PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
December 14, 2005

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Burns moved to waive the reading of the October 12, 2005 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the October 26, 2005 minutes and approve them as corrected. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the November 9, 2005 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Findings of Fact: Case 05-P-21. Petitioner Redfish Development.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Case 05-P-21. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-SE-8. Inspection Committee Report for Kankakee Valley REMC, c/o Brian J. Hurley, 14 Indiana Ave., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking a Special Exception to permit a utility substation, to be located at the Southeast corner of CR 150 S. and CR 100 w. in Morgan Township.

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

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 05-SE-8 to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


Case 05-P-17. Petition of Archer properties, LLC, 412 Woodland Meadow Ct., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Archer Industrial Park, to be located at 333 N. 400 E., Washington Township. (To contain 7 lots on 17.71 acres. The Public Hearing is closed.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am here from Emil Beeg Land Surveying office. He stated we are seeking primary plat approval for Archer Industrial Park. He stated I do have a revised page 1 that I would like to hand out to the members. He stated pages 2 and 3 remain the same. He stated too quickly review we are proposing a 7 lot industrial subdivision on 17.7 acres and the parcel is currently zoned I-2 and the adjoining land is also I-2 with the exception of the land on the northeast side of Hutton Ditch being zoned RR. He stated the existing building located on what would be lot 7 is currently owned and in use by my client. He stated we were continued from the October 12 meeting to address some of the issues brought up by some of the members. He stated basically there were three main concerns. He stated they were septic system utilization, lighting standards and the condition of the existing county road. He stated first of all the subdivision is proposing to use septic systems for the lots as opposed to sanitary sewer. He stated we didn’t feel that running sanitary sewer would be feasible to this development. He stated you asked us to investigate the possibility for extending the sanitary sewers. He stated first up the possibility of tapping from the existing Washington Township School System was mentioned at that meeting. He stated the system does have extra capacity, however, in my conversations with the East Porter County School Superintendent seemed to eliminate that possibility. He stated the School Board was previously approached by developers of the vacant parcel located across the street on the south side of SR 2 and the Board had no interest in allowing any additional tap-ons at that time. He stated I did contact the City of Valparaiso concerning extensions. He stated they indicated the closest existing line would have to be extended from the Pine Creek Development, which is located at the northeast intersection of the 49 Bypass and Evans Avenue. He stated this would require approximately two miles of run. He stated I would like to hand out an estimate from the engineer for that run. He stated I did obtain a rough estimate for such an extension and basically looking at the bare minimum for providing sanitary sewer to the site only the estimate was $430,000. He stated this estimate doesn’t take into account the field work required, for the engineering, and the probable requirement by the City to allow additional capacity for tap-ons along the way or required water service. He stated additionally the time required to facilitate such an extension regarding working with the City, the County, the Railroad, and the State Highway not to mention the


actual construction of the extension would put undue hardship on my client for the size of the development. He stated this reinforces our position that requiring an extension of this type would be unfeasible for my client. He stated also please consider, as Mr. Biddinger had stated at the previous meeting, that the relatively small size of the proposed lots will limit many of the controversial uses of the lots. He stated according to the Health Department none of the lots would require a drain for the septic systems and any proposed buildings on the lots would still be required for review by your Technical Advisory Committee, the local Health Department and also approved by the State Health Department prior to construction. He stated the second issue was expressed by Mr. Harper concerning the affect of lighting on the adjoining residential uses. He stated we have addressed this issue by adding to the plat as a restrictive covenant which is basically what is being proposed as the lighting standard for the County in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated these restrictions cover maximum allowable light at property lines, ground and glare lighting standards and parking lot lighting restrictions. He stated those specifics are shown on the primary plat. He stated lastly some of the adjoiners, members of the Board as well as the County Highway Department expressed concern over the current condition of the county road being CR 400 E., which fronts on this development. He stated since that last meeting the County Highway Department has resurfaced CR 400 E. from SR 2. He stated according to Mr. Schelling the road is now considered an all weather road.

Mr. Read stated the road situation may be addressed somewhat although I don’t exactly have Mr. Schelling’s report in front of me. He stated I will have to take your word for it that it is now considered an all weather road, although I don’t know how putting a new topping on that accomplishes that. He stated the thing that still bothers me is the disposal, which we may divide into two things one being sanitary, which I presume would only be the number of employees of whatever type of buildings come here. He stated whatever process waste comes from whatever is proposed. He stated the size of the lot doesn’t make an awful lot of difference. He stated I have seen some things that come to mind recently a small place that was a chrome plating and frankly the process discharge from that was horrendous. He stated it was on small lots and smaller than this. He stated lot size limitation doesn’t really address that point. He stated I have hesitation to go and approve this without having some assurance that both the sanitary and the process waste are adequately addressed. He stated I might ask on the Board about the process waste. He asked who investigates that and approves or disapproves it.



