PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
October 12, 2005

M I N U T E S

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

Those members present were Eric Biddinger, Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Keven Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Dan Whitten. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Karen Tallian and Patricia S. Gibson.

Mr. Burns moved to continue the reading of the September 14, 2005 meeting. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Findings of Fact: Case 05-P-16. Petition of Aberdeen Limited Partnership.

Mr. Biddinger moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-16. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-SE-7. Inspection Committee Report for Jeanne Reeves, 663 E. 150 S., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a Special Exception to permit an operation of a dog boarding kennel, to be located at 663 E. 150 S. in Morgan Township.

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

Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 05-SE-7 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-Z-11. Petition of Charles & Colleen Guyer, 1455 Sherwood Dr., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-2, Offices & Institutions to allow for the redevelopment and use of the Real Estate as a beauty salon to be located at 181 W. Hwy 30, Center Township. (Property contains 1.99 acres. Con’t from 9-28-05 mtg. Public hearing is closed.)


Todd Leeth stated I am here tonight on behalf of the petitioners Todd and Colleen Guyer. He stated Todd is with me as well and we will by happy to try and answer any questions that you might have. He stated as you recall at your last meeting we held and conducted a public hearing regarding this proposal to rezone approximately two acres on the north side of U.S. 30 just west of the City of Valparaiso. He stated at the conclusion of the hearing there was only truly one remonstrator. He stated she was the property two property’s removed to the west. He stated she has the sign business there. He stated Mrs. Handschy and her daughter spoke. He stated I think that they were concerned with some drainage issues perhaps in the back and traffic issues as well on Hwy 30. He stated we really didn’t hear anything from her in my opinion where proper use would be. He stated that is the issue tonight and that is the use of the property. He stated development issues are required to be submitted to TAC for two reasons. He stated one because it is a commercial permit and more importantly too because it is within the U.S. 30 overlay zone as well. He stated that requires a little heightened scrutiny on behalf of the technical staff of the county. He stated when we appeared before you we wanted to change the use of the property but we were not particularly convinced or had made some final decision as to whether or not we would tear down or raise the building and start a new or whether we were going to try to remodel the existing home on the property. He stated the Guyer’s have indicated a desire to raise the building and start new and that gives us an opportunity to comply with some of the setbacks and some of the frontage road issues that were a concern to you and in the discussions that we had last meeting. He stated what I have distributed to you at the start of tonight is a drawing, which is a site plan, the proposed site plan for the two acre parcel. He stated as you will recall this goes hand in glove with the agreement for written commitments that we had distributed as well. He stated we have added to that there were three conditions before and we now have a forth condition that we are willing to place in the agreement. He stated that is that we will extend sanitary sewer and water to the site as well. He stated a hair salon is a high water user and it is important for their business to have good quality and so they have agreed that they will extend provided that we can get the easements to get it there. He stated I think we could probably do that with Hwy 30. He stated nonetheless that does have to be one aviate. He stated we will if it is feasible to do that extend both sewer and water from the City of Valparaiso. He stated we believe that it is two properties to our east, the dental clinic, so it is in close proximity. He stated the other issue had to do with the frontage road. He stated as you can see on the site plan we do have the frontage road that is required by the overlay ordinance. He stated it generally lines up with the frontage road that is two
properties to the east. He stated there are a series of two or three properties in that location that do already have a frontage road and this frontage road will then line up or match that if it were extended through the parcels and ultimately get to the property in question. He stated one of the largest conditions or most important conditions I think that we have established is that the northern property, that which abuts the subdivision to the north of this parcel, is completely left vacant in its natural state. He stated that is part of and one of the four conditions in the agreement and the site plan reflects that as well.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comments.

Mr. Detert stated I have no comments.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing.

Commissioner Harper stated we are being asked to rezone this. He stated we have this plan, this site plan. He asked what legal position are we in. He stated we have heard all these things and this is the way it is going to be. He stated here is a picture of it. He stated they are going to have an access road. He asked are all of these things covered legally.

Attorney Tallian stated actually the site plan doesn’t really do for you. She stated the site plan is a preliminary but there was submitted originally as part of this an agreement for written commitments. She stated the step about the leaving the northern section, the northern 278 feet of the real estate natural is in the written commitments. She stated the other restrictions are in there. She stated there are a bunch of other conditions having to do with limiting the size and the hours and the number of chairs in the salon and all of those things were put in there. She stated the only thing that is not in the original commitments is what you have put in there. She stated I think that you need to put in here in the written commitments about the access road, the frontage road.

Mr. Leeth stated let me address Commissioner Harper’s concerns. He stated what we can do and as you know this is a recommendation that will ultimately will go to the three county commissioners between now and when we get to the county commissioners, what I can do is further amend the agreement for written commitments. He stated attach what I just handed out to you as an exhibit and a fifth condition that says that we will develop the property in reasonable conformity with this recognizing that we may have to move something here or there when we go through the site plan. He stated we have to have the


frontage road and the parking is going to be on the east and north side. He stated those are substantial issues and I can do that and attach that as a condition to the plat.

Attorney Tallian stated one more. She stated the water and sewer is required for this kind of zoning. She asked will you put that in the commitments.

Mr. Leeth stated it is on this new one.

Attorney Tallian stated so the water and sewer is in this one.

Mr. Leeth stated page 4 at the top.

Commissioner Harper stated something came up during the discussion and in one of these other places does not have an access road.

Mr. Thompson stated the permanent use variance, which is the dental clinic, does not have a frontage road if I remember correctly. He stated it just has an access to the parcel.

Commissioner Harper stated my concern is that we have a plan for U.S. Hwy 30 so it looks decent and it has some conformity, it is good for economic development and it is good for everything that happens. He stated there is being further work done on that plan right now, correct.

Mr. Thompson stated correct.

Commissioner Harper asked does this fit in with the work that is being done.

Mr. Thompson stated the only thing I would say is that what we are looking at will probably be more landscaping standards. He stated the other thing I have seen on this drawing here is that they have actual locations for light standards on it. He stated when I saw that immediately my first concern was that there is a residence to the west. He stated I just want to make sure that there isn’t any large amount of spillage of light from this property over onto the residential parcel to the west. He stated in other words these lights must be directed down and directed to the property and the property only.

Commissioner Harper asked how far is the residence to the west.

Mr. Thompson stated it is just a matter of feet from that existing house that is there.

Mr. Leeth stated if you look at the site plan you can see dashed circles around each of the standards. He stated I assumed that the drafter of this is indicating that is where the concentration of the light would fall is within those dashed circles. He stated none of those circles extend over the western property line. He stated they do on the east but not on the west. He stated we can provide a photometric study if that is a concern.

Mrs. Marshall asked are you going to put in the frontage road. She asked is it going to have pavement on it.

Mr. Leeth stated unlike the dental clinic who only dedicated the right-of-way we will install the frontage road with the parking lot.

Mrs. Marshall asked did you approach the City about water and sewer. She asked do you have any commitment from them or have you had any discussion with them to see if they are going to extend the water and sewer.

Mr. Leeth stated we have not.

Mrs. Marshall stated this will be a commercial drive versus a residential drive because that is a residential house. She asked is there a difference in the State Highway as far as commercial versus residential.

Mr. Leeth stated yes there is.

Mrs. Marshall asked what is that.

Mr. Leeth stated typically there are greater standards with regards to the width of the entry, perhaps a taper. He stated with this type of usage I don’t think that any decel lanes would be required. He stated that is subject to the standards that are set out by the Department of Transportation.

Mrs. Marshall stated then this will just be a salon. She stated there won’t be any living in this salon at all.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct. He stated this is a business.

Mr. Read stated I missed the last meeting so perhaps I missed some of your previous comments. He stated I didn’t get a chance to go out there today so I will have to ask you some further questions. He stated the present land is zoned what.

Mr. Leeth stated it is zoned R-1, single family.

Mr. Read stated the land to the west is what?

Mr. Leeth stated to the west is R-1 as well.

Mr. Read stated there is a house on that property.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Mr. Read stated how about going a little bit farther west. He stated usually I try to get a picture of the neighborhood.

Mr. Leeth stated the next property over is the Handschy property. He stated she was the sole remonstrator at the last meeting. He stated she has a sign business in her home so it is both residential and business. He stated to the east on the other side of the property I believe that parcel is vacant or if there is it is a large parcel and the home is on the far eastern side and then the next parcel over is the dental clinic.

Mr. Read stated on the east side it is presently zoned R-1.

Mr. Leeth stated yes it is.

Mr. Read stated we are R-1 on both the east and west side.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct. He stated then the next parcel over is the dental clinic and then the next parcel is a large parcel that is zoned C-4 that has four business’s.

Mr. Read stated there was a person who expressed some concern and the public hearing was closed. He stated I certainly would like to know whether that person or any of the other people who live next to this are here tonight and would like to say anything. He asked is this permissible Mr. President.

Mr. Breitzke stated only if they keep it short. He stated their issues primarily were concerning the septic field and drainage with West Hills Ditch behind them.

Susan Handschy stated I called the State of Indiana about the health concerning…

Mr. Breitzke stated they are prepared to offer sanitary sewer line or least that is what they are suggesting in there commitments.

Mrs. Handschy stated they just told me that there would probably be about 10 chairs and about 1000 gallons a day.


Mr. Breitzke stated I think that is why we were urging them to get their alternative. He stated your other issue was drainage.

Mrs. Handschy stated it just sits there. She stated the ditch doesn’t drain.

Mr. Read asked what is the nature of the business.

Mr. Leeth stated it is a beauty salon or hair salon.

Mr. Read stated what kind of waste goes out of there.

Mr. Leeth stated we are going to have a large amount of water usage. He stated there will be hair shampooing, there will be coloring. He stated I am not sure exactly what kind of the chemical makeup…

Mr. Read stated what I am leading up to is if you are talking about a sanitary sewer going into this site and you haven’t talked to them about it yet, I think that you should be prepared to tell them what is going to go into that sewer.

Mr. Leeth stated we certainly will do that.

Mr. Read stated but you don’t have the permit right at the moment for sanitary sewer and actually you are asking for something…

Mr. Leeth stated why would I secure a permit when I am asking for a zoning change. He stated I don’t know that I am going to be able to get…

Mr. Read stated what we have here is zoned R-1 on either side and you don’t yet have any commitment on the sewer and water. He stated that creates some of a problem.

