PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
January 25, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Harper, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Jim Burge. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Patricia S. Gibson, Attorney Ken Elwood and Fred Siminski.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue the reading of the January 11, 2006 minutes. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Findings of Fact: Case 06-P-1. Petitioner Carmen Good, Meodowgate, Phase B.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Case 06-P-1. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Approval of Attorney’s Contract.

At this time, Rick Burns joined the meeting.

Commissioner Harper moved to approve the contract for the Plan Commission and BZA Attorney. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

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 County Line Road in Porter Township. (To contain 10 lots on 8.09 acres. Property is zoned R-1. Con’t from 1-11-06 mtg.)

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t see Mike Capp or Mr. Floramo here this evening. He stated you know we have been continuing this case to the point where I think that we should just table it and have them give us a date certain and re-advertise.



Commissioner Harper stated weren’t they pretty close the last time.

Mr. Breitzke stated they are very close.

Commissioner Harper stated why don’t we continue it for two weeks or maybe four weeks.

Mr. Breitzke stated put it on the agenda four weeks from today.

Mr. Thompson stated that is the February 22, 2006 meeting.

Commissioner Harper moved to continue Case 05-P-13 to the February 22, 2006 meeting. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-3. Petition of Bucher Development, LLC, 197 E. Arthur Lane, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Grande Prairie Phase 2 to be located between SR 49 and CR 150 E. in Morgan Township. (To contain 50 lots on 71.72 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Artie Bucher, 10122 Cumberland Road, Fishers, Indiana. He stated I am representing Bucher Development and we are the developers on Grande Prairie. He stated last year in 2005 we received primary approval for both Phase I and Phase 2 from you. He stated then we received secondary plat approval in March for Phase I. He stated we have now taken Phase 2 secondary through TAC and they forwarded it onto you and tonight we are requesting secondary approval of Phase 2.

Mr. Burns asked are there any changes from primary.

Mr. Bucher stated no.

Mr. Burns asked is the bond in place.

Mr. Thompson stated the Engineering Department has given us an estimate in the area of $790,300 approximately. He stated I don’t know if you have filed this.

Mr. Bucher stated no we have not filed the bond yet. He stated we want to wait until construction and we will not record the plat right away.

Mr. Breitzke stated we do have to address the bond issue at some amount at this time.



Mr. Thompson stated we don’t sign plats until we know that the bond is in place.

Mr. Burns moved to approve secondary plat for Case 06-FP-3 contingent on the bond of $790,300. Mr. Detert 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 06-Z-2. Petition of Blum Properties, LLC, 152 E. 50 S., Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from AG, Agriculture & Open Space to R-1, Single Family Residential to allow for a single family subdivision on 46.49 acres to be located on the South side of CR 250 S., 379.5 feet West of CR 150 E. in Morgan Township.

Todd Leeth stated I am here on behalf of Blum Properties, LLC and together with Joe and Della Potucek they are the petitioners in this matter. He stated the property as you indicated, Mr. President, is approximately 46 acres in size near the southeast quadrant of CR 250 S. and CR 150 E. in Morgan Township. He stated currently the property is zone Agricultural & Open Space under your zoning ordinance and we are seeking to having a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission to rezone that property to R-1, which is the single family residential district in order to allow for a residential subdivision. He stated before tonight’s hearing began I placed at each of your places a series of four exhibits, maps and drawings and I am going to take you through those in my presentation to you tonight. He stated as you will see and if you have driven past the property or are familiar with the area there are a couple of existing subdivisions and a significant amount of existing single family development in the area. He stated this truly is a residential area today. He stated I come before you many times seeking to change a zoning classification and I tell you it is in an area in transition. He stated I would suggest that this particular 46 acres and the community in which it is located has already transitioned to a residential area and this property on the fringe of that existing residential development is the next logical step for residential development. He stated the first item that you have is Exhibit A on the bottom right corner where I stamped it such. He stated this is a copy of figure 25 out of the Comprehensive Plan and is the Future Land Use map. He stated I have taken the liberty of circling the area that contains this proposed subdivision the 46 acre parcel. He stated you will see from the legend on the left side it says that