Mr. Thompson stated if the subdivision was approved and recorded before they can receive a building permit on each individual site they will have to come in front of TAC and submit plans for that site. He stated C-1 is the appropriate use under the particular zoning district. He stated also that the building has the proper setbacks according to the zoning again and according to the subdivision plat and are they focusing their drainage towards the ponds.

Mr. Read stated how about process waste in particular, as opposed to sanitary waste. He stated sanitary waste goes one way and if there is a processed waste presumably is a separate system.

Mr. Thompson stated the only thing that I can mention is that before they get to TAC they should have an application down to the State Board of Health for review of that. He stated they should be stating the use that they are going to do and the waste that they are going to have. He stated I think that should be done by a professional engineer by State Statute. He stated I really don’t know the process that well on that situation. He stated the State Board of Health must approve it. He stated the only thing the County Health Department does will be review what is submitted and then issue the permit based on what the State Board of Health Department requirements are.

Mr. Breitzke stated most of these industries are ruled by Indiana Department of Environmental Management and they have requirements depending on the type of industry. He stated likewise, there has to be a State Building release on these commercial or industrial buildings depending on what they are used for.

Mr. Read stated at this point we don’t even know what kind of process waste will come out of these buildings or if in fact there will be. He stated so Kevin, you said that the State IDEM would look at the process and if there is a process waste from whatever type of building is here and would require a permit from IDEM.

Mr. Breitzke stated for volatiles and that type of thing, yes.

Mr. Thompson stated if it is a process like that we also bring in the people from our environmental section, our Haz Mat section to review it and to see if there is any special requirements that they need to do as far as containment or any other situation. He stated so we bring them in for review on something like that.


Mr. Read stated this situation occurs whether we attach it as a condition or not. He stated it still has to be met.

Mr. Breitzke stated typically we contact our people and make sure there is a lock box on the facility, regardless if they have solvents in the building so they know where things are located and for safety.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 05-P-17 for primary plat. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Harper - Yes Marshall - Yes Read - Yes
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 ¼ mile East of Lake/Porter Line Road in Porter Township. (To contain 10 lots on 8.09 acres. Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 11-9-05 meeting. Public hearing is closed.)

At this time, Mr. Breitzke read a report on the waste water treatment plant. This report is in the Falling Waters file. The petitioner wishes for this case to be continued.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 05-P-13 to the January 11, 2006 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 05-FP-21. Petition of Patrick M. Kleihege, 10 Washington Street, Valparaiso, seeking secondary plat approval for Troon Subdivision, Phase 2, to be located on the North side of CR 700 N. between Meridian Road and Calumet Avenue, in Liberty Township. (To contain 20 lots on 50.3 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

John Hannon stated I am from Great Lakes Engineering and Pat is here also. He stated we are here for secondary plat approval for Phase 2 of Troon Subdivision. He stated it will contain 20 lots on 50 acres. He stated it is a well and septic subdivision. He stated Phase 1 was approved about eight months ago. He stated Phase 2 has been before TAC. He stated we have received a favorable recommendation before you. He stated the only condition that I can recall is that we had to get the street names clarified and approved so that E-911 was okay with them. He stated we have checked with E-911 on the new street names.



Mr. Detert stated I have nothing.

Mr. Burns asked are there any major changes to the plat.

Mr. Hannon stated no changes.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions at this point.

Mr. Read stated I wasn’t here when the primary plat was approved, which is probably a good thing. He stated a significant portion of the building area is classified, soil classified as RID. He stated my soils book for RID has this comment about septic tanks. He stated it states, “Limitations are moderate for septic tank absorption fields because of moderate permeability. Increasing the size of the septic tank absorption field helps to overcome the reduced permeability.” He asked have you taken this matter up with the Board of Health on getting septic tank approvals.

Mr. Hannon stated yes absolutely. He stated the soil borings are shown on the final plat. He stated they have been reviewed by the Board of Health people. He stated we have compared the results of the soil borings to the necessary lot sizes and all of the lot sizes are based on the results of the soil borings. He stated each lot has a minimum of three soil borings at this time.

