the record?

Mr. Bucher, I live in Fishers, Indiana, currently.

Mr. Breitzke, Your mailing address.

Mr. Bucher, Mailing; 10122 North Cumberland Road, Fishers, Indiana, 46030.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay.

Mr. Bucher, The property that we are requesting primary plat approval for tonight is owned by myself and my four brothers and sisters; Danny, Sue, Tim and Lori. Both Danny and Tim are with me tonight, and the four have asked me to represent the five of us. With me is Mr. Ken Jones, president of Wightman Petrie, our engineering firm.
I might just talk where the property is, and then go into a little bit more about it. Basically, if you go two and a half miles South from Highway 30 on SR 49, the property is on the West side of 49. So it is bound on the East by SR 49; it is bound on the North by CR 112 S; and bounded on the West by CR 150 E. As you said, there are 163 acres in it, and zoned R-1.
Now, as for background on this property, my mother and father moved to this land in 1945. So it’s been in the family for a long time. We have had opportunities over the years to sell this property, but our feeling was that we wanted to do a very quality subdivision here. So we had decided to go forward at this point with a quality subdivision. Both of them worked very hard to farm and preserve this land, and so that’s our plan, to do a quality subdivision.
I’d like to walk you through a little bit of the features of this subdivision, so you have an understanding of what we believe and why we believe it will be a very quality subdivision. I have a handout for each of you. It’s an overlay of the plan on the aerial photographs. Join me as we take basically a walk through, and I’ll give you an idea of the key features in the subdivision.
First of all, this is SR 49, and this is CR 150 E. Again, 163 acres, and 104 lots in here. The main entrance would be off of SR 49; there’s an exit and entry off of SR 49. There is also an entry/exit off of 150 E. So it gives us multiple exits and entries to the residents, but it also allows something, a secondary benefit, because today it’s very difficult to get to 49 when 150 E., back in this area, it allows you to get through.
Now initially, these were not where our entrances were. They were at a different location. But in working with the Technical Advisory Committee, we moved them, consistent with what they wanted, which made sense to us too then. So we ended up with entries and exits in theses places, which we think are a good plan.As you come into the subdivision, there is, on the right and left, there will be berming and landscaping. The purpose of that is to basically make it more attractive for the residents, and to set them apart from SR 49. As you can see, there is distance too between the lots and the SR.
Also, we have open space retention area, approximately 14 acres or more in this area, which we use for the enjoyment of the residents, as well as a storm water feature. Now in there will be walking paths, and again, some water features. Our current thinking is that, actually, this part here, will be all green, all dry retention normally, and there will be a lake, and a water fall added on this side. The idea will be, as you drive in you’ll have the vista of the lake and the waterfall, which we believe will be very attractive.
Now coming down into the open space, and again, there are trails in here, that way people will be able to walk in, coming into the open space, there will be sidewalks throughout the addition. The idea of sidewalks is to encourage people to get out and walk, and also to come down and enjoy this area here. We plan to have lighting at the entrance, and lighting at key intersections also. Now of the 104 lots, I should mention, Lot 104, we are in discussion with the Church here--Heartland--about buying that lot. The other 103 lots, approximately 85% of them are an acre-plus, and the rest are approximately three-quarters of an acres. They have about 150 feet of frontage, the larger ones do. Of course, they all meet the Health Department’s standards.
We plan to have four to five exclusive builders in this neighborhood, and these builders will be selected based upon their quality, their responsiveness to customers, they have their sound financial, and they’re local. So we are in the process of talking to builders about that. We will have covenants, that establish and deal with things like landscaping, fencing, material for building the house, and also minimum square foot requirements. We believe that the initial price for the home and lots in here will be approximately $275,000, and these are typical examples of houses. Obviously, these aren’t the exact ones that will be built in there; we just took some pictures to give you a flavor of the type of houses that would be in the addition.
I mentioned covenants, in addition to that, we will have an architectural approval committee that will review all the plans to make sure that they are consistent with the covenants. And again, we get a quality look and feel throughout the subdivision. Then we will have a homeowners association who will maintain the open space going forward, and also provide for the covenants, going forward to make sure the covenants are followed.
I think I’ve hit the key points. Two final points I want to make before I turn it to Mr. Jones. The initial name on this development was going to be Morgan Farms. After giving further thinking to it, and talking to a lot of people, the current plan is to call it, Grand Prairie.
Now one final note, and that is, during the process of going through the process of working up plans, working with the engineers, we’ve had a number of individual meetings with certain neighbors. Then a week ago, we invited all the neighbors, after we had the approval from TAC, all the neighbors to come to a meeting, to walk them through the subdivision, and make sure they understood what we were planning to do. And we had over 20 people attend.
There was one primary concern that we heard that we wanted to point out tonight from our neighbors. And that was, if you notice here, we were showing an entry and exit off of CR 112 S., that goes into the subdivision. Currently, that is a dead-end street. And the people that live in this neighborhood would like it to stay a dead-end street for privacy and other reasons. They asked us if we would consider other options, and we said we would do what we could.
So we went back and talked about this, and came up with the concept of a cul-de-sac, right about here, leaving a dead-end at this area. We wanted to know whether or not that would be considered. So we went and talked to Mr. Thompson, and he suggested and recommended we bring that forward tonight, if that’s our request. We also talked to Mr. Schelling, and he said he would support that request, if this would then no longer be a county road, but a private road. So we are requesting that part of the primary plat approval be, that this be a cul-de-sac, and this be a dead-end, in order to again, support the neighbors’ wishes. With that, I’ll turn to Ken Jones. Thank you.