the shaded areas on the map where this property is located has concentrations of existing residential development. He stated that is clearly true as we go on and look at some of the aerial maps. He stated as I indicated Exhibit A is from your own Comprehensive Plan and below the shading where it shows existing concentrations the underlying area is the rural/agricultural development. He stated let me read to you from your own comprehensive plan as to what the plan or guide for future land use talks about in that specific area. He stated I am going to paraphrase because it is rather long and I don’t want to read to you too much but it says, “While subdivisions are encouraged in this Land Use category their exact location should be the subject of significant Plan Commission review.” He stated that is the process that we are here tonight on. He stated it also in that same section talks about discouraging single lot strip development and encouraging residential development in an area to locate in larger subdivisions. He stated what I suggest to you is what they are trying to discourage is all of that strip development or frontage sell-offs that we see along CR 150 and CR 250 that are shown on Exhibit B. He stated Exhibit B is a parcel zoning map that has been prepared by McMahon Associates my clients consulting project engineers. He stated this parcel map shows in color the different zoning classifications with the 46 acre parcel in the lower left corner and shown as the proposed R-1 zoning in the purple area. He stated to the north of that you can see that there is an existing R-1 subdivision, Eden Ridge Subdivision, and further to the east is the Ridge Meadow Estates Subdivision. He stated both of those are older subdivisions and existing. He stated you can see at the intersection of CR 250 and CR 150 all of those parcels or strips that run 660 feet deep and frontage then along the county roads and have developed over the years and over time. He stated that, I think, is what the Comprehensive Plan in the sections that I read to you is trying to discourage. He stated the next exhibit that you have is Exhibit C. He stated that is a conceptual plan of what we are proposing to lay out over the top of this 46 acres. He stated it is a single family residential subdivision with 30 lots on 46 acres. He stated that lay out has a series of lot sizes but let me tell you that the average lot size in that proposed subdivision is 1.36 acres in size. He stated on the north side due north of this subdivision or proposed subdivision is a series of four frontage sell-offs that are on either side of the entry road into Edens Ridge Subdivision. He stated each of those four parcels is 1.15 acres in size. He stated the lot sizes are therefore very similar to the most closely homes in proximity to the proposed subdivision. He stated the last drawing that I have that I want to call to your attention is the larger blue aerial map that is Exhibit B. He stated I show you this simply so that you can see the larger view that goes all the way to the east and


incorporates SR 49 in this view. He stated the proposed 46 acres is outlined in red on this map. He stated I have provided that to you and you can see the Eden Ridge Subdivision and you can see Ridge Meadows as it is layed out and you can also see the homes as they go up and down CR 150 E. He stated again I believe that this is an area that has historically been residential in nature and really isn’t in transition. He stated it is already converted over to a residential community. He stated this 46 acres just fits naturally within the next step in our opinion. He stated with that I believe that we have shown to you with your Comprehensive Plan with the visual area photography that this is a petition well suited for your recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Mark Maxwell, 101 E. 250 S. He stated I am a farmer and I own on three sides of this subdivision, which would be all the north, all the west and half of the east. He stated my farming operation is located within 150 feet of the west corner of this plat. He asked what kind of covenants would you have on this subdivision. He stated basically I am asking the size of the houses their values and things of that nature. He stated also the infrastructure, Mr. Leeth talked about the roads, how are these additional houses going to be able to accommodate both agriculture and residential. He asked what kind of drainage do you have planned for this development.

Jane Maxwell, 9 S. SR 49. She stated I am a land owner in Morgan Township. She stated the Maxwell’s are on the seventh generation of farming in South Porter County. She stated as Mark said he put his head quarters within 150 feet from the corner of his property. She stated I question Todd on this being truly a residential area. She stated we own 700 acres that almost surrounds this property down there. She stated that is our business. She stated this is a hindrance to our business. She stated it is a nuisance. She stated the road is narrow and the farm equipment is getting bigger. She stated sometimes we have problems even getting down the road now with all the other subdivisions. She stated it not only affects Mark it affects Randy Wittmer who lives right around the corner. She stated he has just as big or bigger equipment than we do and he uses that road all the time also. She stated we are concerned about the value of our property. She stated we have livestock at that site. She stated there has been livestock there for years. She stated we are not going to change and we are not going to put up any more new fence. She stated we put up new fence for the last three years around pastures one of which joins Mr. Blum’s subdivisions,
Stone Creek, which we did not remonstrate against. She stated it


was in their family for years and it doesn’t bother anybody. She stated this is going to bother us.