Mr. Read asked have you increased the size of the septic tank absorption field from what is normal shall we say to what.

Mr. Hannon stated no we haven’t. He stated the process would be that when someone would come to build a home on the property they will submit a detailed plan for the home itself, in terms of number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms and based on that a flow projection the septic system will be designed and reviewed and approved by the Board of Health.

Mr. Read stated okay now another comment is that foundations and footings should be designed to prevent structural damage caused by shrinking and swelling. He asked what do you do to your foundations to take that into consideration. He stated of course recognizing that you are not here for a specific building but do you have some kind of requirement when you sell the lot. He asked do you tell your lot buyers that there may be some extra rebar or perhaps installed in the concrete or what? He asked what do you do?

Mr. Hannon stated at this time we don’t have any plans to direct the actual builders, when somebody proposes to build on


one of these lots they need to obtain a building permit from the Building Department and the Building Department will review the plan and conduct the necessary inspections. He stated there are no special precautions that are being indicated on the plat at this time.

Mr. Read asked Bob can you…he has in affect tossed it back to your department. He asked would you like to comment on that point. He stated we would probably have this same situation with quite a number of these so I want to establish an understandable and standard procedure.

Mr. Thompson stated during the permitting process not necessarily are the building inspector’s going to review the soil type out there. He stated they might have a general ideal. He stated what they do is prior to any pour on any footing they are supposed to inspect. He stated the builder will call up for an inspection and they will go out and actually look at the formed up area where the building is and they will walk it and observe the soils. He stated if they do not feel comfortable with that soil type they can always ask for a soil compression or compaction test where they have to hire a soils engineer to come out and do soil samples and do a compressions test on it and give a design recommendation for the footing.

Mr. Read stated but generally speaking don’t the field inspectors follow what is shown on the drawings and what the drawings show. He asked do they have the authority to investigate further.

Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Mr. Breitzke stated this started with Ray Weltz. He stated he got very concerned. He stated we discussed this about six or seven years ago where he can even go as far as maybe even having a foundation design by the developer/builder. He stated at that time we recognized the fact that occasionally there are those soils. He stated it hasn’t been applied that frequently and apparently it really isn’t needed that frequently.

Mr. Read stated there is some authority that your department has or the Building Department has in checking the foundations where we have less than ideal soil conditions.

Mr. Thompson stated right.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have nothing.

Commissioner Harper stated I have nothing.


Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-FP-21. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

New Business:

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

Case 05-Z-13. Petition of Andjelich Project, 485 W. CR 600 N., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential to allow for a single family subdivision on 147.8 acres to be located at the Northeast corner of CR 500 W. and CR 600 N. in Portage Township.

Mr. Breitzke stated it is my understanding that proper notice wasn’t serviced to all interested parties so at this time they are asking for a continuance.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 05-Z-13 to the January 11, 2006 meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Commissioner Harper asked what happened.

Mr. Thompson stated I continued it. He stated I called up the developer. He stated like Kevin said there was a procedural problem to our Rules of Procedures. He stated the general location that you see here is incorrect. He stated it should have been CR 500 W. versus CR 450 W. plus there were two people within the interested parties that weren’t notified by certified mail. He stated seeing those two mistakes staff decided that it would be best that we continued this to the January 11 meeting.

Commissioner Harper asked how are we checking to see if they put these signs up.

Mr. Thompson stated I am going around putting them up.

Mr. Read stated before we set a new date for this there may be somebody here who might want to comment on this.

Mr. Thompson stated staff did send out letters to all the interested parties by first class mail notifying them that this case is being continued to the January 11 meeting.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.


Case 05-P-22. Petition of Bucher Development, LLC 654 Baums Bridge Road, Kouts, Indiana seeking a replat for Grande Prairie Subdivision, Phase I, for Lots 12, 13 and 14 and Tract A to contain 4 lots on 4 acres and to be located on the West side of SR 49 and the South side of Appaloosa Lane, in Morgan Township. (Property is zoned R-1.)

Jason Hanaway stated I with Witman Petry and I am here on behalf of the developer. He stated my address is 4703 Chester Drive, Elkhart, Indiana. He stated Dean Bucher who is the developer is here this evening with me.