Mr. Cole stated given the commitments provided by the petitioner and lawyer and the fact that our Commissioners will probably look at those commitments when it is brought to their attention if it were to be approved then I am satisfied and have no further questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would just add that until this year it was totally unlikely that you would get easements from State Highway. He stated I talked with Tom Sharp the new INDOT Commissioner and they are going to start permitting utilities to run in the highway right-of-ways. He stated this is pretty new news. He stated this was a decision made within the last week or


two. He stated however, I think that those easements need to be secured and make sure that you have it. He stated it is a must in my mind that you have sanitary sewer and water if you are going to have a facility of this nature here. He stated other than that I really don’t have any comments and this is just a preliminary stage. He stated it will be up to the Commissioners to rezone this.

Mr. Detert stated on the entrance way to the frontage road what if in the future more business’s go in and we want to take that out and put it in somewhere else. He asked is that going to be a fixed entrance that we have to live with.

Mr. Leeth stated certainly not. He stated recognizing that our property is only 150 feet wide so the actual entrance is somewhat dictated by the width of our property, of course.

Mr. Detert stated I don’t want to see a whole bunch of entrances.

Mr. Leeth stated ultimately the goal of any frontage road is to eliminate the access points. He stated I would anticipate that as these frontage roads link up over time and they certainly will then the next goal for the highway department and not under county jurisdiction, is to eliminate those access points.

Mr. Detert asked would you commit to taking that out if in the future it needed to be taken out and incur the expense of taking it out.

Mr. Leeth stated the answer is no. He stated we would deal with the highway department much as any other property owner would along there. He stated however, I can tell you that this access would be the one that would be taken out because the crossover is further to the east by the dental clinic.

Mr. Breitzke stated we do have a unique circumstance in which the State actually owns the land so they can be the determining factor of the disposal and the removal of the exits and entrances. He stated it takes time for these frontage roads to connect and interconnect.

Mr. Detert stated the other problem would be a sign. He stated we have had a lot of problems at the BZA with signs. He asked are you looking for a great big sign out there.

Mr. Leeth stated we will comply with the sign ordinance. He stated we will not be asking for a variance.


Mr. Read stated there was a reference to an existing building on the site. He asked is there an existing building.

Mr. Leeth stated yes. He stated there is a home that is located very close to the proximity of the right-of-way up front.

Mr. Read stated are you going to take that home down.

Mr. Leeth stated yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated the only other thing I would like around this property is of course through site review we will have detention and those matters but I would like some kind of commitment to other amenities for taking care of the storm water runoff consistent with best management practices, the plantings, the bio-swales.

Mr. Leeth stated I know my client will also cooperate with you with regards to landscaping and those issues.

Mr. Breitzke stated will you put it in writing.

Mr. Leeth stated no because it is not spelled out. He stated if we knew what your ordinance was and could agree to that then we could incorporate that. He stated I am not going to say that we would agree to landscaping. He stated I would like a little more detail.

Commissioner Harper stated if this in any way goes through when it comes to the Commissioners I want to know that you have talked to these neighbors about the lighting. He stated we have really run into problems when we have commercial near residential.

Mr. Leeth stated we will do that before we arrive at the Commissioners meeting.

Mr. Breitkze stated I would say that it needs to be shielded.

Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 05-Z-11 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation including all of the commitments. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated I would like to amend that motion to indicate to the Commissioners that we don’t believe that it should be rezoned unless there is a sanitary sewer and water.


The first and second agreed to this amendment to the motion.

Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Burns moved to forward Case 05-Z-11 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation including all the commitments and that this property should only be rezoned if there is sanitary sewer and water. Mr. Biddinger seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - No Breitzke - Yes

Case 05-P-13. Petition of Floramo Partners, 1804 Garnet Court, New Lenox, Illinois seeking primary plat approval for Falling Waters Subdivision to be located on the North side of CR 100 S., approximately 1/4 mile East of Lake-Porter County Line Road in Porter Township. (To contain 10 lots on 8.09 acres. Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 9-28-05 mtg. Public hearing is closed.)

Mr. Breitzke asked is there anyone here for Floramo Partners.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-P-13 to the end of the meeting. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 05-FP-15. Petition of Hampton Downs, LLC, 237 W. 500 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Hampton Manor to be located on the North side of CR 500 N. between CR 175 W. and CR 250 W. in Center Township. (To contain 36 lots on 19.97 acres. Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 9-28-05 mtg.)

Todd Leeth stated I appear before you tonight representing Hampton Downs LLC, which is the developer of Hampton Manor Subdivision. He stated we have been attempting to secure from you secondary plat approval. He stated the sole remaining issue is the connection to South Haven Sewer Works. He stated as you recall we received your primary plat approval and then there was a moratorium placed upon connections to South Haven by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in June. He stated this property was released for connection to the utility and from that point in time we have been attempting to secure rights to the west to tie into the existing South Haven Utility. He stated we have secured a letter today from the Highway Department who conditionally allow us to enter the right-of-way and extend the sanitary sewer from our property to that manhole with the South Haven Utility’s. He stated the condition is we secure an IDEM permit which we will now with this letter proceed to do and your approval. He stated I think that we have solved the solution as to how we are going to get from point A, our subdivision, to point B, the sewer line and ultimately South Haven’s facilities.

Mrs. Marshall stated from the minutes of the last meeting, which have not been approved, you say that the client owns to the centerline of the road. She stated it is one thing for the Highway Department to grant you the permission to go through the right-of-way but have you dealt with the issue of owning the property to the centerline of the road.

Mr. Leeth stated we are going to utilize the same permission that was received by the Frobergs when they ran the 6 inch line that is currently there. He stated approval by the Highway Department they have an easement over that portion of the southern end of the property and that is the same right-of-way that we are going to utilize when we run our new line to the existing manhole or the existing sanitary sewer from South Haven.

Mrs. Marshall asked so you are going to have parallel line. She asked is that what you are doing.

Mr. Leeth stated initially. He stated the intent is that we are going to be actually installing two lines. He stated one of which will allow for the abandonment of the existing line.

Mrs. Marshall asked is that to correct the sizing.

Mr. Leeth stated partially to correct the sizing, yes. He stated we are going to upsize it from a 6 to an 8 and then the parallel lines will be a 4-inch, which will service our subdivision, Hampton Manor.

Mrs. Marshall stated so this is a subdivision with how many houses in it.

Mr. Leeth stated 36.

Mrs. Marshall asked is that included in the portion of the South Haven trunk line that is approved that can be added to. She asked is that in that letter of the IDEM…is that included in that three hundred some number.

Mr. Leeth stated yes it is. He stated this property was approved for 38 and we have 36.


Commissioner Harper stated let me make a comment and you correct me if I am wrong. He stated I think in our discussion at the last meeting what concerned me is Highway had granted the right-of-way for a line but hadn’t put any conditions in there that whoever got that line should allow hookups and there is some reasonable conditions so it in affect allowed whoever had that line to allow hookups or not at their pleasure. He stated I said I was going to talk to the county attorney about that to try to make sure that this never happens again and that the Highway doesn’t grant something like that again and then put other property owners so to speak make them hostage because the Highway Department will then say that they are only going to allow one through the right-of-way and they have allowed the one. He stated it was after that discussion that this letter was issued by the Highway Department and the county attorney right now is working on some language to make sure and the Highway Department has been told to wait until we get some language so this doesn’t occur in the future.

Mr. Breitkze stated it makes sense.

Mr. Read stated if I understand you correctly the issue is whether or not somebody else can go in. He stated he can go in at Point B. He stated we will call Point A the sewage treatment plant and Point B the point where you are making the connection to the sewage treatment plant. He stated the issue is whether somebody else can cut in there.

Commissioner Harper stated no the issue was somebody already had the line and he hasn’t been able to work out cutting in there with them. He stated then he goes to the Highway Department and tells them that he can’t work it out with them and he wants his own line. He stated then the Highway Department said you can’t have your own. He stated that was the issue. He stated it all probably started out when we granted the first easement. He stated we should have made it very clear that other people under reasonable conditions could tap in there but it was not done. He stated so now the Highway Department has told them that since you can’t get into that other line you can run your own line. He stated so now they are set up to run their own line. He stated in the future when people are asking for this we are going to make sure that this problem doesn’t happen again. He stated I believe it is solved now.

Mr. Read stated okay. He stated if the size of from where you put it in to the sewage treatment plant is that size only then for your client. He stated in other words can somebody else say somewhere between Point A and Point B and they say they want to cut in can they.


Mr. Leeth stated it is sized appropriately to pick all of the properties that would be between us and our point of connection.

Mr. Cole stated there is a manhole to the east. He stated is that the one that is up on the high ground.

Mr. Leeth stated I believe it is to the west.

Mr. Cole stated okay. He stated that would seem logical. He stated the only manhole I saw was to the east.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comments.

Mr. Detert stated I have nothing.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have no questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated the only thing that I would comment on as I mentioned before I would like to see construction drawings that we haven’t gotten up to date. He stated we need to know how to fix the neighbors as you cross or go under what the methodology is; what the impacts are going to be and we also need a bonding amount for that offsite work. He stated it is going to be a substantial enough number and we collect those just in case. He stated we don’t want to be contractors or constructors but when these lots go up for sale there is an obligation. He stated it is very important that we follow through with it.

Mr. Leeth stated Mr. Breitzke you and I talked earlier this afternoon about the bonding issue and I committed to you that the amount of the bond needs to include the cost of running the sewer from the subdivision to the point of connection with South Haven. He stated I agree with that. He stated Mr. Bengel the project engineer believes that the bonding estimates that have been submitted include that. He stated it shows approximately 2700 lineal feet and it is not itemized where that 2700 lineal feet exactly lies. He stated we will make sure that the number matches up with run and the costs are included within the bonding amount.

Mr. Breitzke stated I looked at those estimates and they appear to me to be a straight run with no conflicts, no special conditions, no driveways and that is the issue. He stated it is not just laying out pipe but usually cost double, triple depending what we run into along the way. He stated we need to know that stuff right up front.

Commissioner Harper stated are you saying Kevin that you don’t have what is needed for this primary plat approval.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is final plat.

Commissioner Harper stated I mean secondary plat.