Judi Aragon, 127 E. 250 S. She stated I have lived in my home since 1978. She stated the only thing I am concerned with is they have a 55 foot green space preservation easement on the south side of the subdivision and if this proposed development does get the okay from you I would like to see that 55-foot easement put on the north side of the subdivision to where the existing homes there would have a buffer zone between everybody’s backyard and the houses and the neighbors. She stated also if this subdivision is okayed I would like some dense screen planting probably a double row of a minimum of six-foot spruce trees. She stated I was also wondering if they might consider putting the entrance of the subdivision on 75 E. She stated I think they have also purchased that empty lot. She stated I don’t know if that was Potuceck’s minor subdivision. She stated to my understanding and I may be wrong I am thinking that the lot is going to be used for drainage and if it would be possible if they could reroute the entrance to this subdivision and it would make it closer to the intersection and it would cut down on a lot of the traffic. She stated I figured with 30 homes and two vehicles per family one trip in and out of the subdivision is going to be 120 trips up and down that road a day and that is just with the people in that subdivision making one trip in and out of the subdivision.

Nick Krzanowsky, 135 E. 250 S. He stated we are at the east end of the proposed subdivision. He stated a couple of comments that I want to bring out is I agree with the farm equipment. He stated we live on this road and we are always accommodating the farm equipment coming down the road. He stated it is very large equipment almost to the point where you have to get off the road. He stated I can see 30 more homes really congesting those narrow streets. He stated some of the roadways are drop offs on the sides. He stated there is not much room to maneuver there. He stated there was something else that Mr. Leeth said about the neighborhood already is subdivisions. He stated yes there are a lot of subdivisions to the east of us. He stated however, Eden Ridge is a small subdivision. He stated there are many undeveloped lots still in that subdivision. He stated to the south of CR 250 there are no subdivisions. He stated so this is a first ground breaking to any subdivision proposal south of CR 250. He stated I am struggling with that. He stated there is some beautiful farmland out there. He stated I came from a neighborhood where a subdivision was built behind us. He stated this was out east of Schererville. He stated the builder completed the subdivision he left and then about two years after the subdivision completed we had one of those once in


a hundred year rains. He stated homes were flooded to the ground level because of the improper drainage flooding control in the subdivision behind us. He stated I am very concerned about the lay of the lay out there. He stated I don’t quite understand on how that is being addressed. He asked is there one entrance into the subdivision or is there a secondary construction entrance that is going to be proposed. He asked is there a limit on what hours this subdivision can be worked on. He stated I agree with the comment on the buffer zone. He stated that is a very appealing proposal.

Scott Reiner, 260 S. 150 E. He stated I will make my comments very brief. He stated I am kind of a newcomer to the area. He stated I bought the Potucek’s place about two months ago moving from Merrillville to get away from development. He stated I would just be very concerned that there was a Master Plan that everything was going to be taken into consideration meaning the affect on the area. He stated everything from water flow to the farmers concerns.