Dean Bucher stated we are here this evening to ask for a replat of Grande Prairie Phase I. He stated this is one of those deals where we had a tract of land which was like any other lot. He stated the reason was because of the height of the corn and the time restraints the reports weren’t favorable and we decided we’d wait until infrastructure was put in and take a look at everything. He stated upon that we realized that it didn’t make sense that it wasn’t a regular lot. He stated we had the soils retested and the borings were just fine. He stated Grande Prairie Phase I received secondary approval from the Plan Commission on March 23, 2005. He stated Phase I included 53 lots and one lot labeled Tract A, which was not platted because the soil borings were taken in an erroneous location. He stated after the infrastructure was completed on Phase I the Soil Scientist, John McQuestion of Soil Solutions, took tests in the correct locations on Tract A. He stated the new test showed that the lot is suitable for building. He stated the soil scientist determined that he had erroneously taken the borings south of Tract A at the south side of the retention area and that was the reason for the error. He stated this has been discussed and documented with the Health Department. He stated as a result we are requesting that Tract A, which is relabeled 13B on the replat be reclassified to a buildable lot. He stated because Tract A is slightly under one acre we are moving the south boundary by approximately 40 feet further south to meet the one acre Health Department requirements. He stated we are also slightly revising Lots 12, 13 and 14 to make their south boundary lines consistent with Tract A. He stated it just flows around very nicely when you see that. He stated the approximate 9000 square feet that we are taking on the south is from the top of retention area number 1. He stated it does not extend down into the actual retention pond area and therefore does not affect water retention capacity nor does it affect the recreational usage of the retention area. He stated retention area no. 1 is 9.76 acres and it contains approximately one-third of a mile sidewalk and will be used for walking trails and a recreational area the majority of the time. He stated water does not stay in this area retention long as it


flows into our retention area no. 2 and humongous rains could possibly flow into the Stemson Ditch.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

No one spoke in opposition to this petition.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Read stated I have here the map that shows the previous lot line and the new proposed lot line, which affects lot 12A, Lot 13B, Lot 13A and to some extent Lot 14A. He stated you are moving it generally southward into the low area. He stated it is my understanding that you say or you claim that this movement southward of the line will not encroach upon any water retention areas.

Mr. Hanaway stated no.

Mr. Read asked do you know for sure or are you just estimating it.

Mr. Hanaway stated absolutely positive.

Mr. Read stated my problem here is that sometimes these homeowners like to put a garage or a basketball court or some kind of pavement on the backside of their lot. He stated so I want to make sure that there isn’t any possibility of encroaching upon the water retention area. He asked what makes you so positive that it won’t.

Mr. Hanaway stated when we did the replat we also put the proposed retention area on this map when we relayed out the lots to ensure that we would not encroach upon the retention area.

Mr. Read stated you say that there is another map that shows the water retention area.

Mr. Hanaway stated the original subdivision plans the construction drawings that was submitted for secondary approval for Phase I the construction drawings show the retention area.

Mr. Read stated you show the retention area in so many square feet for 425,000 etc. etc. He stated that was the original retention area. He stated now you are reducing the retention area.

Mr. Hanaway stated no we are not.

Mr. Read asked how are you not.

Mr. Hanaway stated in replatting the lots do not affect the overall retention area. He stated it does not affect the area of storage at all.

Mr. Bucher stated what it is the bottom of the retention the elevation comes up five feet to a berm all the way around. He stated this replat is beyond the berm of the thirty-feet yet on the high side of the berm.

Mr. Read stated do you have the one that shows the berm and the retention. He stated the blue area plus the berm and what you are saying is that the southward movement of the back of these lots does not encroach upon the wet area.

Mr. Bucher stated that is correct.

Mr. Cole asked what kind of plantings do you think you will be putting in these retention areas.

Mr. Bucher stated if I get my way I want it to be mowed grass. He stated we have had some comments from marketing people and said that it might be nice to do the prairie grass. He stated we are going to kind of wing it and see how it goes and if people want that it is actually going to be cost affecting for us.

Mr. Cole stated I think it is certainly worth looking into and I think it will overtime reduce your maintenance cost or the property owners’ maintenance cost. He stated it will improve the quality of the water at the bottom of the basin of that retention pond.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have nothing.

Commissioner Harper stated nothing.

Mr. Detert stated I have no problem.

Mr. Burns stated no problems.

Mr. Read stated one further comment is that by planting native grasses you reduce the problem of geese.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 05-P-22. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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



Case 05-Z-14. Petition of William G. Applegarth, 1510 Michigan Ave., LaPorte, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to I-1, Light Industry to allow for a Dermatology Facility on 34 acres to be located on the East side of Sturdy Road between the South Right-of-Way Line of the former Pennsylvania Railroad and the North Right-of-Way Line of the Nickel Plate Railroad in Center Township.