Mr. Jones, I’m Ken Jones with Wightman Petrie, 4703 Chester Drive in Elkhart, Indiana. I know you’ve got a long schedule, and I’ll try to get you back on get schedule as soon as possible. I want to tell you that we started this project about a year ago with this family. It has been a distinct pleasure. We don’t always get the opportunity to work with developers and folks that clearly have a strong concern for what their end-product is going to actually bring to the community. I think their commitment to the land, and their commitment as a family to Porter County and Valparaiso is clear. In any case, we feel very comfortable attaching our name to this project, and we feel very comfortable representing this group of people.
A couple of things that Artie kind of breezed over, as developers sometimes do, and leave all the kind of hard work up to us consultants, is that during this entire year we’ve spent a lot of time planning this project. Matter of fact, we spent a considerable amount of time before we even turned in the application and began talking to the TAC Committee.
Artie and his family took the substantial step of asking a land planner to be involved, and provide the overall concept for the project. I think we looked at up to three alternates. As a matter of fact, this plan is definitely not the first alternate that we showed the TAC Committee.
In addition to that, we made a concerted effort--a formalized effort--to approach the City of Valparaiso for sewer and water service on this site, and we were formally turned down. That of course, lead us in another direction in regard to how this project was going to be planned.
In addition to that, the developers, through the family, hired a market study expert, and did a very complete and detailed market study on this site to see what the market would support; what kind of home would be acceptable to the community; and what made sense. All those things coupled together drove this plan.
In addition to that, your own zoning ordinance standards help us get there as well. The one-acre rule--if you’re familiar with that--through your Health Department, where we started out with, throughout the project, one acre lots. We were able through, the very detailed analysis of the soils on the site, through a qualified soil scientist, approved by the Porter County Health Department, we were able to reduce--as Artie mentioned--around 15% of the lots to under one acre. Knowing that, and understanding that however, that every single lot on this project has been, is very completely, and with a lot of detail reviewed by the Health Department, and are approved for septic systems. There may be some need for the installation of perimeter drains. We’ve designed that into the preliminary plat, and we’ve made room for that, and we’re planning that in our storm system.
We did have an opportunity to work closely with the staff, and I’ve got to tell you that their representation of Porter County is clear, concise, very professional, and it made it easier, and much more problem free for us than what we see in some other jurisdictions. As Artie said, expect a top-drawer project. Some of these representations he making tonight, I would expect him to follow through with, and my job is to help him do that.
A little bit of information about the less glamorous portions of this project, the storm sewer, the perimeter drains, the outlet, and the storm water features that we are showing on the plan, have all been designed to exceed the standards here in Porter County. We’ve made sure of that. We’re probably designing about 25 or 30% added volume in the retention facility itself. We’ve added some features that we consider, that are going to be important for Porter County in the future. We’re talking about some bio-filter and sedimentation traps in our outlets where our storm sewer is going to enter the storm water features. We think that’s going to be important as regulations become very tight in the near future on discharges of storm water for public streets and private property. The primary storm water feature is going to serve a dual purpose, as Artie mentioned. It’s not only going to provide the utilitarian use of storing and dissipating storm water, it’s also going to provide some open space and recreational opportunities for the residents.
Artie has been talking to some local contractors--general contractors--that will actually build this project. His plan is to have a very detailed landscape plan provided by a local landscape firm for him to approve, and also share with the planning staff if they would like to see it. In any case, our conservative approach to those types of design features, again, meet or exceed Porter County standards.
In addition to the storm water retention and the capacity that we’ve built into it, we have agreed and our planning, and actually have under design, a control-released outlet to the Stinson drain, which is about a quarter mile East on CR 150 S., where we will discharge an overflow or controlled release from our storm sewer, or from our storm water feature. That is in the process, it will come back to the staff and the Drainage Board in detailed designs.
Again, just to point our real quickly, the initial design for this project has an entrance point off of the end of this roadway, located up in this location. In dealing with the Highway Department and the TAC staff and Committee, it was felt that it was a more appropriate location to line this up with the intersection of CR 150 S. We agree with that. We’ve met with INDOT and county highway officials, and we are committing to provide a design that meets the standards of INDOT and federal highway standards, as well as Porter County, for that important public approach.
The other thing that I found kind of unique here in Porter County, that I haven’t been exposed to in other jurisdictions, there is an ordinance requirement that calls for subdivisions, when possible, to help to promote and create additional secondary roads for the county network. That is why, one reason why staff is so adamant that this intersection be considered for the approach point. What they wanted to do was to make this a secondary road as part of the county network. We don’t have a single problem with that. As a matter of fact, we’ve incorporated that in the right-of-way. Instead of the required 60 feet, there’s 80 feet of right-of-way proposed for that, in case future capacity, if it was needed on that roadway. We’ve also widened the road to the county standard for that secondary arterial. We think that’s an important feature, and we don’t have any problems incorporating that into our plans.
Our primary approach to SR 49 is going to be very important to us. It’s going to provide a safe access to our site, and also safe access for our residents and other residents on SR 49. Again, that will meet INDOT’s standards. The engineering plans are under design, and those will be submitted before we go under construction.
We believe that there probably is going to be a little bit of resistance that you might hear from residents. We’ve done, as Artie mentioned, we’ve done our best to try to accommodate that, and we are willing to probably do more. Some things that we cannot answer without your help, as Artie mentioned, we’d like you to consider the potential for changing their traffic circulation plan, and adding--if you notice on your handout--the potential for that cul-de-sac. Again, it will be built to Porter County standards, and will be designed to allow cross traffic, plowing vehicles, emergency vehicles to turn around in there safely.
At the meeting that was held on the fourth, the main concern, as Artie mentioned was traffic. We’re concerned as well, and our commitment is to try to overcome that. Dave Schelling’s suggestion was for this road to become private, and for these property owners to become the overseers and maintenance entity to operate and maintain that road. We actually will even have one lot that will be a party to that. That would be Lot 100, which is right here on the corner. We actually probably think that’s a pretty good feature for that lot, and may even make it more attractive.
Consequently, somebody is going to have to lead on that. The Buchers, as the developer are going to take the lead on that. If the residents really want to have that as a private road and maintain it, the developer is going to take the lead on vacating that road as a county road, and then we’re putting together the contracts and ownership agreements for maintaining that as a private, because they will be one of the parties, at least initially while that lot is still in their ownership.
I think that’s important, because there is going to be some kind of detailed legal work that will have to take place to make sure that that happens, and that that is a feature that those property owners can live with. I’m going to have to leave that up to Artie to, and his attorney, to discover what the actual details are. We will help them, of course, and there will be some discussion back and forth with the property owners. We feel very comfortable that that can happen. We’ve done it in other jurisdictions, and actually it has become quite common.
The other concern, you’re probably going to hear are going to be a little bit more abstract than traffic. Again, we think we solved that problem, if you agree. If you don’t agree, we’ll do what you ask us to do, obviously. The other more abstract concerns are going to be related to things, such as the impact to schools. We believe that our impact to the schools for this project are going to be minimal. As a matter of fact, at 103 lots, at what the Census Bureau tells us, we should expect an average of two and a half people per home, assuming two of those are adults. So we’re going to have a half of a child per home--so to speak. We should get about 50 kids out of this subdivision. That’s very typical for other projects that we’ve been involved in.

Mr. Breitzke, Ken, if I just may say too.

Mr. Jones, Yes.

Mr. Breitzke, For the benefit of everybody, we can’t make our decisions based on the schools.

Mr. Jones, Right, however…

Mr. Breitzke, Of our situation, we’re sympathetic to the needs.

Mr. Jones, Right.

Mr. Breitzke, We, that’s something we can’t have in our findings.

Mr. Jones, We only make the statement to try to bring some understanding, and I’ll be glad to go over those things in detail with any property owner that may want to discuss that with me after the meeting. Again, in every way we have made sure of, and we’ll continue to make sure that this project complies with Porter County’s standards of construction for roadways, drainage systems, lots, sidewalks, and such things.
In addition to that, expect some amenities that Artie touched on a little bit. We are talking about some locations, specific lighting that will not be located in the public right-of-way. That will be located on private land and easements. There will be some accent point landscape features at some of those intersections, which again will be located on private property, not within the public right-of-way. Those things will be maintained by the private property owners through their association, which will be established through the restrictive covenants that are going to be attached to this project.
Overall, we think that the project brings substantial benefit to this part of Morgan Township; provides some new and better alternatives for access to SR 49, back and forth in both directions. We think that the commitment by the Buchers, to the quality and value of this project is substantial. Their proposal for significant architectural control and restrictive covenants is really going to help to preserve property values in and around the subdivision. They, in my opinion, will probably elevate them in some cases. Their commitment to pre-qualified master builders is important, and should be important to the neighboring property owners.
Then the last three points again, just to reiterate. The project complies with your standards. It’s met with the approval of the TAC Committee. They are providing their recommendation to you. We would ask that you concur with the staff and the TAC Committee, and send us on to the county commissioners with your recommendation for approval. Do you have any questions for any of us?

Mr. Breitzke, This comes back to the Plan Commission, just for clarity.
Mr. Jones, Oh, okay, I’m sorry.

Mr. Breitzke, But yes, this is the preliminary plat hearing, and this is the body that makes the decisions at this time.

Mr. Jones, We are asking for your approval.

Mr. Breitzke, We have people who have signed up for the petition to speak out. If there is anybody who hasn’t signed, you are permitted to too. I’m just going to have to ask you for addresses when I start calling out your name. I’ve got Eric Opperman first. Could you give your address, Eric.

Eric Opperman, Do you want us up there, or do you want us here?

Mr. Breitzke, It’s fine right there. Just please speak up. We’ve got microphones right at the corner, and you have to remember this is audio tape. She needs to be able to hear your name prior to you speaking each time anybody speaks. Thank you, Eric.

Mr. Opperman, My name is Eric Opperman. My address is 193 E. 122 S. I live on the North side of 112, smack dab in the middle of that little piece of woods. I’m probably not going to be as good a speaker as your last speaker, I’m just your average homeowner.
My family and I moved out there ten years ago this May. At that time, we had one little girl; we now have two. We have a ten-year old and a seven-year old. It was the perfect place for us. It was a dead-end street. It had ten homes on it. It was quiet. We know every car that goes in the subdivision; we know every car that comes out. If there’s a strange car, we know about it. The neighbors look out for each other. Our kids ride their bikes up and down the street. It’s perfect. That’s what we moved there for; that’s what we bought into.
To say we are for or against this subdivision is kind of tricky. In my heart am I for it? I understand that the Buchers own a piece of property, and I believe in my heart they’re going to do the right thing, and build a quality subdivision. Would I rather look out my front window, and see the cornfield that’s there currently, absolutely. I would specifically ask that you give ample consideration to not making our road a through-street. That was the main concern, as addressed by all 11 residents that currently live on 112 S. I’m speaking actually for Don Miller and Randy Massner who also live there. They couldn’t attend tonight, but they wanted to make sure, you know, that their voice was heard. While we’re not wild about having to pay for a road, that frankly we pay taxes on anyway, given the choice of having to pay for a private road or having a through-street that’s basically going to be a highway, we’ll choose a private road.
The people that are going to spend $275,000 on a piece of property are not going to be working in Kouts or Wheatfield. They are going to be going North. Their entrance is towards the South, and you’re not going to go South to go back North. As much as their traffic studies tell you, if you make that a through-street, my kids don’t get to ride their bikes anymore. I no longer have the safety and security of knowing which cars belong in my neighborhood. I would just ask for your consideration in that order. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you, Mr. Opperman. Next on the list is Michael Morningstar.