Mr. Leeth stated Mr. Maxwell inquired as to what kind of covenants we might have for this subdivision. He stated we have not and my clients have not developed restrictive covenants at this point in time. He stated it is somewhat premature. He stated we did discuss briefly what those might entail. He stated there was a suggestion by one of the remonstrators tonight that the Blum’s were involved in the development of Stone Creek Subdivision, which is on the east side of SR 49 in Morgan Township as well. He stated the Blum’s are the developers of that subdivision and the covenants and the style of homes the quality of the homes would be similar to the homes that you would find in that subdivision currently under development today. He stated with regards to roads and the intrusion into the rural area of one more subdivision with more homes. He stated I don’t have anything to offer to you other than the fact that this is a county road and it is serviced by a significant number of homes today. He stated the aerial photography shows that clearly and there are clearly farms and farming operations in the surrounding area as well. He stated this is not a unique issue with any rural subdivision. He stated while this is an R-1 request the lots are of a rural residential size, one acre in size. He stated I indicated to you that the lot sizes are one and a third. He stated this is a rural type of setting. He stated septic and well and the homes in the area are going to be serviced by the existing county roads. He stated look at Exhibit D the blue line aerial and you will see the close proximity of this subdivision to SR 49. He stated the homes within this subdivision are going to exit out onto CR 250 and they are going to go to the east and shortly they will be on SR 49 a major artery in our community to


move traffic. He stated I think all of the farming operations are to the south and west of here generally. He stated they may be transversing CR 250. He stated they do so infrequently generally. He stated again, there is nothing particular about this particular development that would change that issue. He stated let me talk a little bit about drainage. He stated my clients have taken the initiative to provide to you Exhibit C, which is kind of a general lay out. He stated the engineering of that has not been completed. He stated that is a step that once we know that we have a zoning commitment from the county that the zoning will allow that development we will move forward with the final engineering. He stated you can tell from Exhibit C that there is a depressed area just immediately south…Eden’s Ridge Subdivision is not shown on Exhibit C. He stated kind of in the area of lots 4 and 5 you will see there seems to be a depressed area. He stated if you look at Exhibit D you can actually see that on the aerial photography, the blue line aerial. He stated we know that we have an issue there with regard to water coming from the north. He stated in fact Eden’s Ridge Subdivision has a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe shooting its water from its detention pond underneath CR 250 and into this property. He stated so we know that we have to manage that. He stated your newly adopted Storm Water Management Ordinance requires us to deal with water that comes onto our property. He stated Ms. Maxwell indicated that she disputed my characterization of the area on whether it is residential or whether it is farm. He stated I would just call to your attention the aerial that I gave to you. He stated if you look south of the subject property it is farmland. He stated if you look north and east of it it is residential. He stated it is clearly on the edge and there is no doubt about it. He stated my point in my initial presentation was that this area is an area that is already transformed into a residential area. He stated not far south of here is clearly farmland. He stated that is the buffer area or the transition area that is happening. He stated this area centered around CR 150 and CR 250 has historically been single family residential. He stated I don’t think it is developed in good planning when you look at Exhibit B the zone map and all of those strip parcels. He stated that is exactly what your comprehensive plan is telling you to discourage. He stated Ms. Aragon suggested to you some changes that she thought needed to be incorporated into the plan. He stated the plan was adopted or drafted so as to meet your existing ordinances particularly the open space ordinance. He stated that is the purpose of the 55-foot easement and that is a calculation by your ordinance requires a certain size. He stated that is why the limitation on that buffer strip is in the areas that it is. He stated it is interesting enough situated so that it does in fact buffer the farming operations to the south. He stated in my opinion there is no need to buffer single family


homes from other single family homes on the north side. He stated Mr. Krzanowsky commented that he felt farm equipment and the roads were an issue. He stated he indicated that he accommodates that farm equipment today I guess I would suggest to you that the 30 home owners would do likewise. He stated it is true that this would be the first true subdivision, major subdivision at least, south of CR 250 S. He stated again, as I indicated to you the area calls out that this is the next logical step. He stated you have to move to the next parcel. He stated true there is a county road in between but I don’t think that matters. He stated your comprehensive plan certainly doesn’t suggest that. He stated there are no restrictions with regards to hours of operation or development work along those lines. He stated to my knowledge that has not been an issue in the past. He stated it certainly wasn’t when the Blum’s were developing Stone Creek Subdivision and I wouldn’t anticipate that this would be a problem here. He stated Mr. Reiner indicated that he was new to the area and he just asked you to make sure that there was a plan and good planning was involved and good review. He stated that is what the Subdivision Control Ordinance requires. He stated there is over site and development review as you well know. He stated once we receive zoning approval and that is ultimately the Board of Commissioners purview in this petition. He stated then we have to finalize all of those development plans. He stated Exhibit C is just a good start but we have to turn McMahon Associates loose and do the final engineering and get all the “i’s” dotted and the “t’s” crossed. He stated then they come back to TAC. He stated that is a process that you are well familiar. He stated Mr. Breitzke serves on that and Mr. Thompson. He stated they review from a technical nature the drainage plan and the layout to make sure that it complies with your ordinances and then we come back here to you with another public hearing and all of the neighbors will be afforded another opportunity to comment on the specific details of the subdivision at that point in time.