Ralph Howes stated I am an attorney and I practice in LaPorte, Indiana. He stated with me tonight is my client Dr. William Applegarth. He stated Dr. Applegarth resides in LaPorte and for eight years has maintained a dermatology clinic here is Valparaiso along with an office in LaPorte. He stated presently his office in Valparaiso is located on Silhavy Road just off of Hwy 2. He stated Dr. Applegarth has an accepted offer to purchase on a parcel of property just south of Hwy 30 on Sturdy Road. He stated it is about ¼ to ½ mile south of Hwy 30. He stated the property is 34 acres, give or take, with about 1000 feet of road frontage on Sturdy Road. He stated despite the fact that the property is 34 acres 25% of the overall property is buildable. He stated most of it is wetlands or semi-wetlands. He stated I believe that there is a small creek that runs through the property. He stated Dr. Applegarth is requesting a rezoning for this property to a less intensive use. He stated the present zoning classification is I-2. He stated he is seeking a rezone to I-1. He stated what he is wanting to do on this property is to put in an office and an office is permitted use under I-2. He stated if it is a clinic and I am not sure where the dividing line is between an office and a clinic, a clinic is not a permitted use under I-2. He stated an office is permitted under I-2 but a clinic is permitted under I-1. He stated the zoning classification for Dr. Applegarth is again the I-1 primarily from the standpoint of the developmental standard aspects of your Master Plan. He stated I believe under the current zoning classification such things as parking areas are required to be behind the building. He stated for the use that is intended here in front parking is a more desirable result. He stated the property is served by sanitary sewer and I don’t believe there is a need at this point that city water utilities be extended, although I do understand that they are about ¼ of a mile away. He stated probably an onsite well will be adequate to serve the water needs. He stated the offer to purchase is a contingent offer to purchase. He stated it is contingent on the proper zoning approval. He stated Dr. Applegarth is here with me if you have any specific questions.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.



Hans Puschel stated I live at 2656 Sturdy Road. He stated I live about ½ mile south of the proposed project. He stated I have a couple of issues here. He stated I have a letter that was submitted to me by Marvin’s brother, Mr. George Stoner. At this time, Mr. Puschel read the letter from Mr. Stoner. This letter is in the rezone file. Mr. Puschel stated Mr. Stoner stopped at my house today and unfortunately his wife of 52 years passed away yesterday so he was unable to attend this evening. He stated he did give me this letter to give to you and there are pictures in it of his property and his brothers’ property showing the silting that has occurred on this drainage area and I think it is informative. He stated I am really not sure if I am for or against this project. He stated it really doesn’t impact me and I live south of it. He stated I want to say that living along Sturdy Road you begin to realize that it is a major collector artery in and out of the city and there is a lot of traffic going through there. He stated also this Knode Creek that drains through the proposed project is pretty important drainage wise to Valparaiso, mostly to the city. He stated it drains at least a quarter of Valparaiso proper and it drains south and west to Sager Lake and ultimately to Salt Creek. He stated when we get a three inch rain or better that area floods. He stated sometimes it only takes an inch of rain to flood. He stated then it gets to be blocked off. He stated as the pictures show a lot of the silt from the construction projects from Wal Mart and further north drains into that area. He stated it is a very critical area to be concerned about development. He stated I don’t really want to be against the project per say. He stated maybe this is the project that is going to give us the least impact ultimately long term. He stated it is certainly better than residential. He stated what concerns me is how big is this project going to be. He stated is it going to stay this size, only a few acres as parking lots and a single well or are we looking at down the road expanding this with big parking lots and in the middle of the night when nobody is looking when Corps of Engineers are asleep and the DNR is not watching is that area going to be built in. He stated it is probably about thirty years since it has been filled in and my concern is is this going to ultimately happen there too to this property. He stated it might expand at some point with new doctor’s moving in and the clinic expanding and this area filled in. He stated what is going to happen to the flood waters in the future. He stated my neighbor about six months ago got locked in his car. He stated he tried to run through that flooded area and he was trapped. He stated he had to call on his cell phone to have someone come and help him. He stated I would like to hear a little bit more about the size of the project and what the traffic impact is going to be. He stated I am also a little concerned about what the impact is of this project sitting on the boundary between the City and the