Mr. Breitzke stated we don’t have the final bonding estimate. He stated we have a portion of it but we can forward if they can get us a bonding estimate that Schelling and I can review prior to it going to the Commissioners. He stated we don’t approve the bonds here. He stated that is a contract between the County Commissioners and yourself.

Commissioner Harper stated you were also asking for some plans.

Mr. Breitzke stated the construction drawings have to be done so they could be evaluated for the bond estimate itself.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-FP-15 subject to the bond required by the County, all construction drawings be submitted and any commitments made regarding this project. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-FP-18. Petition of SW Developers, LLC, 2602 Beech St., Valparaiso, Indiana seeing secondary plat approval for Beauty Creek Estates at Windsor Park North to be located East of CR 150 W./Froberg Rd., South of CR 450 North/Ransom Rd., in Center Township. (To contain 117 lots on 56.54 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Rich Hudson stated I am from the Bonar Group and I am here tonight with Bill Ferngren from Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans. He stated we are here to present and ask for secondary plat approval for Beauty Creek Estates at Windsor Park North. He stated I just handed out 11 x 17 of the large billboard that I set up there to show you how Beauty Creek Estates, how Beauty Creek Villa Homes and Windsor Park all lay within Froberg Road on the west and Ransom Road on the north. He stated CR 400 N. in this area will connect into Keystone Commons eventually. He stated as Mr. Breitzke said we have 56 acres that are zoned R-1. He stated we have received primary plat approval at your second meeting in October of 2004. He stated we are here tonight seeking secondary plat approval. He stated we have a letter of credit that I believe was presented to the Commissioners at their last meeting. He stated I can’t tell you that it was approved. He stated I do know that it was submitted by Dave Schelling. He stated the sanitary sewer for the 56 acres is complete. He stated about 90% of the storm sewer drainage system in the development is complete and the remaining roads which are in this location here are being curbed next week and then eventually paved. He stated we hope to get everything in here before the weather closes in on us here. He stated I think with that I will only add that we did meet with TAC who forwarded this on at their last meeting in September and we were just at the Tuesday Drainage Board meeting where we received approval for regulated drain for the development.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to add that we made a regulated drain as a backup. He stated they are going to have a Property Owners Association that will be incorporated at the time of recording the plat. He stated there are several amenities here. He stated as a Property Owners Association it is our expectation that they maintain and as lot owners have some kind of participation in.

Commissioner Harper stated I would tell the members that most of the people that are here tonight are on this issue. He stated I want to give them a chance to speak.

Mr. Breitzke stated let’s make it clear that this is the single family residential part. He stated most of the people here are for the next one.

Commissioner Harper asked is there anyone here on the single family portion on this that wants to speak.

Mrs. Marshall stated I just got the plans this afternoon. She stated I wasn’t here in 2004. She stated I don’t know why we didn’t get the plans any sooner. She stated I think that the people were notified of a public hearing but we can’t take any action tonight because I have never reviewed the plans.

Mr. Breitzke asked Mr. Hudson do you want to discuss what happen to this.

Mr. Hudson stated at the last TAC meeting of September we received the forwarding of this secondary plat to the Commission. He stated the following week I submitted the application along with the fees for that to get on tonight’s meeting. He stated between that time and that was delivered yesterday. He stated it was discovered in a conversation with Pat from the Plan Commission Office that a Board member had not received their packet. He stated I did some checking. He stated we have been sending everything by UPS so we have a better tracking record of who signed for it. He stated we discovered that I had not sent out the packets to the Plan Commission members. He stated I indicated in the letter that was attached to what I submitted yesterday and hand delivered indicating that had not happened in advance of the meeting and was asking that since there most likely would be people here that may want to hear or speak in favor of or against that those people be allowed to do that if they so came and so chose to do that.

Mr. Breitzke stated it was my decision to keep them on the agenda but putting them on notice that we were likely going to continue this for any decision until next meeting.

Mrs. Marshall stated I find that separating the public hearing and their presentation.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is not a public hearing. He stated this is pending business. He stated this is final plat.

Mrs. Marshall stated you asked if anyone was in the audience to talk…

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Harper did and he asked the Chair for permission.

Mr. Detert stated I think that reason for having this as I understand was so that the Board could recognize any citizens that may have wanted to talk and it does not conform to our rules. He stated we have to suspend our rules in order to vote on this. He stated since a Board member has indicated that they were not received I would like to make a motion.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-FP-18 to the next meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Burns stated your covenants. He stated just so the people can hear the difference from these covenants to the existing covenants in Windsor Park.

Mr. Ferngren stated I don’t have the covenants of Windsor Park in front of us but they are going to be comparable to the types of homes. He stated the size requirements will be 1800 square feet for ranch minimum exclusive of the garage. He stated 2100 square feet for two story homes excluding the garage areas.

Mr. Burns asked what type of siding.

Mr. Ferngren stated the types of siding the preferred is cedar type siding but premium vinyl grade would be permitted. He stated also brick or stone.

Mr. Breitzke stated I believe Windsor Park excluded vinyl siding and vinyl windows.

Mr. Fergren stated the vinyl siding has been excluded.

Mr. Burns asked how about vinyl windows except for porches.

Mr. Ferngren stated vinyl windows only on the approval by the architectural review committee.

Mr. Hudson stated I have a copy of the covenants for Windsor Park. He stated just to go briefly through here. He stated no dwelling whose construction costs are less than $100,000 based on cost levels prevailing at the date, which I believe is around 1998. He stated also no dwelling on the south side of CR 400, which runs through the middle of Windsor Park minimum square footage for ground floor and one story was 1500 square feet, minimum for multi-level was 1800. He stated on the north side of CR 400 for a single story was 1800 and 2100 for multi-level. He stated no bi-levels or tri-levels shall be constructed and no detached out buildings shall be constructed. He stated no sump pump discharge. He stated they talk about no untreated wood siding or vinyl siding or aluminum siding shall be used on exterior of any building with the exception of structural ventilation above the eaves.

Mr. Detert stated I think when we want to protect and make everything fair for the citizens of Porter County that when you ask for or when you state what the situation is when somebody is taken to task for not obeying the covenants I think in all fairness if somebody is taken to court or required to do something relative to the covenants that they should have the same rights as the Board as to reclaim attorney fees and if it is proven in court that they were right or the Board and the other homeowner was wrong. He stated you have provisions in there to recoup attorney fees for yourself. He stated I think you should give that same permission to some homeowner who was wrongly accused.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is on page 22 of the covenants, Article X, Section 1 Duration and Remedies for Violations. He stated it provides that, “Violation or breach of any condition, covenant or restriction herein contained shall give the Developer, Association, or Owner any two or more of them acting in concert or individually in addition to any or all of the remedies, the right to proceed at law or in equity to compel a compliance with the terms of said covenants, restrictions and to prevent the violation and the expense of such litigation shall be borne by the then Owner or Owners of the subject property that are found to be in breach.”

Mr. Detert stated all I am saying is that if some homeowner is wrongly accused then they ought to have rights to recoup their attorney fees. He stated I am just asking that you be fair.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing to say.

Mr. Cole stated I wasn’t here for the primary. He stated I don’t see any provision for sidewalks.

Mr. Hudson stated there are sidewalks throughout the development on both sides of the street.

Mr. Cole stated there was also a bike path being considered throughout this area, I think along Vale Park.

Mr. Hudson stated yes and actually that is not in our portion. He stated our portion of this development commonly known as Beauty Creek is this area.

Mr. Cole stated so there is no connecting.

Mr. Hudson stated there is no connecting. He stated it is all continuing the pathway that Valparaiso has developed along Campbell and taken down Vale Park through Key Stone Commons.

Mr. Cole stated there is an interesting feature up there in open space B. He stated evidently a very deep deposit of muck possibly peat moss. He stated it is a detention basin. He stated I was just curious.

Mr. Hudson stated this is Brian Siewin with S.W. Developers and I will let him answer that.

Brian Siewin stated there is a layer of peat moss. He stated there is also a layer of black soil that runs about 18-inches deep and the peat moss is about 6-inches then it gets down to some gray clay. He stated when the gray clay dries out it is hard as a rock.

Mr. Read stated is this another area that the City of Valparaiso has its eyeballs on.

Mr. Hudson stated yes. He stated the City Planner is here if you have any questions. He stated it is our understanding that the filing of the petition for annexation not only for this area but some surrounding areas is eminent. He stated we have been told that by August or September of 2006 that should be complete. He stated Craig Philips is the Valparaiso City Planner.



Mr. Read stated along with that there would be a pledge of no remonstrance against annexation in order to get the sewer and water out there.

Mr. Hudson stated the sanitary sewer is provided by South Haven Utilities and the water is Valparaiso City water. He stated I can’t speak to that and maybe Mr. Philips could.

Mr. Read stated I see here there are some nice wooded areas around the creek. He stated I tried to find this today and I didn’t get the maps until this afternoon. He stated I went wondering around and wondering around and wondering around. He stated I could’ve used this. He stated when I look at this I say it’s too bad that our open space ordinance doesn’t require 30, 40 or 50% open space. He stated you have certain areas that you are designating as open space. He stated what happens to that area and how protected is that area if it is annexed by the City of Valparaiso.

Mr. Hudson stated I can’t answer that and I will have to let Mr. Philips answer that. He stated the areas that you are talking about or referring to are along the east property line and they are not actually included in the 56 acres except for this parcel, which is open space “C” up here, which is completely wooded and not connected to the lower area. He stated this parcel here and a very large parcel down in this area has been set aside to protect all of the trees. He stated we have not cut down any of the trees along that Beauty Creek corridor and we set those open space parcels both in this development and the next development to maintain those slopes and to maintain the vegetation. He stated you more clearly see what we have proposed on the construction plans, which I would be glad to forward a set of those to you so that you can be sure…

Mr. Read stated my question really regards to what happens to this area and how solid are these assurances if this is annexed by Valparaiso.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to recognize Mr. Phillips.

Craig Phillips stated the City of Valparaiso, whenever we work with the county on developments like this we come to the table and discuss all of the issues regarding planning of these subdivisions. He stated we concurred all the way through with the need for the open space and the preservation of the corridor of Beauty Creek itself. He stated we actually suggested some major modifications to the lot lines, which went down to the creek. He stated that was kind of a joint collaboration with the city and the county. He stated we have no desire whatsoever to affect that corridor along Beauty Creek. He stated we will not change the plat if we annex this. He stated that would require a whole different set of public hearings and replats to be able to do that and we have no intention of changing that because we see the value of Beauty Creek.