Michael Morningstar, My name is Michael Morningstar. I live at 191 E. 112 S. I live directly North and behind Mr. Opperman. I’m on the Northern most property on the section line, farthest away from 112. My driveway does feed into 112. I also went looking for property four years ago. I have four children, and I had some of the same, most of the same concerns that Eric did about being able to have some space for my kids, and the privacy of a dead-end street.
I understand that this is America, and the Buchers have a right to do what they would like to do with their property, and I ask for their consideration. The dead-end street is the lesser of two evils, I guess. I can see that we can still maintain our privacy, as a cul-de-sac street. Like Eric, I would be in favor of maintaining our own road, through our own meeting association--if you will--in order to preserve that cul-de-sac.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, Glenda Snyder.

Glenda Snyder, I’m Glenda Snyder, my address is 2611 LaPorte Avenue, Valparaiso. I’m also the owner of the property right on the corner of CR 112 and 49. I purchased the property from the Buchers a year ago, and at that time we did a mini subdivision for the corner. It was to be four platted, with myself right on the corner, and then, you know, a rectangular plat there.
Our agreement at that time was for me to provide the drainage for that mini subdivision or minor subdivision, I guess is your terminology. We agreed to that. There’s a regulated drain that goes across my property that is to go into the Stinson Drain. However, nobody can locate that drain. I’m sure Kevin is very well aware of that. I’ve had Harvey Nix out there.

Mr. Breitzke, You haven’t found it yet.

Ms. Snyder, Still haven’t found it. So obviously my concern was, I cannot handle the water for that section there, and their original plans were to still have me do that drain. We’ve had, you know, further discussion obviously of course. I’ve been told that if I do have to control that water, then I would have to put in at least a five-foot deep pond there. As you know, these people have small children. The last thing I want is a five-foot deep pond there to control water. My idea was to put in a retention pond with prairie grass and plants and that kind of thing, which I still intend to do, I just don’t want to have five-foot pond with standing water.
I want to be a good neighbor. I want to get along with my new neighbors. I don’t want to be a problem to them at all. I’ve had further discussion with the Buchers, and Artie called me today at 3:00 and said they do not intend to drain to me. So I mean I just want to go on record that as long as they don’t drain on me, and I can still just put in my break yard and retention area to control the water on my own property, then I don’t have any problem with their plans.
I’ve also, you know, I’ve talked to the neighbors about the private road, and that’s certainly fine from my end. I don’t have a problem with that whatsoever. So I’m just concerned on the drainage, and they’ve assured they would do that, and I just want to make sure that is done.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Ms. Snyder, Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Irene Cerven? Could you spell that last name?

Irene Cerven, C-E-R-V-E-N.

Mr. Breitzke, And your address?

Ms. Cerven, It’s 193-1 E. 112 S.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you.

Ms. Cerven, I’m here two years. My house is the closest to the road. I have a shed that’s been built in 1950 that’s, you just turn a car, and you’re right on the road. I’d rather keep it a dead-end. I moved from Portage. Across the street was a no outlet; a sign, no outlet. The builder made a road, and we had nothing but problems. The cars kept going around and around. They still have that problem. The people from the other subdivisions, their kids would come at night, destroy other people’s property, and it’s all because they did a through-street. I’d like to keep my street the way it is, and had my builder told or our agent told us when we bought this house that there is a chance of selling that farm, we wouldn’t have bought that house.

Mr. Breitzke, Do you have any other questions?

Ms. Cerven, That’s it.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay. Scott Marine.

Scott Marine, Scott Marine, 187 E. 112 S. I live in the second house from the end on 112. It’s like everyone is saying, it’s just like our own little place. So I just wish you guys would consider just giving us the road, and putting a dead-end there. That would be great. Thanks.

Mr. Breitzke, Barry Allison.

Barry Allison, Barry Allison, 195 E. 112 S., Valpo. Like Eric, I’m not a speaker either, so I might studded or stammer a little bit. But yes, none of us are happy with the subdivision going in. But like Eric said, that’s the American way.
I talked to Mr. Schelling this morning about our road, and his discussion with me was that they wanted to make all roads in Porter County, they want to do away with dead-end roads, and make our road a private road. Well if you look at this subdivision, this road here is actually long from what our road is, and that’s a dead-end there.
So I guess, I’m not totally opposed to making it a private road, but my question would be, why would we have to go to a private road, and yet, in the County, there’s lots of them. And it would be at our expense to maintain it, which I understand that. But that’s another problem that I have with that. Not that I’m opposed to helping maintain the property if that’s what it takes, but it would cost us money for them to make money, and we’re all working-class folks. That’s about all I have to say. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, thank you. Joe Feller and Mary Ann Feller, either or?

Joe Feller, I’m here to speak actually for my mother who left for Florida Monday. She lives at 106 S.

Mr. Breitzke, Could you tell me your name first?

Mr. Feller, Yes, I’m Joe Feller.

Mr. Breitzke, And address?

Mr. Feller, It’s 246 S. 150 E., which is the back borderline. And Mary Ann is at 106 S. 190 E. The proposed amendment to the original plan of making that a, dropping that back to being a dead-end street was definitely, she was glad to hear that, by this commission. She also believes that it will be a very-quality subdivision. In the South end of Morgan Township there’s some, not so good of a quality, so she’d much rather see this type of a subdivision put in. She believes the Buchers have put a pretty good plan together.
The one other indication that she had is, sure, we’d like to see if the County would continue to let that road be a county road and a dead-end, but if not, she would accept the responsibility also. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you. Is there anybody else here to speak for or against the subdivision? If not, I’m going to turn it back to the developer to answer the questions that have been brought up. Mr. Bucher.

Mr. Bucher, Yes, I’ll respond to the questions. As you can see, we’ve tried to meet most of the questions and comments regarding the road being a dead-end. That is our recommendation to you, that it be a dead end. So we are agreeing with the residents on that. In terms of Glenda Snyder, yes, and you can address that more, but our plans are not to drain to the Glenda Snyder property. Then as far as private versus county road, we are just responding to Mr. Schelling who told us that if it’s a dead-end, it has to, he wants it to be private. So that again, that would be the County’s decision. If they want to keep it a county road, that’s fine with us, and a dead-end, but we are requesting that it be a cul-de-sac, and a dead-end, because we are trying to basically address the neighbors’ points. Ken, is there anything else you would add?

Mr. Jones, I’m good.

Mr. Bucher, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, is there anybody here that has spoken that feels their questions weren’t answered or addressed adequately? If not, I’m going to close the public hearing, and open it to the Board.

At this time, Mr. Breitzke closed the public hearing.

Mr. Breitzke, Starting with Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper, These ponds near the front, are they going to be deep enough to support fish or are they going to be a dry-type of pond?

Mr. Jones, Primarily they are going to be landscape features. There isn’t any plans to promote aquatic fish or otherwise. If it occurs, it occurs, but that isn’t the plan.

Mr. Harper, Would it be a problem to do that? Consider that?

Mr. Jones, Right now there is still some question, because we are in the preliminary stage, not in the final design, as to how those water features will be designed, whether we can support the volume or the number of water features that we are showing on there, and put it on the property owners to maintain it, that’s really the kind of a question that we are hoping to answer in the final design. We’re considering it more as a design feature--aesthetic feature--but at this point in time we need to finalize it.