County. He stated as you know the boundary really runs along the railroad tracks. He stated if you say “yes” to this project what is going to happen in the future if it suddenly becomes part of the City if they annex it. He stated that is a concern that I have. He stated one other thing about the drainage this whole area the 34 acres and the Stoner’s property you can think of it as a defacto detention area. He stated when all these waters come from the various parts of the City they have an ability to spread out and slowly sink into the ground. He stated yes it floods. He stated if you fill that in the only place for that water to go is up. He stated I seen it in a worst case be as high as the bottom of the viaduct and that was about ten years ago. He stated if it does occur it is only going to be worse if you don’t allow keeping this wetland area relatively undisturbed. He stated environmentally there is also a little area that concerns me on that 34 acres there is a little area of oak that covers about two or three acres and it is rather pretty. He stated I am just wondering what is going to happen to it. He stated if they develop the project are they going to end up selling parcels to other developers in the future and the bulldozers come and destroy that.

Marvin Stoner stated I live at 261 E. Division Road. He stated I basically have concerns over the water and the flooding of the viaduct.

Mr. Howes stated we are certainly in agreement with the remonstrators that nothing should be done to interfere with or disturb the existing wetland area. He stated I believe that there are adequate regulations in place through such agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR that control any alterations of existing wetlands. He stated with respect to any concerns that any development of the six to nine acres that is buildable might contribute to water runoff. He stated as I understand your procedures over here in Valparaiso you have a Technical Review Committee and this will have to jump through numerous hoops. He stated I would imagine at some point in time there is going to be a requirement that there will be onsite retention or detention engineered into whatever development we have here based on the covered surface, the asphalt. He stated certainly those are all things that my client is willing to comply with.

Dr. Applegarth stated I live at 1510 Michigan Avenue. He stated although I respect the opinions of the gentleman sitting behind me. He stated my proposal is actually in everyone’s best interest including my neighbors. He stated I am not a Wal Mart nor will I ever be. He stated this is a fairly small development. He stated the proposal is approximately 7000 square feet, which will be seated on according to my calculations is


approximately six acres of ground. He stated I have no intention of filling in any wetlands nor would it be financially feasible for me to even do so. He stated this ground, this six acres of buildable land sits 25 to 30 feet above the marsh that sit on the property. He stated six acres versus twenty some acres. He stated I would have to fill in twenty some acres of thirty feet. He stated I couldn’t find that much dirt if my life depended on it nor do I want to. He stated one of the reasons why I really liked this property was I myself is a naturalist and I have visions of an awfully beautiful place. He stated a place that takes advantage of the beauty that this place has including that several acres of burr oaks. He stated I think that we are on the same page here. He stated I think that this is a good use of the land even if it is zoned I-2 and I am asking to rezone it to I-1. He stated I am one small corporation proposing a very small development on a fairly sizable piece of ground. He stated I think it is actually an ideal situation for both myself, the owners and everybody in the neighborhood.

Mr. Puschel stated my intent here is not to put Dr. Applegarth or anybody up on a pillory. He stated I just want to have good neighbors. He stated I want to have people who are concerned about the environment and I want to make sure that this project doesn’t suddenly expand and get so big that it in fact does infringe upon these wetlands. He stated this is a very sensitive area. He stated this impacts a lot of people upstream and downstream.

Garner Tullis stated my address is 552 Morthland Dr. He stated I represent Vineyard Christian Fellowship, which is a piece of property approximately 18 acres. He stated we are an adjacent neighbor to the southwest across Sturdy Road and we are involved with developing a piece of property. He stated we have no problem whatsoever with the rezoning and what Dr. Applegarth has proposed on this piece of property. He stated we would like to be involved in the process of what is going to happen with the water retention process of the 34 acres because it directly affects water retention issues that we are also having to deal with from the same water shed. He stated I don’t think that the rezoning is an issue.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Detert stated I think that this will go before TAC for all their concerns.

Mr. Breitzke stated it will go to the County Commissioner’s for the rezoning.



Mr. Detert stated the people would be welcome to come to the TAC meetings. He stated they are every Friday at 9:00 a.m. He stated you would just have to contact the office to find out when this particular case is going to be on the agenda.

Mr. Burns stated I always like down zoning. He stated I think that they are on the same page and I don’t really see a problem. He stated I think it is a good fit.

Mr. Cole stated the issue here is rezoning and there is no need to go into any other detail other than I do hope that you do plan this. He stated this is a very sensitive area. He stated I do recommend that you look into native plantings down there. He stated I think that they will actually help the situation. He stated it is a beautiful area. He stated I look forward to a very good plan on this.