Mr. Read stated I hope you are right but we have seen different mayors and different city councils come and go in the City of Valparaiso. He stated if it runs with the land can the mayor and the city council make these changes and decide that they want to sell off this land for building purposes.

Mr. Philips stated that’s all I can do is speak for the current administration and we have no intention of changing this plan. He stated we were involved every step of the way through the design of the subdivision with the county.

Mr. Ferngren stated these parcels will be owned by the Property Owners Association.

Mr. Thompson stated Mr. Read at one point during the joint city and county site review committee that we had over at the City of Valparaiso, the City of Valparaiso Park Department was also very interested in this parcel. He stated they wouldn’t come right out and commit and say that yes they did want this as a park but I will say they were very interested in talking about that at the meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated if we are going to continue this Mr. Read would like to know from our attorney if we approve this plat does that run with the land or can it be changed.

Mr. Thompson stated there is also a written commitment with the rezoning that says they must keep a buffer of trees along there at all times to buffer out Manchester Meadows Subdivision and also they plan to buffer along Beauty Creek. He stated that is part of the written commitments with the rezoning.

Commissioner Harper stated that may be part of the answer that the attorney gives Mr. Read but I think that is what his question is.

Mr. Cole asked Mr. Phillips where is the present boundary of Valparaiso.


Mr. Phillips stated the City of Valparaiso’s boundary follows the complete south boundary of Beauty Creek south and then follows along an angle along the NIPSCO utility easement and south to Harrison Boulevard.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-FP-19. Petition of Naples-VPZ Development, LLC, 421 West Lincoln Highway, Schererville, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Beauty Creek Villa Homes to be located East of Windsor Park and CR 400 N. in Center Township. (To contain 110 lots on 72 acres. Property is zoned R-2.)

Rich Hudson stated I am with Bonar Group and we are here this evening representing Naples-VPZ Development, LLC the owners of what is on the top of the secondary plat Beauty Creek Estates at Windsor Park. He stated it became very apparent after the Froberg’s had received primary plat approval for both of these parcels that there was a similarity in the name that caused considerable confusion for not only house numbering with the City EMS and the county that the developers chose to ask for at the site review a name change from Beauty Creek Estates at Windsor Park to Beauty Creek Villa Homes. He stated we have a 72 acre R-2 development, which will allow a duplex home construction. He stated the original change of zoning was done in the late 1990’s by the Froberg’s with the written commitments that Mr. Thompson alluded to earlier. He stated the major one being the preservation of the Beauty Creek Corridor and that is why we have this rather large open space parcel and this quite large open space parcel here, which takes out of use all of the tree areas that are out there along the Beauty Creek Corridor. He stated those are the same parcels that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Thompson alluded to that the Valparaiso Park Department was interested in when we were going through our joint meetings. He stated there has been brought to my attention by Mr. Thompson that there has been some concern with some of the neighbors that the covenants for this particular development do not meet the standards or do not meet the existing covenants for Windsor Park. He stated I presented to you in the package that were delivered a set of covenants. He stated since that time the developers have chosen to amend those covenants and what I am going to hand out now is the highlighted changes. He stated I believe all of the comments that will be voiced tonight are probably relative to the covenants and the quality of the homes that will be constructed. He stated in the original meeting minutes of the October of 2004 on page 25 and this is talking about the R-2 property. He stated we were talking about the square footage. He stated the starting square footage per unit would be 1600 square feet and would go up from there. He stated I said that the value of per unit cost would be $199,000 at the low end and would go up from there. He stated these will be duplexes and they will not be rentals. He stated if we look at the hand out that I gave you the revised covenants for today the major changes were inclusions into this talk about the dollar value for the homes to be consistent with the minutes that were approved for the primary plat. He stated we also talk about the 1600 square foot minimum first floor area, which does not include the basement level or the walk out lots. He stated on two story residential structures the minimum total floor area would be 1900 square feet. He stated the other change that is probably critical to this the comments that have been voiced prior to tonight’s meeting drop down under Item E. He stated it says, “No untreated wood siding, vinyl siding or aluminum siding shall be used on the exterior of any building with the exception of structural ventilation under and around eaves.” He stated Mr. Burns that is the same wording in the existing covenants for the Windsor Park homes that are out there now. He stated the other changes under fences and pools I am not sure if those are any particular concern.

Mr. Breitzke stated you do have “No above ground swimming pool shall be installed on any home site.” He stated the attorney and I were just talking about your minimum floor standard. He stated we are going to suggest that you word that saying, “No dwelling unit will have an initial offering price of less than $199,000.”

Mr. Hudson stated we have also included with the suggestion of the City to have in our covenants and also on the face of our plat indicating that we would plant two trees per lot, which is the City ordinance. He stated the construction for this development is on going at this time. He stated they are installing sanitary sewers and storm sewers and doing site grading. He stated they also have in works their approval…we are working with the Highway Department to get the final wording of their letter of credit. He stated the dollar amount has been established. He stated I was in communication with Ray Riddell of the Highway Department either late yesterday or early today. He stated he has some wording changes and he wanted to know if it was too late to include or ask for. He stated I told him to fax them to me and I would send them on to the bank so that they could make those suggested changes. He stated once that letter of credit is complete Mr. Schelling would then pass that on to the Commissioners for their approval.

Mr. Detert stated I would make the same comments on the covenants on the enforcement that I made on the previous one. He stated just make them fair that is all I ask.

Bill McCabe stated I am with Naples Development. He stated we will do our best.

Mr. Burns asked did you say you had vinyl siding and aluminum siding removed.


Mr. Hudson stated there is no untreated wood siding, vinyl siding or aluminum siding to be used on the exterior of any buildings with the exception of the structural ventilation under and around the eaves.

Mr. Burns asked so what type of siding is acceptable.

Mr. Hudson stated painted wood siding or brick.

Mr. Burns stated so you could put ply wood up and paint it. He stated it is wide open.

Mr. Hudson stated we took the wording out of Windsor Parks.

Mr. Burns stated you might want to look at that. He stated I don’t know if it is worded properly.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to recognize Mr. Snyder to speak.

Jody Snyder stated I live at 2900 Kickbush Drive in Windsor Park. He stated the one thing that I am afraid of is first of all I am listening to you guys up here and everybody is confused about what Beauty Creek Estates are and what Beauty Creek Villa Homes are. He stated I went through the minutes and I am confused about the preliminary plat. He stated I would think that you got confused about it too. He stated at the time that the preliminary plat was put through there were actually two buyers that were already under contract for two different locations. He stated they weren’t the people getting the preliminary plat. He stated there was one person. He stated since that one person came in and got the preliminary plat those properties were sold with the intention of development. He stated where the issue lies with me is the fact that I think what got represented to you as a Commission is not exactly what was put forth. He stated it would have gotten passed through. He stated this would have started unless somebody actually made a phone call and found out what was going on. He stated what I am afraid of is you can put a band aide on a wound and these covenants and restrictions can be changed in three weeks. He stated if you give them a final plat they can take them and change them and get them rerecorded. He stated they can be whatever they want them to be. He stated they can do whatever they want to get this final plat through. He stated what I am afraid of is that they will answer all of our questions. He stated they will go out and get the final plat and two months from now we will look at the covenants and restrictions and they will be different. He stated the reason I am saying that is that we have already been snowballed a little bit. He stated what happens was and I am not taking anything away. He stated the Froberg’s came in and got the preliminary plat. He stated what they represented to you is what they were going to do when you gave them preliminary plat and then what they said they were going to do. He stated I have a newspaper article here where Mr. McCabe stated that they are going to use vinyl siding. He stated that is not what you guys gave a preliminary plat for. He stated that is not what they represented when they came in for that. He stated what I don’t want to have happen they have answered some of the questions here. He stated I am just a little worried about what will happen in the future with this property.

Commissioner Harper stated let me ask you another question. He stated assuming that we can handle legally whatever these commitments are that are going to be followed. He stated you had this letter that I read and it had specific things in there. He stated it talked about unit price, siding and so forth. He stated of those questions you had in this letter what have you not heard answered tonight or what would you like…

Mr. Snyder stated I was able to obtain the covenants and restrictions but I don’t have some of the changes that they have made. He stated six twelve roofs; there is nothing in Windsor Park with a six twelve roof. He stated I might as well pull in a mobile home. He stated there was another builder that was interested in buying this property. He stated they have a product on Country Club Road and that is what got represented to you when they went for the preliminary plat. He stated that is what they said was going to be built there. He stated in turn another buyer was under contract at the time of preliminary plat and they are the ones that bought it. He stated so you have a company that wants to buy that had no intention of building what was over at Bridgewater because it wasn’t their product. He stated I want to make sure that what they do, if you can legally do it, is going to be similar to Bridgewater or similar to Windsor Park. He stated with $199,000 Bridgewater could have never been built. He stated the reason I know that is because I am a builder. He stated I am also a developer. He stated I have no problem with the R-2 but I do think it is a little big. He stated 220 units and a take down on that is going to be a long time. He stated what happens on that is people get desperate when they don’t sell lots. He stated then they do whatever they can to sell it. He stated that is my other concern. He stated I want to make sure that they adhere to this all the way through the development.

Mrs. Marshall stated I see that you are going to submit any architect that happens out there to the developer. She asked is this going to be limited to just certain builders.

Mike McCoy stated I live 601 Lake Drive, New Buffalo, Michigan. He stated yes, right now there is one builder who has bought two-thirds of the subdivision and there is still one-third available. He stated we are not looking for a bunch of builders. He stated we are actually looking for three and it will end up being two.

Mrs. Marshall asked are you going to have an overall theme of the houses.

Mr. McCoy stated there will be three sections that will be similar to each other but the three sections will be three different elevations. He stated something I would like to say and that is when we first got involved with this development and from the first day that this was handed to us by the Froberg’s this was all 80 foot lots. He stated the first thing we did was to change them to 90 foot lots and we lost about 19 lots. He stated we downsized this on our own just to make wider lots for nicer buildings. He stated we thought our buyer wanted vinyl siding because we are talking about retirees. He stated we have had people call us Valpo that are in bigger homes with bigger lots and they want smaller property. He stated we were looking for the maintenance. He stated we found out that we were not doing what was in Windsor Park. He stated what Rich read today is exactly what Windsor Park’s restrictions are. He stated we put that in there once we learned that there was a problem. He stated that I would like to point out because somebody was talking about density. He stated they said that there are 110 lots and there are 109 lots. He stated one of the lots is labeled as a lot but it is a park. He stated if you take the 72 acres and the 109 lots then this 52 acres next to us have 117 lots. He stated we have almost 16 more acres plus if you notice all the green space is on us. He stated we have fewer lots per acre then the residential subdivision next to us.