Mr. Harper, You slipped through past the green space ordinance. You had your application in before that went into effect. But one of the things we try to encourage was to have these waterways or at some of them support fish, and that’s why I asked.

Mr. Jones, It’s really kind of a, it’s really something we’re probably not prepared to determine at this point in time.

Mr. Harper, Okay. I want to ask you about Lot 88, just my curiosity. Who’s right next to Lot 88, and what is that cut in half?

Mr. Bucher, Well that happens to be my brother’s lot.

Mr. Harper, That’s what I figured.

Mr. Bucher, And part of what the deal is with my brother, I told him the only way we’d go forward is if he would share his swimming pool with Lot 88. If you notice, now they get the deep end, and don’t have to maintain it, so that’s a plus for Lot 88. But actually, if you notice at the bottom is says, illustrated plan not to scale, and it turns out when you overlay an aerial on the plan, it wasn’t perfect, and we figured that people would notice that as we pointed it out the other day to the neighbors. But that’s just not quite right there.

Mr. Harper, Are you going to have to tear down a lot of trees for the building on Lot 89, 90, 91 and 92?

Mr. Bucher, No, I don’t believe.

Mr. Jones, No, that wooded area you see is down below.

Mr. Bucher, It’s marsh, marshy land.

Mr. Jones, And we won’t be building down there.

Mr. Bucher, In fact, I mean that is one of the real attractive features of those lots, and the marshy area behind and the views and the vistas.

Mr. Harper, Okay, that’s all the questions I have.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall.

Ms. Marshall, First of all, this road that you are talking about. Is it now a dead-end?

Mr. Jones, It currently is a dead-end, and has been.

Mr. Breitzke, Sir, they need to answer the questions, unless you address him.

Ms. Marshall, I did address him, but that’s okay.

Mr. Breitzke, Well you…

Ms. Marshall, I’ll have him answer it.

Mr. Bucher, It is a dead-end, yes.

Ms. Marshall, It’s a dead-end. So if you plan this cul-de-sac, then you’re going to put some kind of barrier there that no one can get through there.

Mr. Bucher, There will be trees and landscaping, yes.

Ms. Marshall, In the middle of your cul-de-sacs, I see that you have a dark area. Is that going to be landscaping?

Mr. Bucher, You want to address that?

Mr. Jones, No, actually, we spent some time talking to the Highway Department about that. Originally we had proposed that those be landscaped islands. The Highway Department through their maintenance folks did not feel comfortable with that. So instead, and of course, we really didn’t feel comfortable with this big expanse of plain bituminous pavement there, we added a design feature that’s going to be a colored, stamped, brick product, that will be completely attached to the pavement.

Ms. Marshall, It comes out the center, so that the snowplows can hit it and that?

Mr. Jones, Yes, the snowplows go right over it, and we’ve discussed this with the Highway Department, and they feel that’s acceptable.

Ms. Marshall, And then you’re going to have landscaping down these short cul-de-sacs, you’re going to have, does that indicate trees? Is that what that is?

Mr. Jones, Yes, those are boulevards.

Ms. Marshall, And you put bushes at the intersections?

Mr. Jones, Of course they will be back away from the clear-vision requirement.

Ms. Marshall, Because we have so many intersections in Porter County, that you take your life in your hands, you know, and you’re going to plant bushes there.

Mr. Jones, They will be back beyond the…

Mr. Breitzke, We have a defined clear zone, so they have to keep landscaping back.

Ms. Marshall, Okay. This cul-de-sac that comes up here--this long one--isn’t there in the ordinance something that a cul-de-sac can only be so long, and can only service so many houses? We’re still operating under the 1983 Master Plan, aren’t we?

Mr. Thompson, The zoning, or I mean, the subdivision control was changed in 1994. The block length is 1,250, if I remember, if I’m correct on that. But as far as the number of houses served on it, no, there’s nothing that states anything about the number of houses. It’s just the length of the block.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, in this concept drawing here, around these, I guess you call them ponds, there’s an area that’s not included in a lot. Is that, by covenants, what you’re going to give the homeowners that they have to maintain? Is that…

Mr. Jones, Correct.

Ms. Marshall, Is that area what you’re going to do there?

Mr. Jones, Correct.
Ms. Marshall, And you’re going to direct the water from the subdivision to this area?

Mr. Jones, Correct. All of the runoff, storm water, perimeter drain system will all, this is actually the best location on the entire site for this to happen, because of the way, the contour of the land actually flows to this location.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, I know this a concept, but on Route 49, are you going to have decel lanes there, and accel lanes, so that people can get on and off of there?

Mr. Jones, Yes. Yes.

Ms. Marshall, So you’re going to have all of these people exit onto, they’re all going to exit onto 49. I mean this other road, it’s, you know, it’s kind of a pipe dream, to go back over there. Because it’s like somebody said, there’s not much going on down in Kouts and Wheatfield. So, you know, and I just wondered about that.

Mr. Jones, The intersection, and the approach to 49, and the auxiliary lanes that will be built on 49 will all the specifications. And we’ve met with the folks from INDOT on the site, and they concur with our geometry at this point in time. Again, they will have final design reviews.

Ms Marshall, Another question I have is between Lot 12 and 13, you have open space. What’s that?

Mr. Jones, That was a lot that we could not get approved for septic systems.

Ms. Marshall, Why didn’t you make it part of, give it half and half?

Mr. Jones, Basically…

Mr. Bucher, Yes, we do plan it to be a walkway down into the open space, and we will be berming on both sides of it for the neighbors of it. But it would be a walkway and open space area.

Mr. Jones, There’s, it’s likely or not that would be part of the landscape features on the site.

Ms. Marshall, So you’re not, you want people to come over to that open space--the lot designated open space--and go down to this area with the water and stuff, right?

Mr. Jones, Right.

Ms. Marshall, Well, let’s see what else did I have in mind. Yes, I was wondering about that Lot 88 also. So you say that this is a county road right now, where this intersection is?

Mr. Bucher, Do you mean 112 S?
Ms. Marshall, Where this is?

Mr. Jones, Yes, that is, to the East it’s CR 150 S.

Ms. Marshall, And the County Highway Department has reviewed this, and agreed that they want this configuration to get over to this road, 150 E?

Mr. Jones, Yes, that was a requirement from their standpoint; we agree with it.

Ms. Marshall, And this is going to be all wells and septics, right?

Mr. Jones, Right.

Ms. Marshall, What’s down here? What’s on this corner here?

Mr. Jones, That is the church.

Ms. Marshall, What church is that?

Mr. Bucher, I believe it’s Heartland Community Church.

Ms. Marshall, And you say that 104, they want to buy that lot?

Mr. Bucher, Yes, they are interested, and we are in discussions with them about that lot.

Ms. Marshall, Well if I think of anything else I’ll let you know.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ll come back to you, Liz, how about that.

Ms. Marshall, Okay.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Read doesn’t have any questions.

Mr. Read, Well I would like to say that the people who talked about the dead-end road, my family and I live on a dead-end road, and we raised five children. We lived there for more than 40 years, so I’m sympathetic to the idea; my kids could go out and ride their bicycles or whatever. I’m sympathetic to the idea of a dead-end road. We have a gravel road, and I have to tell you that after many years it got pretty damn bumpy. So think about what you have to spend your money on here.
You probably might have noticed my car going up and down that road, because I have gone out to see almost all of these sites of the cases before this Board. So I was probably one of those cars that went up the dead-end road and turned around.
As it happened, where we live, we also looked out on a cornfield. Now I would like to say to many people, I have, long before I attained a seat on this board, I sat through many, many, many, many rezoning and development public hearings. And folks, you can’t wait until the bulldozer is out there tearing up the cornfield if you want to save it.
There are a number, a few ways to preserve agriculture. It requires a willing farmer, and it requires some money to purchase development right or a willing farmer who is willing to provide some kind of an easement. So it’s not just your problem of losing the cornfield out your front window. It extends all the way through Porter County. In my case I got lucky because we became part of the National Lakeshore, so I didn’t have to worry about building going on in the cornfield. It’s now a wooded area.
I would say to you that you’re lucky you waited to propose this, because, as you know, our Master Plan encourages close-end development, and discourages development way out in the boonies. You waited long enough to have some subdivisions around you. So it seems that you are in a transitional area--urban fringe--and I don’t see any Master Plan reason, except for some details, perhaps, to turn you down on this.
I like the way you’ve got sidewalks, that’s good Your water features, maybe have one or two these deep enough for fishing. And for most of this, I would like to see you use native prairie grasses that reach down. The roots reach way down, and transports the water down into the water table. On the upper right hand corner, this Morgan minor subdivision, you have a very low area there. I suspect it’s pretty wet, so what do you plan to do with the water that collects in that low area?