Mr. Read stated I noticed the staff comment that staff would recommend as a condition of the rezoning if so approved the connection to municipal services and if I understand what you have said that is what you plan.

Dr. Applegarth stated there is city sewer. He stated it does not have city water so we will need a well.

Mr. Read stated the problem with flooding and the railroad viaduct probably would be relieved somewhat if we pay strict attention to retaining these low lands and the river course, the wetlands and the wooded areas in its natural state. He stated there are some things that must be addressed such as the siltation that occurs. He stated that can possibly be taken care of later on when and if you come up with some more detailed plans. He stated I think it is very, very important that essentially this valley and the wetlands be preserved whether it has been annexed by Valparaiso or not. He stated what I would like to see as a condition of a rezoning is that you establish some kind of a mechanism to provide perpetual protection for this area. He stated it is up to us if we want to save this area for the reasons stated. He stated I might suggest donating it to a 501C3.

Dr. Applegarth stated I have had this discussion with my attorney here. He stated first I have to acquire the property. He stated I have had that discussion with a number of people about that very thing. He stated I have absolutely no intention of filling in the wetlands. He stated it is a beautiful piece of property. He stated I own 150 acres of the most gorgeous farmland in LaPorte County that you have ever seen.



Mrs. Marshall asked are you going to pursue both water and sewer from Valparaiso.

Dr. Applegarth stated no. He stated we will have sewer. He stated I haven’t at this time proposed getting water from them.

Mrs. Marshall stated since water is in close vicinity I think you can have a discussion with them. She stated I understand why you are doing the I-1 to have that parking in the front yard. She stated I have nothing else except that I would like to see you pursue both water and waste water.

Commissioner Harper stated I agree with Rick. He stated it is a down zoning and I am reminded a little bit of some other pieces that we had because I know what is going on in that area with the City. He stated grab the best thing that you can get and that is what I say. He stated I think that we should approve it because a lot of this land is zoned industrial and it is going to be used industrial. He stated I think that this use would better protect the property and the surrounding land. He asked will our new Storm Water Ordinance now affect the way they are going to have to use that property.

Mr. Thompson stated they have everything on their parcel as far as what we are encouraging them to do as far as the final treatment of the storm water going in to the wetlands and the wooded areas. He stated the thing that we are going to have to look at is the pre-treatment of the water prior to getting into that environmentally sensitive area.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t see where there is any problem.

Commissioner Harper asked when the water runs off of this property how does it run off.

Mr. Thompson stated where they are proposing to build on is the high area for this parcel and it is up against the northern set of railroad tracks. He stated everything in that area slopes to the south towards the viaduct. He stated everything on the property is probably going to go to the south in this area and this is where the stream is located on the parcel.

Commissioner Harper moved to forward Case 05-Z-14 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

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


This case will be heard by the Board of Commissioners on January 17, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will be having an executive session at 6:00 p.m. prior to our January 11, 2006 meeting to discuss pending litigation.

Mr. Breitzke stated we have a vacancy on TAC right now.

Commissioner Harper stated I would like to see Jack Clem who is our Code Enforcement Officer and has been getting real involved in things and I would like to see him appointed to it.

Commissioner Harper moved to appoint Jack Clem to the Technical Advisory Committee. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated we were talking earlier on this particular situation. He stated Karen and I were talking and wondering too if after the first of the year if we want to look at TAC’s roll and possibly expanding the size of TAC and what TAC’s position is.

Commissioner Harper asked what is TAC’s roll right now.

Mr. Thompson stated TAC’s roll is to review subdivisions, residential and industrial if they are in subdivisions. He stated they go through the book and see that the requirements are met and forward it to the Plan Commission.

Commissioner Harper stated I look at these law suites that we get and they throw in there that TAC approved it. He stated it was my understanding that TAC was merely advisory to us. He asked am I wrong or right about that.

Mr. Breitzke stated it has always been advisory.

Commissioner Harper asked is that in black letter.

Attorney Tallian stated TAC is advisory only. She stated they make no determination. She stated they may make recommendations.

Commissioner Harper stated here is what I read at the last law suite. He stated I read, “We met all the requirements of TAC.” He stated like all of a sudden that is the magic bullet.

Attorney Tallian stated the Plan Commission still has the magic bullet words. She stated they approve things that are for


the health, safety and welfare of the County. She stated they still have all that discretionary power to do that but TAC will look at things and say what they think are correct and covered at least to the letter of compliance.