Mrs. Marshall stated so have you figured the gross and the net houses per acre.

Mr. McCoy stated well it did not come out with the density we would have liked. He stated there is no doubt about that.

Mrs. Marshall stated my question is when the preliminary was presented now have you changed the preliminary to have less lots.

Mr. McCoy stated the preliminary you got was on the direction to us to change it to 90 foot lots.

Mrs. Marshall stated so the preliminary was presented with 90 foot lots.

Mr. McCoy stated it was presented just like this. He stated what I am saying is that somebody else was talking about someone else being involved in this before this preliminary ever got here. He stated when this was handed to us there was about 120 some lots with 80 foot wide lots. He stated we changed it because you couldn’t build the square footage buildings and the size buildings on each of the lots. He stated so we changed it to 90 foot.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have a question for Mr. Phillips from the City. She stated is this also in the “eye of the storm.”

Mr. Phillips stated yes if you want to put it that way. He stated it is included in the annexation.

Mrs. Marshall stated so in the annexation anybody that buys these lots should be made aware that it is going to be annexed.

Mr. McCoy stated in the proposed restrictions we have wording in there that this is going to happen.

Mr. Phillips stated also to answer Mr. Read’s question it is a standard provision that when you apply for City utilities regardless of where you are at you have to sign a waiver of remonstrance to annexation.

Mrs. Marshall stated that has not always been true.

Mr. Breitzke stated we don’t necessarily annex but there are waivers of remonstrance signed.

Mr. Phillips stated you have to sign a waiver of remonstrance. He stated then in some point in the future the City may annex it.

Mrs. Marshall stated why didn’t the City annex then develop.

Mr. Phillips stated we could annex this before and we are working on that right now.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is a matter of revenue with building permits and that. She stated the County is going to get it and the City is not but you participated in the development. She asked is that true. She stated then the City is going to enjoy the taxes once it is annexed.

Mr. Phillips stated the City and the County collaborated on the review of the development all the way through. He stated it is possible for the City to annex the property without being developed. He stated I can’t speak to why we didn’t annex it before in years past.

Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to know what is the relationship between the County and City at this time.

Mr. Phillips stated on these two properties’ the County and the City have collaborated entirely on these two developments. He stated we have been at the table with each other all the way through the review process and we concur on both sides with the plats as presented.

Mr. Breitzke stated here’s what at issue. He stated we agreed to go to the highest of the standard for public works. He stated this is basically an effort so it enables the potential that the people want to be annexed to fulfill the requirements of the standards of the City of Valpo. He stated we have some other standards that are much tougher. He stated an example is right-of-way. He stated we require 60-foot of right-of-way and they require 50 foot. He stated they require sidewalks and we don’t. He stated we are going to go to the toughest of standard and it is a bigger cost to the developer to approach it that way. He stated we did do that with Emerald Ridge Subdivision, which is south of SR 2. He stated they got the city services and it is very unlikely that will ever be annexed, at least in the near future. He stated it was very important to have the city services out to that land.

Mrs. Marshall stated Mr. Snyder since you are a developer you know that the covenants is only drawn up…it is portrayed as a requirement. She stated it is there for the protection of the future homeowners.

Mr. Snyder stated those protection can be changed at any time by the person who controls that development.

Mrs. Marshall stated I think that as part of any kind of approval here they would have to present the covenants but the covenants are the future homeowner’s avenue to court.

Mr. Snyder stated I think what we have here is when a developer is in control of that property and that is a hard part about this. He stated it is hard to take and tell somebody what they should and shouldn’t with their property. He stated you have to take some integrity to it. He stated the integrity of that developer and the trust of that developer that while they have this property while they own it if they have…don’t get me wrong. He stated I am not worry about the R-2 and it is not a problem for me. He stated I think the density is okay. He stated I think that many R-2 lots are a lot. He stated it is a lot for absorption rate for any community. He stated especially in Valparaiso. He stated if you look at what duplex lots sell in Valparaiso, 109 duplexes are a lot. He stated what can happen is a developer can develop something and they can have slow lot sales and what they can do is take and change those covenants and restrictions three years from now. He stated they can say that now they are going to allow vinyl siding because what they would want to do is lower the cost of the houses to try to get buyers. He stated these two parcels got presented to this Commission at the same time. He stated basically what happened is they presented it at the same time and it really wasn’t separate. He stated if you go through the minutes it is all over the place. He stated so when you listen to it Mr. Harper even, when they were talking about the estate lots, asked if there was anybody here to talk about what the Villa Homes were. He stated it shouldn’t have been put in the preliminary like that knowing that there were going to be two buyers on this property. He stated they should have never put them together. He stated it is two separate entities.

Commissioner Harper stated we are going to work on that. He stated whatever happens here these covenants are going to be legally binding. He stated we are trying to make sure that these representations that were made on this are held up. He stated I can assure you that if this gets passed with covenants it is not just going to be home owner’s covenants. He stated we are going to legally put this in the document that this is part of the approval of the final plat.

Attorney Tallian stated it is true that in a set of covenants like this covenants it has a provision for amendments and changes and it says, “To make an amendment to the covenants has to be approved by 75% of the total number of lot owners.” She stated that means if we approve this tonight and they still own 100% of the lots they can go out and change the covenants tomorrow. She stated that part is absolutely true. She stated now it is also true that if you get three years down the road and you sold off a good number of these lots it is not so easy to change the covenants. She stated now there are a couple of ways that this can happen. She stated you can have a restriction on changing the covenants at all for the first five years. She stated it is also not necessarily advisable to have covenants that can never be changed because twenty years from now…I have had another situation twenty years later sometimes covenants don’t make sense anymore. She stated they need to be changed and if you don’t have a provision for either changing them or allowing them to expire then you can kind of be in trouble. She stated the other thing that can be done is that you essentially have two things going on. She stated one of them is a set of covenants which is really a contract between the neighbors and the other is a set of commitments made by the developer to the County that goes on the plat. She stated you don’t necessarily put a commitment like that…

Mr. Breitzke stated the commitments, Bob, were made at the rezoning. He stated those were specific and they related to the square footage and the price. He asked you didn’t make those then.

Attorney Tallian stated I read all those things. She stated the commitments that were made at the time of the rezoning had to do with preserving certain areas along Beauty Creek Corridor and they also had to do with extending…

Mr. Snyder stated if you do this and the City does annex this it is out of your jurisdiction.

Mr. Thompson stated unless it is recorded on the plat.

Mr. Breitzke stated whoever re-records it has to replat through one of these planning bodies. He stated you can’t just go and change recorded documents without the purview of the governmental authority. He stated I think that those can be stated right on the plat. He stated they have in the past as long as you’re not discriminatory.

Commissioner Harper stated we are going to need that answer in two weeks. He stated when we come back here we are going to need to know if we can tie this up or not.

Attorney Tallian stated there are some things that you may want on the plat. She stated there are other things about like how big your storage shed can be that you just don’t put on the plat. She stated that is a covenant problem and it is not something that goes on the plat. She stated if you are talking about certain kinds of standards…there are some standards that you may want on the plat. She stated you have to decide which ones of these standards you want as a commitment.

Mr. Detert stated I think that Mr. Snyder is right on if you don’t make promises here and then not do what they said they were going to do and record the plat and you pass it and a case in point it involves covenants way back when on Yellow Stone, which is going to come up before us. He stated I got the same


concession out of them that I hope to get out these guys on making the covenants fair. He stated to my knowledge they have never done that. He stated I think that we need commitments made to the county and the Plan Commission.

Mr. Snyder asked can you do that. He stated I know that you are going from the County to the City.

Mr. Phillips stated perhaps one way to get past that is to require the covenants be actually written on the plat and if you want to amend those you have to come back and change the plat.

Commissioner Harper asked is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak.

Chris (inaudible) stated I live at 2903 Prentice Drive. He stated I appreciate some of the changes that have been mentioned already. He stated basically when it comes down to comparing apples for apples and with the covenants my hope would be not only for the Beauty Creek Villas Homes and Beauty Creek Homes both that they would 100% abide by those. He stated in terms of the size I don’t know if there is a differentiation on the Villa Homes. He stated you mentioned that there are different sizes north and south of 400. He stated north of 400 it is 1800 square feet minimum and I don’t know if that is something that needs to be included but certainly something to consider. He asked in the Villa’s is it a maintenance free living arrangement or is the maintenance still handled by the homeowners. He stated one thing that I am very confused on and I don’t think it is necessarily with anyone in here but the relationship between the covenants and the association and between Beauty Creek Estates and Beauty Creek Villa Homes and Windsor Park I am not at all clear on how they would be or will be related and or controlled and what plats would be included in determining the percentage of sales necessary in order for homeowners associations to take over control from the developers and how those are all related. He stated it seems like we are talking about three things, although it kind of seems like we are talking about two things. He stated I am not at all clear on that. He stated that would be something that would be helpful to have clarified, if it is three completely separate entities and if so how would changes in one would relate to changes in the other.

Mr. Hudson stated there is no connection between 56 and the 72 acres. He stated they are two separate developments. He stated they were presented at the October 2004 Plan Commission. He stated they were petitioned by Live Oaks, LLC. He stated there were two separate petitions. He stated one was for the 56 acres and the other for the 72 acres and they were heard together because the Froberg’s were presenting the both of them and it made sense at the time to present since they were connected by their common boundaries. He stated I can’t speak to the covenants as far as the time periods relative to the Property Owners Association of being taken over but I think Bill McCabe indicated that they would make any necessary changes to provide information such as that. He stated the only other point that I wanted to make clear was when I talked about the differences in square footages on the north side of 400 or Vale Park Road and the south side of 400 or Vale Park Road those were in response to Mr. Burns question. He stated those square footages and that reading was out of the existing Windsor Park covenants that are recorded and to my knowledge have not been changed. He stated they had nothing to do with our covenants for the 72 acre development. He stated I was just reading those so we could see the similarity and square footages.