Mr. Bucher, Now that is the lot that was purchased, in which you’re referring to.

Mr. Read, Yes, Morgan Minor, Lot 1.

Mr. Bucher, Right, that has already been purchased, and that was dealt with. I’m not sure of the timing, but.

Mr. Breitzke, Yes, that’s not part of the subdivision.

Mr. Read, This is not part of it.

Mr. Bucher, No, it’s not part of the subdivision.

Mr. Read, Even though it says, has the word, Morgan, it’s not part of it.

Mr. Bucher, Right, it’s not part of Morgan Farms.

Mr. Read, Okay, alright.

Mr. Bucher, Correct.

Mr. Read, Now on the bottom edge of your plan there, the line of trees, is there a water course there? A ditch or is it just a line of trees?

Mr. Jones, Just a line of trees. There is an abandoned, undeveloped…

Mr. Bucher, County road.

Mr. Jones, County road in there.

Mr. Read, Alright, so county road…

Mr. Bucher, 175 S., undeveloped.

Mr. Read, I see. I see.

Mr. Bucher, It actually used to be hedge rows, and it’s not, you can’t go through there.

Mr. Read, Yes. Getting back, up in the upper left, I understand that’s Salt Creek or is it? Kevin, is that Salt Creek?

Mr. Breitzke, Way up to the Northwest, but most of their water, very little of the water, that water at the very Northerly fringe will flow North to Salt Creek. The remainder of it goes Easterly to Stinson, and South.

Mr. Read, Alright, I’m glad to see that. That’s low land wetland. I trust your pledge here that you’re not going to push stuff over the edge of the embankment.

Mr. Bucher, Right, correct.

Mr. Read, That’s all I have to say.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Whitten.

Mr. Whitten, Actually, I don’t have any questions. Mine have been asked.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Detert.

Mr. Detert, I’m a little concerned about the long cul-de-sac street in there. I guess it looks to me like a lot of the trees, we can’t really dictate the tree line, but it looks like a lot of those will be destroyed, which would be a shame.

Mr. Bucher, If.

Mr. Detert, As a developer, you’re going to buy the church property. What do you intend to do if you buy that?

Mr. Bucher, No, we’re going to, I’m sorry, we’re going to sell this Lot 104. We’re talking about selling it to the church.

Mr. Detert, Oh, you’re going to sell it to the church.

Mr. Bucher, Right, they would like to have additional space.

Mr. Detert, I thought you were going to…

Mr. Bucher, No, no. We’re talking about helping them with additional space for things. I’m not sure what all they want to do there.

Mr. Detert, Okay, thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Mr. Biddinger.

Mr. Biddinger, That’s a very fast-growing church at this point in time, and that second addition has only been, on the drawing, it would be the left-hand side, was only added within the last year and a half or so. One thing I’d like. I’m a big one for encouraging communities, and if one thing that could be done in cooperation with the church is maybe link, find someway to link your sidewalk system back to the church. If you stop and think about it, to go from Lot 25 to go out, drive around 49, and go to that church, why, when you can walk through your backyard.

Mr. Bucher, We’ll look at that.

Mr. Biddinger, So anything we can do to encourage walkable communities is definitely; our number one concern we hear a lot about is traffic. So if we can slow that down.

Mr. Jones, Correct.

Mr. Biddinger, And going, I go to church just South of that place, and sometimes the traffic coming to that church is pretty considerable on a Sunday morning. Other than that, I, just like everybody, I hate to see the loss of a good cornfield. I know this has got some pretty decent production on it, but, again, there’s not too much we can do at this point. But I definitely commend the landscaping foresight.
The one concern I have with ponds like what you see, and something that we are going to, as we see more and more subdivisions with water features, I’ve become, I’ve been very aware for a number of years about the situation in like Marion County where they have a lot of subdivisions with retention ponds, and they lose, in any given year, one to five children to retention ponds. They’re not swimming holes. In fact, in some cases, in storm water events, they can have some significant undertow in some of those areas. So I would just ask that you keep that in mind with the design of the ponds.

Mr. Bucher, As I mentioned, we, our current plan is to reduce the number of ponds, but have one major water feature. But I understand your concern, and with the concerns about the safety too.

Mr. Biddinger, That’s, there’s nothing again, in ordinance to do that, but that’s just something to be aware of.

Mr. Breitzke, Ms. Marshall, did you have any other questions?

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I do. What is the radius of the cul-de-sacs?

Mr. Jones, They meet the County’s standard.

Ms. Marshall, They meet the County’s standard. So have you, I see that Morgan Township Fire Department is going to service this area. So with the new bigger, bigger, bigger fire trucks, can they get turned around?

Mr. Jones, Well, that’s a good question. It’s something we will certainly address.

Ms. Marshall, You know, I mean they’re getting bigger all the time, and even these smaller units, they buy big trucks. I mean it’s not a subdivision that’s going to be free from, you know, events, so.

Mr. Jones, Yes. We’ll be happy to check to with the Morgan Township Fire Department to find out exactly what the size of their largest apparatus is. We’ll check that to make sure.

Ms. Marshall, And then the other thing I wanted to find out was, on this road--let’s see what’s the name of it here--Morgan Drive, you have a little bump in the road up there, like a little suggestion of a cul-de-sac. Why did you do that?

Mr. Jones, Actually, we were trying to take advantage of that concept to allow additional lots. It’s kind of a funny corner right there.

Ms. Marshall, Well the corner is up further, you know, it’s further North, you know.

Mr. Jones, We had, we had significant discussions with the Highway Department, and they feel comfortable with that feature.

Ms. Marshall, These roads are going to be dedicated to the County?

Mr. Bucher, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, Oh, so the County is going to go in and plow.

Mr. Jones, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, While I like you, I think you’re doing a dangerous thing by putting, promoting sidewalks here, because Porter County is a little bit behind the sidewalk issue. You know, if it was continuous to another subdivision that didn’t have them, it’s wouldn’t be required. I think you’re right in step with the new health, you know, that people walk and so forth. I’m glad to see the sidewalk thing. I mean you’re not addressing numbers or density or that. I think you’re doing the right thing. I mean that’s my opinion, you know. I am a little concerned about the length of that cul-de-sac though. I still am, you know. And this is going to be a row of trees along 49 there?

Mr. Jones, Right, there’s going to be some landscaping.

Ms. Marshall, Is that a sound-barrier thing, kind of thing?

Mr. Jones, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, Are you going to raise it way up, and then put the trees on top of them little hills.

Mr. Jones, Probably so.

Mr. Breitzke, We have some comments on that, some recommendations.

Mr. Biddinger, Give me a call before you go planting those trees.

Mr. Breitzke, I’ve got some comments to make if you’re done.

Ms. Marshall, Sure, go ahead.