Mr. Breitzke stated you haven’t answered the question on the one entrance.

Mr. Todd stated the subdivision that we propose only has access or frontage on CR 250 S. and the preliminary plat that we are showing has access only on that road in one spot.

Mrs. Maxwell stated I would just like to make a comment. She stated if this is such an area in transition to residential I guess our family could contribute to that greatly. She stated we could certainly increase residential down there and we could do away with the strip development.



Mrs. Aragon stated I was wondering if they might consider putting a second entrance on CR 150 E. to kind of spread out the traffic from this 30 home development. She stated I think that part of the parcel that they are buying from Potucek’s includes lot 4 of that minor subdivision. She stated this is where they could possibly consider a second entrance and reduce the traffic coming out all on one road.

Mr. Maxwell stated I would like to tell my side. He stated Mr. Leeth said this is an area of transition, this is logical and this should be planned. He stated if that is so, fine. He stated from my standpoint I farm about 2800 acres and 1400 acres is family owned. He stated I own 530 acres on three sides of this parcel. He stated if my farming occupation is impacted by this development it causes a problem to me. He stated personally, I don’t like a mixture of agriculture and residential. He stated our beef cow operation consists of 100 cows. He stated these are high valued cows. He stated we practice artificial insemination, embryo transplant and we have had opportunities to clone cattle. He stated these cattle are here for six months of the year. He stated they are calved there. He stated we wean. He stated I have a state of the art operation there. He stated on my farm there are two houses. He stated there are three buildings including an insulated shop, 160 x 60 equipment shed, 9000 bushel of grain storage and 48 x 72 cattle shed with custom gates and the whole nine yards. He stated I can’t afford to be impacted and change my ways by development. He stated the home farm is 9 S. SR 49. He stated most of you probably know where that is. He stated that is just south of the Porter County Fair Grounds. He stated we have already moved operations. He stated so if this development does go through I don’t want to be the guy standing out in left field. He stated if this property is rezoned I think it is only right and fair that I have an exit as well. He stated we are going to ask a commitment from the Board for our property to also be rezoned. He stated I don’t want to be stuck there five, ten or fifteen years with subdivisions and my hands tied behind my back.

Mr. Leeth stated Mr. President I didn’t really hear any questions. He stated I think they were comments and I’ve had my say and I think that they have had theirs.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated this is difficult. He stated I do have a couple of concerns. He stated first this is in an area of transition. He stated I agree with you. He stated but this farm operation adjacent to this proposed subdivision is like an industry. He stated it is big, it is noisy. He stated I think


their concern about the complaints that would come because it is a 24 hour operation about six months out of the year.

Mr. Maxwell stated no, it is about 12 months.

Mr. Burns stated this is not just a small farm. He stated my concern would be would this impact the operation. He stated we have complaints about the noise level, the animals, and the traffic. He stated on the other side of it I do agree, it is an area of transition. He stated I am really mixed right now.

Mr. Detert stated I have the same concerns. He stated we have a lot of R-1 land already zoned. He stated I kind of feel like maybe we ought to be sticking to the development of those lands before we start moving in on the farmers to a big farm operation like his. He stated the more people you put in a farm area the more complaints you are going to get. He stated the people are going to complain about the dust in the spring and the noise. He stated I know the farmers work in the summertime and sometimes well into the night and get up very early in the morning and start running their equipment. He stated I have the same feelings about this as Rick. He stated I have very mixed emotions.