James Prince stated I live at 2354 Knights Bridge. He stated I am literally going to be looking out my back yard at this development. He stated in the commitment will there be some kind of commitment stating that there will be a fence separating the villas from that. He asked has that been put in the commitment or the covenant and will it be mounds with trees separating or are we going to literally look out our back yard into someone else’s back yard. He stated it makes sense between Beauty Creek and Windsor Park because the homes are very similar to one another but I am not sure and it sounds like we are talking about people who want maintenance free living and probably more privacy and how is that going to be separated. He stated aesthetically how will that play between all three portions.

Mr. Hudson stated the public hearing back in October of 2004 that same question came up and at that time there was an indication stating that there would be no barrier. He stated I am doing the talking here and I said, “You stated we are not providing any sort of barrier because the housing that we are providing is comparable in value and in square footage.” He stated there is no mention of a barrier.

Commissioner Harper stated twice these people have mentioned the maintenance agreement and how this is going to work.

Mr. McCabe stated there will be a Property Owners Association that will take care of all the common land and what has yet to be determined and we are meeting with our builder that is going to be the primary builder in there to make the joint decision as to whether the maintenance fee will also include lawn


care and snow removal. He stated those may or may not be included obviously depending on what the maintenance fee is and that is a decision that we will make before we start marketing the project.

Mrs. Marshall asked are the roads not going to be dedicated to the county.

Mr. McCabe stated I meant the snow for the individual units the driveways and the sidewalks.

Mrs. Marshall stated but the roads are going to be dedicated to the county.

Mr. McCabe stated definitely.

Mrs. Marshall asked how many of these houses are going to be duplexes.

Mr. McCabe stated all of them. He stated each building will be a minimum of 3200 square feet, which are at least 1600 on each side.

Mrs. Marshall asked have you done market research on that.

Mr. McCabe stated yes we have. He stated as was sort of mentioned in here there is a strong demand for it. He stated very little of it exists in Porter County. He stated the traditional buyer who is going to buy a product like that is over 50 years old. He stated they are looking for smaller lawns.

Mrs. Marshall asked are you going to use several different architectural units. She stated they are not going to look like row housing.

Mr. McCabe stated they are going to be different products. He stated it is our idea to bring in three different builders. He stated one of the builders has purchased two of the pods.

Mrs. Marshall stated in a 1600 square foot house I just want to know what your take is on this. She asked is that going to indicate that there is going to be a two bedroom unit. She stated it doesn’t sound like to me that you are encouraging kids to live here.

Mr. McCabe stated we are not encouraging or discouraging because that would be discriminatory. He stated we thought a significant amount of units would be three bedroom units. He stated he we got some preliminary drawings from one builder. He


stated I think the one side unit is 1735 and the other one is 1860. He stated that is the first unit he is coming off the line with. He stated this is before we modified the restrictions. He stated we called and checked with them about the restriction of not having vinyl. He stated he is using products that are not that and he wants to build a good quality product.

Melissa (inaudible) stated I live at 2562 Knights Bridge. She stated I have a question concerning where my concern is the possibility of these home owners becoming rental units by the home owners. She asked is there anything stated in your covenants or commitments that would prevent…is there anything put in black and white that will is concerning rentals. She asked do you have a definition for family for your covenants to prevent college kids coming in for one unit.

Mr. McCabe stated we obviously have no provision there about the definition for family because that would be a violation of the Fair Housing Laws.

Mrs. Marshall stated couldn’t somebody own the duplex and under ownership come in and say he bought several and he could rent them.

Mr. McCabe stated we have a “No rental” in the zoning commitment as I recall.

Attorney Tallian stated there is a little problem with this. She stated if anyone on this Board wanted to move to Florida for a year and rent their house out you can do that.

Mr. Breitzke stated the single family home owner can also rent out their homes.

Commissioner Harper asked is that a Fair Housing issue. He stated they said they included this in their covenants, right.

Mr. Hudson stated there was a statement that was made and it is in the minutes. He stated in the minutes it says, “He stated they would be duplexes and they would not be rentals.” He stated that was the commitment that was made in the primary plat approval. He stated I am assuming that what Karen has said about how I could rent my house if I wanted to or you could rent your house. He stated I am not sure how that applies to this and where the fair housing starts and stops.

Commissioner Harper stated I think we are going to need that answer two weeks from now. He stated legally can you restrict that.


Attorney Tallian stated I can tell you a couple of things. He stated there are some places that have tried to restrict that. He stated for example the City of West Lafayette decided that they didn’t want all of these home owners renting out their houses to 15 Frat boys. She stated they did make some restrictions upon ownership and they are pretty tough to enforce.

Commissioner Harper stated here we have something different. He stated here we have people coming in front of us with a plan that they want to have approved and we are talking about putting some restrictions on it. He stated I just think we need the answer to that question.

Attorney Tallian stated the question is can we…

Commissioner Harper stated can we restrict these parcels from being rented.

Karen (inaudible) stated I live at 2655 Louis Dr. She stated I have one concern about frontage road and access roads for construction. She stated this is a project that is going to take a considerable amount of time and we have in the past been mentally inconvienced but there has been a lot of danger with construction traffic going through the subdivision. She stated we are missing some stop signs right now that should be there for the safety of children and there are a lot of children in our neighborhood. She stated I would like the Board to at least make sure that they make considerations for that.

Mr. Hudson stated we are putting our phase 100% of everything. He stated we are not phasing into three phases. He stated we are going in 100% with the improvements.

Mr. Snyder stated what they said about selling 30 of these lots to one builder or one builder bought 60 of them. He stated I want to make sure that there is something that is written that if that builder happens to go defunct that there is a by back policy by the developer or something in that effect that would take that over. He stated we have a situation right now in Windsor Park where there is a builder that went bankrupt and the house is sitting because there is nobody to take it over. He stated it has been sitting there for a year now and will probably sit there for another six months. He stated I want to make sure with this many lots that a builders is going to take and I am not saying that they can’t do it but if they can I want to make sure that there is something that the developer will do.

Mr. Breitzke stated usually the bank buys it back.



Mr. Read stated Karen I want you to closely review Article Three, Owners Association, A. B and C. He stated the question that has come up is can the Home Owners Association change the use…now I am raising the question. He stated supposing down the way the Home Owners Association wants some money so they decide that they are going to…they have to have the necessary percentage of the votes to sell off some of this preserved area. He asked how solid is it again. He stated you mentioned the fact that the covenants, the building covenants and the construction material covenants has to have some kind of review status from time to time and as an architect myself I know that new products come on the line and should be considered. He stated sometimes experience shows that previous products are no good. He stated so I can see the need for modifying and amending Home Owners Association on some subjects. He stated twenty-five years from now it will be more important to preserve that river valley and the woods that are there then it is even now because of the increased population that will come to Porter County. He stated so I want that rock solid. He stated under paragraph C it says that and individual lot owner cannot do certain things on the outlots. He stated what about the Association itself.

Mr. Phillips stated in the event that this is annexed we have had discussions all along and through the process on both of these developments that the City upon annexation and our ordinance allows us to do this, the areas that are open space on the plat would be zoned open space in the City. He stated it is very difficult to rezone open space in the City.

Mr. Biddinger moved to continue Case 05-FP-19. Mr. Burns seconded that motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper stated I think that tomorrow we should have available at the Planning office copies of this amended document that was prepared for us today so any neighbors could come and get a copy can. He stated further I assume based on our discussion tonight there may be some written commitments made and try to have those available at the Plan Commission office.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Public Hearing:

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

Case 05-P-17. Petition of Archer Properties, LLC, 412


Woodland Meadow Ct., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Archer Industrial Park located at 333 N. 400 E. in Washington Township. (To contain 7 lots on 17.71 acres. Property is zoned I-2.

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveying, Inc. representing the petitioner Archer Properties, LLC and with me tonight is Shaun Byvoets, representing Archer Properties. He stated we are seeking primary plat approval of Archer Industrial Park. He stated we are proposing a 7-lot industrial subdivision of a 17.7 acre parcel. He stated the parcel is currently zoned I-2 and adjoining land is also I-2, with the exception of the land on the northeast side of Hutton Ditch that being zoned RR. He stated there is an existing building located on what would be lot 7, which is currently is use by my client. He stated the other 6 lots will be sold off as buyers present themselves. He stated as far as I know at this time there are no definite future buyers so it is not certain as to what industries will be going in, however, they will be limited as to what is allowed by the current I-2 zoning. He stated access to the lots will be provided by a county spec road to be called Archer Way. He stated there is an existing gravel drive servicing the pole barn on lot 7. He stated that gravel drive will be removed in order to construct the road to specifications. He stated that is based on the recommendations of the County Highway. He stated the road was shifted north as you can see on the plat to accommodate the required 20-foot radius curves at the pavement intersections if you are wondering why the road looks the way it does. He stated the road will be cul-de-sac at the east end. He stated existing drainage on the parcel flows basically from west to east with a flow through from adjoining areas approximately 6 acres. He stated the north side of this watershed is outlet by swale into Hutton Ditch and the remaining water flows across the southeast portion into the adjoining parcels ultimately entering Hutton Ditch offsite. He stated the proposed development will maintain the same general flow using proper lot drainage and open swales to direct the storm water to the proposed pond on the east side and outlet at the post develop rate based on 75% coverage as recommended by TAC. He stated that 75% coverage number resulted in the calculated 1.8 acre feet of detention with a 40.2 cubic feet per second outflow. He stated in order to reduce the pipe size required for that out flow and with the limited amount of slope that we had to work with we increased the size of the pond by approximately 22%. He stated this allowed us to use the design 30-inch diameter outlet pipe. He stated the swales and ponds will be grassed lined and a minimum 20 foot grass filter strip will be maintained around the pond, as well as along the length and width of the 75-foot legal drain easement along Hutton Ditch. He stated additionally the pond inlet and outlet will be lined with rip rap to stabilize the channel decrease the velocity of the water and reduce erosion. He stated at the meeting with the Drainage Board on June 13 they requested that the pond and outlet to be regulated with assessments to pay for the maintenance. He stated there is existing screening by means of a tree line located along the southwest side of the ditch. He stated we would request that screening be maintained in order to reduce the amount of land disturbance along the south side of the ditch. He stated also we would ask for your consideration to not require any additional fence screening since the ditch itself would basically provide separation and a natural buffer between the two zoning areas and fencing would not be required along any of the other lines along the south and the north.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mr. Breitzke stated William Buhmann was here and apparently he had his questions answered concerning drainage.