Mr. Breitzke, A couple of things. I’d like to see the back of those lots at the North end, if you can create a conservation easement without losing the septic acreage, it would be a better configuration of Lot 88 not to have that bend in there. To rethink 91, 90, 89 and 88, I think it could possibly be done a little bit differently, just to make it a little bit more attractive lot, and fit in there for your homes as they fit in. I’m a little concerned about your building line width. You need to maintain some minimums for the houses to go in. And if you can, get that back part back there where it starts down to Salt Creek.
We’ve been working with these fellows quite a bit. Originally, they had about eight acres that could go toward Glenda’s, in the minor subdivision that she has, and they’ve committed to moving the water back through the subdivision. So Glenda’s is basically dealing more with the on-site situation of what she has, and as she said, we have one of the old, old tiles. The tile is probably about 95 year’s old that goes under SR 49. It functions somewhat, but it’s probably clipped by buried utilities, fence posts, power poles, you name it. Something seems to affect it somewhat. The water flows in that direction.
The other thing worthy of mentioning that they have done, is work with us as far as drainage to the East to Stinson Drain. With Stone Creek subdivision, the developer, Jim Blume, re-dug the ditch for the sake of his development, admittedly, mostly, but also helped the water at the South Stinson, before it goes into Auger onto Sandy Hook into the Kankakee River. And that water, by their working with Anna Litinksi, the farmer to the East, should help her fields too, as water seems to get ponding in that area.
One of the issues around this area, however, with the lake feature, we have to be careful, because we have superficial ponding, but we don’t know if a lake can be, well, if it’s going to hold water. There’s a point where you dig down, and all of a sudden, they can lose, or dry out the whole thing, which here again, from the health and safety standpoint, or having drives in some of this stuff, that can be an issue. But, like Bob, I’d still like to have some kind of fish. I like fish ponds. But that’s matter for the property owners association to undertake, because as a county, we just don’t have the vehicles and the insurance for that exposure. That’s really not a feature that the Drainage Board takes on, but what we do encourage is to watch the side slopes at the bottom, so we can get in and out of those.
Personally, as a comment, I don’t like to see those things fenced in, because typically, the kids can get over and under the fence. A fat guy like me, I have a hard time getting over it in time to get the kid. Once I’m in the water I’m great, but I’m a slow-land mammal. It’s one thing people think we build fences around these to protect the children, and the children, we can’t kid ourselves. When my kid was five, he could get over just about any fence, including my six-foot fence at home.
Lastly, I’d like to mention the cul-de-sac or the driveway up at that North end, CR 112 S. The reason we asked the developer to propose this is for the connectivity that our Master Plan requires us to address. But I don’t have a problem if we want to shorten Buckskin Lane--the street--and entertain a notion to have separate pavements. What we have to watch is to make sure we don’t have people coming from the end of CR 112 S. across private property. But at the same time, it would be nice to have some kind of right-of-way or some kind of an emergency thought to, if we do need it. Because we can crash the gates with our emergency trucks. It’s not going to hurt them, but if we do need to get to one of your houses at the back, and we have, let’s say we have a heart attack at the entrance of 49, and a fire at the back end, they’re not even going to be able to get water back to the back in those circumstances, because life will take precedence over your house and property. So that’s one of the things we’re always considering for this throughway.
The other thing I mentioned to Mr. Opperman that the reason we do this is also for snowplowing, because cul-de-sacs slow down the process of snowplowing. But they are a fact of life that we can deal with from that regard. I think it’s really up to the County Commissioner, in this case, the South County Commissioner is Carole Knoblock--and she’s back here--whether she wants, and will work with you as far as maintaining that as a county road. Carole, would you stand up.

At this time, Commissioner Carole Knoblock stood up.

Mr. Breitzke, She is your South County Commissioner. You might want to talk to her a little bit too about the status of the road. That might be a highway engineer’s recommendation, but that’s not necessarily the way it will go. But maybe there’s a way that we can put the cul-de-sac in the end of the subdivision street; still address the emergency concerns; maintain some kind of right-of-way for utilities, as well as other things. Because unfortunately, for this petitioner, they were denied the utilities, but then recently, the City of Valpo did run utilities down the East side of the road. So it probably won’t be long before there is water supply or sanitary sewer, and those aren’t necessarily negative things. Having said those things, do we have a motion on the floor?

Mr. Harper, Kevin, I have a question.

Mr. Breitzke, Sure.

Mr. Harper, You know, I do think we have a chance--one of a few chances--for a win/win situation here, if we can work that road situation out. Very seldom do we, and I want to compliment the neighbors, and the developer for at least meeting beforehand, and trying to talk out some of these problems. But we do have, it seems to me, that we do have the problem with that road.
We have this commitment that’s been made apparently regarding the drainage of this subdivision that was sold off. Okay? So we have that as a verbal commitment. It really is not a legal commitment until something goes wrong with it, so I wonder, and to give Commissioner Knoblock a chance to look this over and discuss this with the roads, and perhaps, we should come back one more time, and make sure we’re a little more prepared. That’s just a thought.

Mr. Detert, I would agree with that also, and I’d like to see the developer take a look at the two cul-de-sac streets. I think we’ve got too many cul-de-sacs in here; Arabian Court and Appaloosa Lane. That thing is way too long. I think it’s a problem for snowplows; I think it’s a problem for emergency equipment, when you cul-de-sacs. I’d much rather see something developed in the way of some through streets on most of those. The other two, I don’t have too much of a problem with.

Ms. Marshall, I have a question. What is going to be the width of the road?

Mr. Jones, The physical road?

Ms. Marshall, Any road, what’s going to be the width of it?

Mr. Jones, I believe the locals streets are going to be 32 feet back to the curb.

Mr. Breitzke, They are 30 foot back to curb, back to curb. The right-of-ways are 60 foot for the locals, and also, we have a 20 mph speed limits when it’s a local.

Ms. Marshall, Okay, the other thing is, you’re going to have a divided ingress/egress off of 49. Is that going to have trees in the middle of it too?

Mr. Jones, We’re not sure it will have trees, but it will be landscaped.

Ms. Marshall, It’s got to be…

Mr. Jones, Again, that will have to be approved by the Highway Department.

Ms. Marshall, Those are misleading sometimes when you’re driving into them, you know.

Mr. Jones, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, I know we have several in the County, so. Let’s see, I had one other question. Let’s see where it was at; I’m trying to think.

Mr. Harper, So what kind of a motion do we need?

Mr. Breitzke, A motion for continuance would probably be in order if you want to postpone this decision.

Ms. Marshall, I’ve got one other thing I’d like to ask here. On the width of this road, are you going to allow people to park on the road?

Mr. Jones, We’re not, these roads would be covered under the same requirements of every other county road. Where I don’t necessarily think it’s prohibited, we are not going to encourage that.

Ms. Marshall, Well you know by the time you get a car on each side of the road, you know, and then you have some, you know, breakdown or something. I mean I think people would put a driveway in, you know, but some people don’t. I mean I see there, cars sitting on the side of the road.

Mr. Jones, I, this case, we’re going to have some very complete restrictive covenants and standards for construction of these individual lots. They are all going to require, obviously, off-street parking, garages, in some cases three-car garages.

Ms. Marshall, Well I think it’s the policy of the Plan Commission to get covenants, but covenants is only to protect people that live in the subdivision, and the Plan Commission cannot enforce them, you know.

Mr. Jones, Yes, again, I’m assuming that these, the on-street parking is going to be, is something that’s going to be controlled, as any other county road would be. We are not going to encourage it, and obviously, discourage it through our covenants.

Ms. Marshall, Are you going to submit a copy of the covenants to the Plan Commission?

Mr. Jones, We can.

Ms. Marshall, Well I’d like to see it, you know.

Mr. Jones, Sure.

Ms. Marshall, I mean I want to know if you’re going to allow dog houses, and sheds, and recreational vehicles, and, you know, I think those are things that people want to know, you know.

Mr. Bucher, We’ve addressed those in our covenants, yes.

Ms. Marshall, You have?

Mr. Bucher, Yes.

Ms. Marshall, Well I think you ought to submit…

Mr. Bucher, Sure.

Ms. Marshall, A copy of it, so people know, you know, what’s happening out there.

Mr. Breitzke, Bear in mind, Ms. Marshall, exactly what you said, we cannot enforce the covenants and restrictions, and our ordinances and state statutes supersede whatever those are, if your covenants and restrictions are of the lower value. The 30-foot wide pavement back-to-back is typically wide enough to have at least one car parked on a side with two-way traffic. You could probably, with the size of cars today have parking on both sides. It’s a very difficult law enforcement function to enforce parking though, and…

Ms. Marshall, Yes, I know. I mean…

Mr. Breitzke, We don’t want to get into that business.

Ms. Marshall, I said the covenants are for the people that live there.

Mr. Breitzke, Right.

Ms. Marshall, But people have to be aware of them when they buy into a subdivision like this, what they are going to get. The other thing is, this is a county subdivision, kind of, I’d like to call it that. You’re going to have, is everybody going to have a mailbox out in the front of their house?

Mr. Jones, If that is the requirement of the Postal, Post Office, yes.

Ms. Marshall, Are you going to group them at a corner, you know?