Commissioner Harper stated so someone things that we should have more people on TAC.

Mr. Thompson stated yes. He stated we are looking at expanding it.

Commissioner Harper stated what type of people would we be adding.

Mr. Thompson stated if you want a couple more Plan Commission members to sit there that is fine. He stated we could always add the Building Commissioner to it. He stated we could expand it to however we want.

Attorney Tallian stated on of the things that we discussed is that all subdivisions are not equal. She stated the two lot subdivisions the three lot subdivisions just doesn’t need as much over site from TAC and 150 lot subdivision on 300 acres. He stated you might want to leave it to Bob to say that this is a big subdivisions and it has a lot of issues and some complicated things and we want to be able to call on a couple of other people, like the fire department, the police, the schools or somebody to come in and talk to us on this subdivision. She stated it doesn’t mean that they have to be sitting there as an advisory board for every three lot subdivision but you may want to be able to have a little discretion as to who you invite to your TAC meetings on certain kinds of things.

Mr. Breitzke stated we always invited people. He stated the difference is whether they are voting members or not and I am not sure what the significances on voting it is more matter of when do we send it to Plan Commission or send it on to the Commissioners. He stated typically we call in the fire department if it is a specific issue. He stated the lock box today for example we have had Haz Mat come in on sensitive issues.

Commissioner Harper stated why don’t you come up with a proposal and we’ll vote on it.

Mr. Read stated one thing that I would like to say is that I’ve always viewed whether I was right or wrong that TAC was the advisory of the Plan Commission and the Plan Commission is the advisory to the Commissioners. He stated TAC can fulfill a very


valuable roll in some of the details such as the minimum width of a roadway and whether the radius is okay etc. He stated that is a very useful and valuable tool to the Plan Commission. He stated it takes some of the burden off of the Plan Commission to look at these details but the overall picture the big picture we should be able to study the big picture before we make a recommendation to the Commissioners.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is why we are looking at the site review.

Mr. Detert stated I would like to make a recommendation now regarding TAC. He stated I always felt this way but we never had as much interest and the impact on wetlands as we do today.

Mr. Detert made a motion that any site review that ordinarily would be approved by TAC that contains a wetland or impacts a wetland, drainage or otherwise, that the final decision be made at the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated that the State and Fed’s have control of all wetlands.

Mr. Detert stated I am not talking about State.

Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Attorney Tallian stated the new ordinance has a whole big section on this. She stated I am not sure that you can do what you just suggested by a motion of this Body. She stated I am not sure that it is not a change in the ordinance to make it come to the Plan Commission. She stated that might be an ordinance change and not a rule change.

Mr. Detert stated my problem is that we have some major impacts on wetlands that don’t get a public hearing. He stated if they come here they will get a public hearing. He stated that is my concern. He stated we shouldn’t be having major impacts on wetlands by building in them without some appropriate Board discussing it thoroughly at a public meeting. He stated we address what we send to TAC. He stated this Commission tells TAC what they can do or not. He stated we just took minor subdivisions from them and we didn’t have to do anything.

Attorney Tallian stated we had to change the ordinance for that.



At this time, the Plan Commission members had a discussion in regards to changing the ordinance.

Mr. Detert moved to prepare an amendment where the Plan Commission approves with a public hearing any site plan approval where wetlands are involved on the site. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion on the different maps to identify the wetlands.

Mr. Thompson stated we have the calendar for our meetings for 2006.

Mr. Burns moved to approve the calendar for the Plan Commission meetings for the year 2006. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated that the Health Department would like to meet with the Plan Commission members to discuss what the Health Department does and why.

Mr. Breitzke asked are there any certain days that came up.

Mr. Thompson stated we thought after the first of the year.

At this time, the Plan Commission members had a discussion on the soil scientists in the area.

Attorney Tallian stated the people who did the Preserve, Redfish, want to talk. She stated they told me that they filed a law suite to protect the 30 day appeal period but they still want to talk to the people on the Plan Commission and see what they need to do to get your approval to get this fixed.

Commissioner Harper stated we are having an executive session on that at our next meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is depending on our attorney.

Attorney Tallian stated you guys have to decide what you want to do about this because it is my understanding that by the time of the next Plan Commission meeting I am not going to be sitting here.

Commissioner Harper stated my thought is it is not good to be discussing litigation in an open meeting where we are making a record of it.



Attorney Tallian stated I think that this meeting should adjourn.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


s/Kevin Breitzke, President

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