Fred Hess stated I live at 4907 Waters Edge Drive. He stated I represent the Marjorie N. Hess Trust which owns property across CR 400 E. He stated I reviewed the files this afternoon and I really have no problem with what I saw in the file except for one thing. He stated that is the structural integrity of CR 400 E. from SR 2 south to the rail road tracks. He stated this is outlined in the Porter County Highway Engineering report. He stated it points out that this is not an all weather road and so it is subject to the frost laws. He stated the addition of 7 additional business’s to the 12 that are already on the road it would increase the number of business’s that are served by that road by 58%. He stated because of this restriction I think that I would oppose the development until the county resolves the law. He stated I mean corrects or makes the road an all weather road.

Mr. Breitzke stated just for clarification Mr. Hess, you have the business across the street. He asked what is the name of that business.

Mr. Hess stated it is USF Corporation.

John Walsh stated I am from Heat Wagons Inc., 342 N. 400 E. He stated as part of this proceeding the question of whether sanitary sewers are required involved in this process at all or is that a different process. He stated I would be in favor of sanitary sewers and we would be willing to pay our fair share to also connect into that if it got to the point where there was enough business’s there with the new industrial park that would warrant the sanitary sewers for the good of everybody there.



Mr. Banschbach stated in terms of the structural integrity of the road, again just like the County Highway Engineer discussed it is not an all weather road. He stated the current use of it is basically going to be the same use that I would presume that any buyer for the lots in the subdivision would be the same. He stated not knowing exactly what is going to go in there I can’t really tell you what impact the road would have. He stated short of requiring my client to basically beef up the road I don’t think that should be allowed. He stated not allowing him to do it based on what the county has on the road right now doesn’t seem reasonable. He stated in terms of the sanitary sewer requirement I believe that based on your ordinance the sanitary sewers are not required for that and right now for this type of development financially I don’t believe it would be feasible.

Mr. Breitzke asked do you know how close the closest connection is.

Mr. Banschbach stated no.

Mr. Breitzke stated apparently it is to Washington Township School.

Mr. Hess stated I am not suggesting that the petitioner rebuild the road. He stated what I am saying the road is barely able to sustain the business’s that are already there. He stated when I bought that property I wasn’t aware that it was not an all weather road. He stated the seller didn’t mention that. He stated so we have been faced off and on with the frost laws are in affect for six weeks and if you can’t get a semi in to deliver goods or pick your goods up is a great impact on the business. He stated I think if Porter County wants to develop that area that they have to face up to making that an all weather road or not approve the petitioner’s application at this time.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns asked what would be the expense to rebuild that road.

Mr. Breitzke stated I talked to Mr. Schelling about that and just to go from CR 300 N. to SR 2 it would be about $63,000. He stated to upgrade it from SR 2 to the south property line of Archer is about $27,000. He stated it is certainly something worthwhile talking about to the business owners and trying to see if there could be some kind of partnership arrived at. He stated I understand that the county has been tight on funds. He stated I know we cry a lot about that. He stated Mr. Harper is the


Center Township District Commissioner but it is something maybe to plan for in the future.

Commissioner Harper asked what is the tax base and what type of buildings are you putting in there.

Mr. Banschbach stated again, I am not sure. He stated I think he only has one potential buyer right now, which is going to be a lawn maintenance company that is basically going to have the same type of building that is existing on lot 7 and used for storage.

Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Hess how many employees do you have.

Mr. Hess stated I am not involved in the business. He stated I founded it and I figure there are about 17.

Commissioner Harper asked what kind of business is it.

Mr. Hess stated we manufacture specialized painting equipment for the automotive manufacturing business, appliances, farming equipment and we sell internationally.

Commissioner Harper stated I think we should investigate it. He stated we are trying to encourage economic development so I think we should take a look at it. He stated I am going to ask Mr. Schelling to take a look at this tomorrow and see where our budget is at. He asked other than this park and the business that Mr. Hess has what else is on this road.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Walsh’s Heat Wagon is to the north of this.

Mr. Thompson stated Sander’s Hardware is just to the south of this development here and it is a distribution like screws and nuts and specialty type things. He stated there is a company down there that produces dog food further down south on Evans Avenue. He stated there is also Boyd Asphalt, a mini-warehouse, a landscaping business…

Commissioner Harper stated all depending on this road that we are talking about here that costs $63,000 to erect.

Mr. Thompson stated there used to be another business out there but I don’t know if they are there anymore. He stated there are probably a dozen industries out on this road.

Commissioner Harper stated we need to address and we will address it. He asked is there some residential around here.

Mr. Banschbach stated there is a residential house that you will see on the plat south of the hardware store. He stated I think there is another house to the north of it that is owned by Riggs. He stated it is all zoned I-2.

Commissioner Harper stated what I am concerned about is that these residents are already here. He stated they need to be protected with some sort of screening and the light especially. He stated you put up these buildings and they have these big outside lights on them and it just doesn’t mix with residential and we have to make sure that is protected before we approve this. He asked has that been talked about at TAC. He stated can someone explain to me how we are going to address this.

Mr. Thompson stated what we are proposing is that the light standards can only be so high, they have to be directed towards the ground, shielded so that all light is directed towards the ground and there can only be a certain amount of what they would refer to it as candle power that can flow over from the property line. He stated now what this would require to be able to enforce that is for the Plan Commission staff to get a light meter like a cameral light meter. He stated granted it would be in the evening to check these things to make sure that there is not a certain candle power that hits that property line. He stated if there is then we cite them.

Commissioner Harper asked is all this written up somewhere so if we pass this tonight it is all written up of how these homeowners are going to be protected.

Mr. Thompson stated that is what we are proposing. He stated as far as writing that up I would have to ask them if they would be willing to commit to that at the primary plat and I could get the language that we are proposing to them.

Mr. Breitzke stated maybe we could have that come back at final plat.

Commissioner Harper stated I want his straightened up before we pass this plat.

Mr. Banschbach stated this is an industrial subdivision so anything that is going to be going in there is going to be going in front of TAC for a site review.

Commissioner Harper stated I would rather have us have our handle on it.

Mrs. Marshall stated you have I-2 zoning so that allows for outdoor storage.

Mr. Thompson stated it does allow for outdoor storage.

Mrs. Marshall stated the lots are relatively small for any kind of…are you looking for small manufacturers.

Shaun Byvoets stated I am the owner and the reason I am developing this is because I have a storage building and I bought the 18 acres five years ago with the intent of building my storage barn, which is what I did. He stated I was a landscaper. He stated Sanders Hardware got my number and he called me and wanted to buy an acre to put a building similar to mine with a small office in it. He stated I told him sure I would sell him an acre. He stated I can’t sell an acre. He stated I have to do this. He stated that is why I am here doing this.

Mrs. Marshall asked what are you looking to attract to this site.

Mr. Byvoets stated whoever, as well, would have to have I-2 zoning.

Mrs. Marshall asked is the Hutton Ditch a regulated drain.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes.

Mrs. Marshall stated so details of the detention pond would go into the Hutton Ditch. She stated so everybody already gets an assessment for regulated drain.

Mr. Banschbach stated I don’t know if they get an assessment right now but there will be an assessment for each one of the lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is not assessed at this time but it will be assessed in the future. He stated the subdivision itself will be assessed separately. He stated eventually they will be paying two assessments but up in the front end there are going paying assessments on the pond and the outlet structure.

Mrs. Marshall stated the road that goes into this, Archer Way, is that going to be built to county standards.

Mr. Banschbach stated yes.

Mr. Read stated I agree that the County should face up to the road problem or turn down all these requests for rezoning.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Read this is already rezoned and we are looking at a subdivision.


Mr. Read stated we still have a road problem. He stated let me quote again from Mr. Schelling’s letter. He stated it says, “It is impossible to predict the traffic generated due to the unknown type of business’s that will locate in this subdivision. He estimates possibly 70 additional vehicles per day. Many of these vehicles could be heavy trucks depending upon the type of business it is. The subdivision certainly will impact the county road adversely.” He stated we are going to be bumping up against this problem again and again and again and again in the county. He stated I think that we should face up to it and decide what we are going to do one way or the other. He stated let’s look at the soil. He stated we are on septic tanks. He stated we are asked to approve what in affect is an industrial park of unknown tenants who would use septic tanks and from what I read there are two types of soil. He stated they say essentially the same thing. He stated it says, “Limitations are severe for septic tanks absorption fields because of poor filtering qualities of the soil. Pollution on nearby shallow wells by effluent is a possibility.” He stated the same thing for the other type of soil. He stated where is the nearest stub end of a sewer.

Mr. Banschbach stated I don’t know specifically but it has been brought up that it is closer to Washington Township School.

Mr. Read stated I don’t think that we should be approving industrial parks for subdivision without knowing what goes into the ground. He stated I know that we have a County Health Department that will approve virtually anything. He stated you don’t know where that water table is so it doesn’t really make any difference what the soil is. He stated it is not going to work if the water table is too high. He stated I would certainly encourage anybody who wants to do this type of development to try and do something with regard to sewer and water. He stated if you go south on that road there are more than two houses. He stated so it is kind of a mixed use now. He stated this is going to cost somebody a lot of money to fix this road and I am afraid the county is going to get stuck with it. He stated I don’t know where that effluent is going to go. He stated I have a problem with this as it stands.

Mr. Cole stated I have to voice some of the same concerns. He stated unknown tenants, on septic and what it looks like unsuitable soils leaves a lot of question in my mind. He stated I am glad that Commissioner Harper pretty much said that maybe the county can do something about the road. He stated that was another major concern but I feel confident that the county may upgrade that road. He stated this is an industrial area. He stated Washington Township is glad to have the money I am sure.


He stated we certainly need industry in the area to promote employment. He stated however, we have a community surrounding this area that we must be concerned about. He stated I do have a concern of not knowing what type of industry is going to go on septic. He stated especially on small lot sizes such as these. He stated I would be more comfortable with half the density in this area knowing that they were going to be on septic. He stated I have to think that there are going to be some concerns.