Mr. Cole stated I have the same concerns. He stated rural residential wouldn’t bother me so much but R-1 in a very heavily farmed area regardless of the subdivision to the north and east. He stated a lot of those just popped up quite some years ago when we weren’t quite so concerned about land use and the comprehensive development. He stated as Mr. Detert said it is not at all abnormal in the spring, the summer and well into the fall to be plowing and harvesting corn after midnight. He stated it happens everywhere I look. He stated I am sure this will bother a number of homes in this subdivision. He stated also the screening for the homes along CR 250 S. He stated they are going to have a front yard and a back yard. He stated I am assuming that the front yard is going to be on the interior road and their back yards are going to be facing Eden Ridge and CR 250 S. He stated I don’t know if I would want to look out my window at a bunch of back yards without some screening. He stated the little depression that is characterized here some place as a non-jurisdictional wetland of .3 of an acre or something. He stated it is still wet. He stated whether it is jurisdictional or not, whether it is isolated or not, whether it is accepted by various officials or official sounding people as a wetland or not, it is still wet. He stated I am very curious on how it is drained. He stated I don’t see any outlet. He stated I see a lot of things draining into it but I don’t see any outlet. He stated obviously there is a tube under there somewhere that goes God knows where.


He stated I see problems. He stated the conceptual drawing is nice but I hope it is really very conceptual because I don’t know that I really like it all that much. He stated it is kind of rubber stamped. He stated the 55-foot green space preservation easement is not really what the open space ordinance was trying to address when they call it bio-diversity. He stated it is really not much more than a green screen. He stated it is not the idea of open space however, we are here for rezoning. He stated I thought I would throw those up front because if this rezoning does go through I think we are going to have a lot of questions on the preliminary plat if it comes back to us looking very much like the one we see here. He stated those are considerations that maybe we need to look into the design a little bit more. He stated for my purposes I think rural residential would suffice for this type of development. He stated I don’t know about R-1. He stated I know that it probably doesn’t make any difference really. He stated not that much of a difference. He stated I guess it would satisfy the agricultural sense. He stated that is really about all I have at this point.

Mr. Read stated as I understand it Mr. Leeth, you are approaching this for rezoning only and not trying to slip Phase I approval, primary approval, under the rug, are we?

Mr. Leeth stated you are correct. He stated the only petition is rezoning.

Mr. Read stated okay. He stated I say that because I have a lot of problems with your preliminary lay out. He stated I don’t think it meets the intent of the open space ordinance. He stated at least half the property is not suitable for septic tank and well. He stated I can read you the stuff and I certainly question some of the things that Mr. McQuestion has here in his Soil Solutions letter. He stated we may be jumping the gun on that. He stated I would recommend that if there is any rezoning we hash out these problems and I regard them as serious problems for him. He stated I have made this speech before and you’ve expected it so that is why you came in with your urban fringe argument. He stated I wouldn’t exactly call this urban fringe. He stated I would call it urban fringe, urban fringe. He stated fringe to urban fringe. He stated the idea of urban fringe and the only urban area that we really have here and the nearest is Valparaiso.

Mr. Leeth stated that this is not urban fringe under the comprehensive plan. He stated it is the development of Rural/Agricultural Development area.

Mr. Read stated yes. He stated it is a hard choice here


between…we agree here that we have some old subdivision that are nearby but it is a long way from sewer and water. He stated part of the reason that our Master Plan encourages building within the urban fringe was under the supposition that sewer and water would be available, which doesn’t occur in this case. He stated I really can’t classify it as urban fringe. He stated it is border line but it is surrounded on three sides by rural. He stated my feeling is that some of the closer in areas should be built up first before we start reaching farther out. He stated I have a problem with this as it stands.

Mrs. Marshall stated I too have concerns about this development. She stated first of all I don’t think that the concept meets what we would describe as green space. She stated it simply is a 40 to 55-foot strip around the subdivision and I would question on how you are going to develop it for the good of the people that are going to live in the subdivision. She asked is it going to be a bike trail. She stated in my opinion these kind of strips preclude other people that are going to develop to hook onto the roads and that kind of thing. She stated it is not really a continuation of residential development. She stated the second thing is in this report from the staff it says, “R-1 zoning has existed since the 1983 Master Plan update on the north side of CR 250 S. between SR 49 and CR 150 E. A zoning map is attached to this report.” She asked was it by petition that Eden Ridge got an R-1 zoning or was it something that was done when the maps were…

Mr. Thompson stated no. He stated where Eden Ridge was that was agricultural. He stated I don’t recall the year but it was either 1993 or 1994 that Eden Ridge was rezoned from AG to R-1.