Mr. Bucher, The plan was to have them in the front.
Ms. Marshall, I think you ought to just look at it. You know, there’s other ways of treating it besides putting a box out in the front that kids hit, you know.

Mr. Breitzke, One of the issues, the postal carriers have been going to two boxes side-by-side, so the developers have been finding that maybe they need to get the drives closer together too, in many cases, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But newspapers tubes, and newpaper and mail delivery, typically, anymore is done on one side.

Ms. Marshall, It’s not only the people that live in the subdivision, it’s the people that service the subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke, Right.

Ms. Marshall, You know, UPS, mail, and you know, there’s all kinds of people that come into a subdivision.

Mr. Breitzke, Or some people that have to wait behind the cars that stop at each one of those mailboxes.

Ms. Marshall, Right, right. I just would address it if I were you.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have a motion then to continue?

Mr. Harper, I agree with Mr. Detert.

Mr. Harper moved to continue Case 05-P-1 to the January 26, 2005 meeting to give the petitioner time to work out some of the plans, and the opportunity to talk to Commissioner Knoblock about the road. Mr. Detert seconded, motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson, Motion carries, seven to zero.

Mr. Bucher, Thank you.

Mr. Jones, Thank you very much.

Case 05-Z-1. Petition of Dale Gouwens, Four Seasons Mini-Storage, 8751 Prairie Avenue, Highland, Indiana, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from C-2 (Offices & Institutions) to C-4 (General Business) to allow for outside storage of vehicle and boats, to be located on the West side of CR 725 W., between CR 250 S. and CR 275 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Mr. Breitzke, Next we have Case 05-Z-1, petition of Dale Gouwens, Four Seasons Mini-Storage, 8751 Prairie Avenue, Highland, Indiana, for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from C-2 (Offices & Institutions) to C-4 (General Business) to allow for outside storage of vehicle and boats, to be located on the West side of CR 725 W., between CR 250 S. and CR 275 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. Are you ready, Mr. Decker?

Adam Decker, I am. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Counsel, my name is Adam Decker. I’m an attorney; my offices are located at 130 North Main Street in Crown Point. I’m appearing this evening before the Board as the attorney for Mr. Dale Gouwens, the petitioner for this request for a zone change.
Very simply stated, the reason we are here this evening making this request is that my client, Mr. Gouwens, seeks to be permitted, under the Porter County Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, to allow for outdoor storage of boats, vehicles, recreational vehicles, and other such types of equipment at his place of business, which is Four Seasons Mini Storage, and is located at 254 S. 725 W.
The hearing this evening is to culminate with a recommendation, either favorable or unfavorable, to the legislative body, the county commissioners. Under Indiana Code, Title 36: In preparing and considering proposals for change in the zone maps, the plan commission will consider the comprehensive plan or the master plan, current conditions and the character of current structures in uses in each district; the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted; the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction; and responsible development and growth.
The master plan for the Lakes of the Four Seasons provides for development of the subject property as a commercial zoning district. I confirmed this in my discussions the Executive Director, Mr. Thompson. Review of the current conditions, and the character of the current structures and uses indicates that the subject property has been zoned as a commercial zoning district since the adoption of the Lakes of the Fours Seasons’ master plan. Which we’ve estimated or occurred approximately in the mid 1960’s. The property itself has been utilized as a mini storage facility continuously since 1989.
Lakes of the Four Seasons is a medium density, master plan, private community, with a population of approximately 10,000 residents, according to the community’s website, as of this week. The community does contain four lakes, including Lake Holiday, Big Bass Lake, Trout Haven Lake and Lake on the Green. The two largest lakes, Lake Holiday and Big Bass Lake, comprise, almost 170 acres in total, and have over ten miles of shoreline. I think it’s apparent that there is quite a bit of use of the lakes for recreation, including motor boats, fishing boats, and other type uses.
Therefore, I submit that permitting the additional use of outdoor storage for boats and for vehicles on the subject property will be consistent with the Porter County Master Plan, and the current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in the area. There is a need that will be addressed by persons this evening that make presentation for this type of use, for this type of storage, for those types of vehicles.
The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction will be preserved by the requested zone change. We have submitted, as part of the materials that are before you this evening, a copy of the report that was prepared by Mr. Jeremy Nelson, who is an Indiana Certified Residential Appraiser who’s rendered an opinion that the additional use of outdoor storage at the location--on the subject property--will not adversely effect property values in the jurisdiction.
This area--there is a map that’s provided with Mr. Nelson’s report--is located in, on the, what I would refer to, as the Southeast corner of the Lakes of the Four Seasons Master Plan. Located approximately one mile South of the subject property, I understand is a plumbing contractor’s business, which presently is permitted to us the storage of trucks, the storage of equipment, outside in the vicinity of that business. So to allow similar outdoor storage at my client’s property would not be unique to this particular area of Porter County.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, Members, with me this evening is Mr. and Mrs. Dale Gouwens. They will not speak at this time, but are prepared to answer any questions that the Board or others might have. We would respectfully request a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, I’ll start with the people speaking for the petition--at least that’s what they checked--then come to the people speaking against the petition. First, I have Lawrence Hickman. Please give your name and address as you speak.

Lawrence Hickman, Yes. Lawrence Hickman, 1957 Loganberry Lane, Lakes of the Four Seasons. I’m approximately 500 feet North of the mentioned property that you are discussing, and there is a need for boat storage. People do not have a place to put their boats. Four Seasons does provide some storage on their property, but its limited access at different times. On the Lake County side, there is not any storage close, otherwise, like Valparaiso or Crown Point, which is five to eight miles in either direction from the Seasons. So I personally, as a property owner in the Lakes of Four Seasons, do not have a problem with the recommendation of allowing storage.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you, sir. David Brubaker.

David Brubaker, My name is David Brubaker. I live at 10196 N. Doubletree Drive. I live about two miles from the facility. I do use it. I think there’s a very big need for it, the boat storage.

Mr. Breitzke, Could you repeat that.

Mr. Read, I didn’t hear the last line.

Mr. Brubaker, I think there’s a big need for the storage there, for boats and that type of, for the use of that.

Mr. Breitzke, These people have all signed in for, so far. Dale Hughes.

Dale Hughes, My name is Dale Hughes, and I live at 740 W. 275 S., there in Hebron. I live right around the corner, and I’ve been there for about seven years now, right across from the volunteer fire department they are putting up, the new one. Like I said, I’ve been out there for about seven years. I haven’t had no problems with anything being outside storage in the last seven years that I’ve been there.
Within the last year, I have actually used their outdoor, their outside storage facility for some of my personal equipment. Now that they no longer have that outside storage, I have to use, keep my equipment on my property, which kind of clutters my property. So I foresee, and I would like to see the outside storage come back so I can get my personal equipment off my own personal property.
Like I said, I never had, everything was taken care of very well. It’s all insecure, secure, I should say, inside a closed gate. It was never an eye-sore, you know, before I even started ever using the property. But now that I see, and I use the property, I’d like to have the outside storage back for my own personal use. And you know, like everyone else in here, there’s no other storage facility in that area out there. With boats and cars, you know, as Americans, we like to have material things, and sometimes material things won’t sit on our property. We can surely use the outside storage facility, so I am for the outside storage to come back to Four Seasons Mini Storage.

Mr. Breitzke, Dale Gouwens.

Dale Gouwens, I’m Dale Gouwens. I live at 8751 Prairie Avenue, Highland, Indiana. I’m the owner of the facility. All I can tell you is that I continuously get calls from people throughout the area, not just from the Lakes of Four Seasons, but from the other surrounding subdivisions and development areas. They continuously state that some of them have, like Mr. Hughes was stating that they don’t want to clutter up their property and their neighbors, and if there’s a facility that can allow for that, storage, we really would appreciate having that available. Also some tell me they need to either go downtown Crown Point from Portage or some other place out in Valparaiso to find an alternate storage facility.

Mr. Breitzke, Is there anybody else here to speak for this petition? Seeing nobody, I’ll start with the people to speak against. Richard Swetlend. Could you spell your last name for us?