Mr. Banschbach stated assuming that the septic systems would be for all lots but that might not necessarily be true. He stated some of them might not be required. He stated if it is simply a warehouse or storage facilities. He stated most likely there wouldn’t be a septic system.

Mr. Cole stated maybe we could put restrictions on it.

Mr. Banschbach stated I don’t know what kind of restrictions you are talking about. He stated without having the benefit of knowing who is going to be buying the lots it would be impossible to apply the restrictions.

Mr. Breitzke stated this is already rezoned to I-2.

Mr. Burns stated I don’t have a problem with this. He stated it is already I-2 and the county needs industry and I think that we should really work with them. He stated concerning the septic maybe the Health Department could designate the business that is going to go in there and approve the septic system prior to. He stated I would like to see this go through.

Mr. Detert stated I have a little problem with the road like everybody else does. He stated not so much that but not knowing what is going to go in there. He stated if you have another Sanders Hardware it would be mostly cars and pickup trucks but it something goes in there that is going to require substantial heavy truck traffic the road is marginal already. He stated I have a little problem with that.

Mr. Biddinger stated the interesting thing here is that your lot sizes are relatively small, especially when you look at your usable acreage. He stated one acre usable if you take out the area for a septic system and a backup septic system you’re really not left with a huge lot size that you can put any heavy weight. He stated obviously you can’t run semi’s over on top of your septic system. He stated so it really limits what you can do on these lots with that small of a size. He stated I think that is going to take away some of the uses some of the more controversial uses that we might run into especially with the septic systems. He stated I am in agreement with the roads. He stated I think anything we can do…rebuilding that road might actually encourage the sales of these lots.

Mr. Breitzke stated your observation is the same as mine. He stated typically you are somewhat limited. He stated that is why I would encourage you to investigate the possibility of the sewer to the north. He stated it is not going to be cheap but you might get money back in aces and they even have easier time selling the lots. He stated we would have more comfort knowing where the waste stream goes especially since we are not dealing with residential type of septic tanks. He stated it is hard to say what they are going to put in the drain. He stated Mr. Walsh has expressed an interest in possibly doing something with you. He stated I am sure his offer is real and I would take him up on it because this might be the one opportunity for both of you guys to come out ahead and possibly expand the possibilities of each one of your properties.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to see this continued for about 6 weeks and I don’t think that is going to hurt you. He stated I hear this man has a business where he has 17 employees. He stated that is the type of thing that we should probably address that road before hand with that kind of business there. He stated that would give me a chance to talk to the Highway about the budget. He stated if we are going to address that road it would do nothing but help your project and it would enhance it, I think. He stated I don’t want to discourage your project but I do want to see it done the right way. He stated if we do continue it we have to address real specifically those two residential areas and how we are going to protect them.

Mr. Breitkze stated I would like to mention that Mr. Buhmann who lives to the south had his property down zoned from I-2 to I-1 in order to put up a house.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 05-P-17 for six (6) weeks. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Thompson stated we have canceled the second meeting in November so you would be heard either on November 9 or December 14.

Commissioner Harper stated that will give me some time to talk to the Highway Department.

Mr. Breitkze stated look at the benefits from sewer and water too.

Mrs. Marshall stated I think one thing that you do have going is any industrial waste that is generated if it is hazardous or anything there are companies that come in and recover that. She stated I don’t see that it is your intent to put waste into the septic system.

Mr. Banschbach stated any septic would have to be approved through the State.

Commissioner Harper stated what Kevin is suggesting is at least explore with the other property owners by the time you come back.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

This case is continued to the December 14, 2005 meeting.

Case 05-P-18. Petition of Mark & Kelly Holder, 458 S. 450 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Holder Estates Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 450 E., ½ mile North of CR 500 S. in Morgan Township. (To contain 4 lots on 14.3± acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Steve Stofko stated I am with McMahon and Associates representing Mark and Kelly Holder. He stated you may remember we were here a couple of months ago asking for a rezone, which we were forwarded to the Commissioners and received a rezone to RR, Rural Residential. He stated also on this property we did go to the BZA for variances to request that all lots not have to front on a road built to county standards simply because we are trying to preserve the character of the property. He stated we are trying to preserve the natural tree coverage around the property and create simply one connection point or one drive to the county road and create a drive that will stem from that to service all four lots. He stated there is one existing house on lot 2. He stated the other three lots one, four and three are all to be single family residences. He stated the entire development takes 14.73 acres. He stated the only other items of note is that we provided a drain tile a 6-inch non-perforated drain to service the perimeter drains for septics, which will come along the east side of lot 3 along the south side of lot 2 and discharge into a swale along the entire perimeter, the south perimeter of lot 2. He stated this will eventually works it way into the right-of-way discharging into an existing 24-inch drain tile into the road.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comment.

Mr. Detert stated I have no comment.

Mr. Biddinger stated I have nothing.

Mr. Cole stated I don’t have any questions.

Mr. Read stated my problem again is the soil situation. He stated these lots are generally on the larger size and we are not talking about great numbers. He stated according to my book it says, “Limitations are severe for septic tank absorption fields because of wetness.” He stated so that means that you have to get far enough apart so that if the septic tanks fail you got an area that will absorb the mistake or the overflow. He stated I am also concerned about as you know the idea of our Master Plan is to encourage subdivisions near sewer and water and discourage subdivisions that are far removed. He stated this one is not a forty or fifty lot subdivision here but I am concerned about the camel’s nose under the tent syndrome. He stated we approve this and then the guy to the north, the south, the east and the west wants to do the same thing. He stated again we find ourselves approving subdivisions out in the boonies where they really shouldn’t go. He stated I have an open mind on this and I am not sure this offsite water shed drains across this property.

Mr. Stofko stated correct.

Mr. Read stated does it go into the ditch.

Mr. Stofko stated correct.

Mr. Read stated which way does that go.

Mr. Stofko stated the ditch carries it out to the county right-of-way where there is an existing 24-inch storm pipe running across the road and then works it’s way back eventually to Crooked Creek.

Mr. Read asked did you happen to bring with you the plan that you had before.

Mr. Stofko stated this is essentially the same plan we brought before with the addition of TAC comments and a couple of other things that did come back regarding the preservation easement to preserve the natural tree line around the property and some of the features as such.

Mr. Read asked what percentage of preservation area do you have of the total area.

Mr. Stofko stated I have a gross area of 14.78 acres and there is .45 acres of right-of-way along CR 450 E. He stated the amount of green space is 1.43 acres or 10% green space and that does not count the additional 10-foot preservation easement that skirts the property, which would add perhaps another half acre to it.

Mr. Read stated other than along the road I don’t recall seeing any natural features except along the county road and the entrance way to the existing house.

Mr. Stofko stated correct.

Mr. Read stated those essentially will be left as is.

Mr. Stofko stated yes.

Mr. Read stated that meets the minimum of 10%. He asked Mr. Thompson does 10% meet our County Open Space Ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated in my opinion it does because you have to have so many, I forgot the language, but so many trees per 400 square feet and I don’t know if this met it. He stated when they went to the Commissioners for the rezoning the Commissioners asked me my thoughts and I said if you preserve the tree lines that go all the way around the property you will in a sense help protect the rural character in that area. He stated so they did put the easements around it for preserving.

Mr. Read stated who will own this set aside property.

Mr. Stofko stated the set aside property is set as a preservation easement, which is described in the deed of dedication. He stated it states, “There are strips of ground various feet in width as shown on the plat and marked preservation easement reserved for the maintenance of green space and no permanent or other structures are to be erected or maintained upon set strips of land. The owners of lots in this subdivision shall take their title subject to rights of the public utilities and to the rights of owners of the lots in this subdivision.”

Mr. Read asked are you going to have a Property Owners Association.

Mr. Stofko stated I don’t believe they were planning on that for a four lot subdivision.

Mrs. Marshall stated this is going to be a private road.


Mr. Stofko stated correct.

Mrs. Marshall asked who is going to plow it and maintain it.

Mr. Stofko stated the property owners.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have seen at other Plan Commission’s where a road comes into question they outline to each lot what they are expected to pay as far as maintenance is concerned. She asked who determines when there is maintenance necessary.

Mark Holder stated it will be a gravel road. He stated as far as who will maintain it we would certainly put in some type of covenants where as they purchase the properties they are bound for their portion of that drive.

Mr. Read stated I would suggest that these covenants be set up in such that if people don’t pay their share that you have recourse to collect.

Mrs. Marshall asked what are you doing with the rest of the property now.

Mr. Holder stated it is farmed.

Mrs. Marshall stated you are going to address the road situation as far as maintenance and who is going to plow it when you convey the property to the other people that are going to become the future owners.

Mr. Stofko stated I think we could put verbiage on it.

Commissioner Harper stated listen to what these people are telling you. He stated this is for your own good. He stated make some provisions for that road or else you are going to be in a nightmare. He asked what is this off site water shed.

Mr. Stofko stated that is additional area from the farmland that currently drains onto the property.

Commissioner Harper stated it drains onto this property.

Mr. Stofko stated correct.

Mr. Biddinger stated if the preservation easements does go with lots 1 and 2 and that to me is important because otherwise you can get somebody back in lot 4 telling you what to do with the front of the preservation easement. He stated if it goes with the property the lot owners have control of that property.

Mr. Breitzke stated I would like to see this maintenance agreement right on the final plat that way the title companies pick it up too.

Mrs. Marshall moved to approve Case 05-P-18. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 05-M-4. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed Storm Water Control Ordinance.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 05-M-4 to the County Commissioner with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Biddinger - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Mr. Thompson stated what I gave everyone is a draft copy of what we call the Best Management Practices or the actual Storm Water Manual, which has a lot of technical content and it also gets into talking about the type of ponds that we would like. He stated that is a work in progress and one of the things that we found in researching this is that a lot of municipalities were doing this with a lot of the construction standards in this sense was making a manual for purposes of a resolution separate from the ordinance for the purpose that the Plan Commission can easily change this and does not have to go through a tedious process of amending an ordinance. He stated this is a work in progress so please give me your comments on that.

Mr. Thompson stated he has a report on Falling Waters. He stated they are not done yet and they are doing some final grading and the electrical is not complete yet. He stated they have asked Kankakee Valley to come in to do the hookups for power to it. He stated they estimate another week and a half to two weeks.


There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


s/Kevin Breitzke, President

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