Richard Swetlech, S-W-E-T-L-E-C-H. My name is Richard Swetlech, and I live at 1934 Loganberry Lane in Lakes of the Four Seasons. I have the property directly behind the subject property. First, I’ll say Mr. Gouwens has maintained a first-class operation there. The place is always clean and it’s maintained very well.
The only trouble I have with the parking is that everything, they have to park cars directly adjacent to my property, I’m looking right at it the entire time on my property. Some of the vehicles that were there, weren’t always maintained in the best condition, and my concern is that I don’t want to see a junk yard there. I understand storage; I understand the need for it. But just the parking right there, there’s no kind of fence line, just a chain link fence with nothing blocking the view. Anybody driving down Loganberry, not far from the corner, you can see everything parked right there, so it’s a concern from my standpoint.
Depending on where he intends to park the vehicles, whether he owns additional property to the South, and he can extend that way, a parking lot, sure. But if he intends to park when he previously had the people park, that’s a concern to me because it’s directly in my line of site. I have the same as my neighbor across the street Donna Lavinski voices the same concern also. Unfortunately, she couldn’t appear tonight.

Mr. Breitzke, Is there anybody else to speak against the petition? Mr. Fitzgerald, your name and address.

Ted Fitzgerald, Do you want me here or?

Mr. Breitzke, Either place, as long as you speak up.

Mr. Fitzgerald, Thank you very much, commissioners. My name is Ted Fitzgerald. I’m an attorney; I maintain an office at 107 N. Main in Hebron, Indiana. Most of you know me. I happen to be the attorney for the Lakes of the Four Seasons property owners association, and have done that for over 30 years. I’m here tonight on their behalf to remonstrate against this project.
I think tonight, we really have to keep our eye on the ball. I don’t want you to have the picture, and I agree, I go by this twice a day going to and from the office, a very nice facility. We are talking about a C-4 zoning here, folks. We’re not talking about a nice neat row of RV’s. We’re talking about C-4 zoning. That is one of your highest zoning classifications.
Permitted in the C-4 zoning, if you grant this petition tonight is a truck freight terminal, and this is without a special exception, by the way. A storage warehouse. Assembly hall for a not-for-profit organizations. How would you like to have the Royal Order of the Raccoons in your back yard? All types of sales; auto sales, boat sales, farm equipment sales. Railway or bus stations. Contractor storage. A tavern or an outdoor theater. That’s what they are asking you to zone this property for here tonight.
Now there are a couple of other zoning classifications that are pretty interesting. A penal institution. A public or commercial sanitary landfill. A refuse dump or a garbage disposal plant. Also a sewage disposal plant. Now let’s think about this for a minute, okay. I know you’re going to say, well that requires a special exception, right. We all know that. That’s why we put it in there, to make it difficult to get these types of zoning. Dan and I learned a lot about that a year or two ago.
But look at this, folks. If you approve this tonight, these people are halfway--more than halfway--to a sanitary landfill. The only thing standing between them and a sanitary landfill--and I’m using that as an example, any one of these other things is equally true--is three votes from the BZA. Okay? And I’m sure there’s one individual, as a commissioner, who is going to be interested, and already knows, I’m sure, that that doesn’t go to the commissioners.
So if you grant this tonight, you’re out of it, except making a recommendation some time in the future. The commissioners are out of it. It goes from the BZA to the courts, and we’ve been down that road, and we don’t want to do it again.
If you stand on this property, okay, you cannot see a commercial use in any direction. If you stand on top of the buildings, you cannot see a commercial use in any direction. This was bad zoning when it got to be C-2. I don’t know how it happened. These things need to be in an industrial areas; they don’t need to be along the main highway. You all have a vision of RV’s. What’s an RV? Okay, a 1957 Volkswagon bus with the tires off? You’re going to condemn the people of Four Seasons to look at this for the rest, how would you like to have this in your back, this is absolutely ludicrous.
I thought maybe even sit down with them, and say, well, we’ll limit this to just RV’s. But how do you limit? I mean this could be a junk car lot. He can put any kind of a vehicle out there with C-4 zoning. Whether they run or whether they don’t; they don’t have to be licensed; they don’t have to have tires on them. This would condemn the neighborhood. They had to go a mile away to Tom Harrison’s, which is down on Highway 2, by the way, to find a use for this outdoor storage. There is nothing around this property at the present time, except the 9,000 residents that I represent to the West, and everywhere around is single-family development. Nothing else there, and to approve this would be absolutely atrocious.
I’d like to also point out, when the gas tanks on these vehicles leak, it goes right into our lake, because that’s where the drainage goes. It goes into Four Seasons, and into Bass Lake. I believe if you’ll check back some years, the original plans called for a retention pond, which to my belief does not exist.
There is also no provision for any type of oil or toxic material removal, so they can have a junk car yard and it’s going to drain right in our lake. I’m not saying they would do that, but I don’t know how long this gentleman is going to own this property. I’ll tell you what, if you zone this C-4 tonight, it won’t have storage buildings on it, two years ago, because it will be much too valuable for that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak against this petition? Hearing nobody, please respond Mr. Decker.

Mr. Decker, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counsel’s attempt to use scare tactics before the Plan Commission can be completely put to rest this evening, by the submission of my client, who is prepared to enter into a written commitment that the only use that he seeks would be C-4 designation is for the outdoor storage of boats, recreational vehicles, motor vehicles, and that type of equipment. That would completely eliminate the prospect of the use of the property as a truck freight terminal; as a tavern; as an outdoor theater; or any of the other uses, suggested by counsel.
I do not dispute that the C-4 zoning classification permits those, it’s certain uses under special exception. But with a written commitment, the use would be strictly limited to its continued use, which it has been used as a mini storage facility continuously since 1989, and no other, with the addition of the additional permitted use that we seek application for this evening. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, We did have one question you didn’t answer. Mr. Swetlech had asked about screening, because of the view of his property.

Mr. Decker, That is correct. If I may, Mr. Chairman. I’m also prepared to submit that we have looked into that type of screening. My client’s intentions are to continue the use that was utilized for the outdoor storage, which is on the Western, West of the main buildings located on the property.
Now Mr. Swetlech has indicated that he lives in that vicinity, and my client is prepared to install what is commonly known as privacy fencing, which is something that’s put into the fence that already exists, and can be used, is opaque, and can be used to visually shield the storage of the vehicles in that location from property owners further to the West.
The property itself is situated that that storage would be confined to that particular area. So therefore, there would not be a need for the installation of privacy fencing across the entire boundaries of the business. In fact, I believe, if I’m not mistaken, did you bring the…

Mr. Breitzke, You need to address us.

Mr. Decker, Oh, I’m sorry. My client has brought a sample of the privacy fencing, and we would be prepared to share that. I think it’s common knowledge with privacy fencing…

Mr. Breitzke, It would be fine if your client wants to come up here too, and join you. Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. Decker, That won’t be necessary. Thank you.

Mr. Fitzgerald, Very briefly. If you give rezoning on a piece of property for outdoor storage of automobiles, boats and RV’s, then I’ve got a junk yard. And if you think the outdoor storage of RV’s and boats is a pretty sight, go up to Portage--up by Burns Ditch--and look around, and if you come back and tell me that that looks okay for your backyard, I will sit down and shut up, which I’m going to do anyway. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Thank you. Mr. Decker, did you have response to that at this time?

Mr. Decker, Mr. Chairman, I do not. Thank you.

Mr. Breitzke, Okay, if not, I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing, and start with Mr. Harper.

At this time, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Harper, Well I want to send this with an unfavorable recommendation to the commissioners. One of things that got me involved in the first place--how I ended up with this job--was the outdoor semi storage on Highway 130 going to Hobart, which I could talk about again and again.
Outdoor storage does not look good, and it does not look in a residential area. I was sitting here, and just thinking in my mind, when this thing was zoned commercial, how they talked about everything was going to be inside, and it was going to be real neat, which apparently it is.
I agree with Mr. Fitzgerald, it probably shouldn’t have been zoned commercial to begin with. What we start with, some little thing, and it’s always back for a little extra piece. Anyway, it’s getting late.

Mr. Harper moved to forward Case 05-Z-1 to the Board of Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Detert seconded.

Mr. Breitzke, Do we have any other discussion?
Mr. Whitten, I think I’d like to say a wor