Mrs. Marshall stated in your memory what was the compelling argument or point made to make it R-1. She stated I think we are finding that this subdivision is in the same situation. She stated we have agriculture almost around it completely surrounding it. She stated yet Eden Ridge slips in with an R-1 there.

Mr. Thompson stated to be honest with you I really don’t recall.

Mrs. Marshall stated I don’t agree with you Mr. Leeth that this is in an area of subdivisions that are being developed. She stated I think that you are looking for R-1 in order to make a financial…once you do the infrastructure on this subdivision you have to have a return for the profit. She stated in my opinion I
don’t think that an R-1 is suited for this particular piece of


property. She asked what is the width of CR 250 S. She stated it is a county road.

Mr. Leeth asked the pavement width or the right-of-way.

Mrs. Marshall stated the right-of-way.

Mr. Leeth stated I am not sure. He stated I believe it would be 40-feet.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is small.

Mr. Leeth stated 40-feet is pretty standard size right-of-way. He stated the right-of-way on county roads is established by statute.

Mrs. Marshall stated I am concerned about the drainage in that ditch on the south side there and I see it coming across your lots 4 and 5. She stated coming down into a drainage area you have an easement on lots 10, 9, 15 and 16 so that would have to be addressed. She stated I do realize this is only a concept and there are a lot of things that could still change on this.

Mr. Leeth stated I think it is important and you have told me and others that come before you seeking zone changes you kind of want to see a little bit about what we are thinking. He stated that is why we gave you Exhibit C, the plan. He stated you can kind of see the layout of what we are trying to accomplish. He stated we have a long way to go and McMann and Associates have a long way to go to finalize all of the details. He stated let me comment on one of the issues that three of the members have commented on, the 55-foot strip open space. He stated that is nearly three times as wide as what your ordinance requires the open space strips to be. He stated they can be as small as twenty feet wide. He stated it clearly meets the letter of your open space ordinance. He stated I raise that in the fact that my client had absolutely no intent to try to skirt around the intent of the open space ordinance. He stated we knew what the open space required, twenty feet. He stated like I said we are nearly three times the size of that minimum. He stated again that is something that we can work with when and if we get to that point in designing the subdivision.

Mr. Read stated I think that the 20-foot was related to the access to an open space which should be usable for kids to throw around a Frisbee or something.

Mr. Breitzke stated no the access to an open space had to be much wider.


Mr. Leeth stated the access has to be a minimum of 50-feet. He stated what we can do and the commitment of course is that we will comply with the law and work with TAC and ultimately the Plan Commission if we get to that point in time in working with you. He stated let me also address one other issue that has come up and that was the concern of the R-1 versus the Rural Residential. He stated this petition came to me after it was filed. He stated in other words I was not advising my client, your petitioner tonight, when the application was actually filed. He stated I met with them initially and raised concerns with regards to the choice of the R-1 classification. He stated I anticipated your concerns. He stated I think that the RR, Rural Residential classification does fit better with this. He stated my clients have authorized me to accept that. He stated it would be a down zoning from what is requested and I think that your past practice and the law would allow you to make a recommendation for the RR tonight rather than the R-1 to the Commissioners if that is ultimately your decision. He stated the Rural Residential classification as you know under your ordinance talks about conflicts with agricultural and residential developments in transition zones. He stated it uses those words. He stated I think this truly is that type of classification and we would be happy to accept a Rural Residential modification to the petition.

Commissioner Harper stated I am looking at your no. 4 and the depressed sort of wide area that is at the end of the lane that goes into Eden Ridge. He asked what is that.

Mr. Leeth stated that is the depressed area or low area that I am referring to in my initial presentation. He stated that is where the twelve inch corrugated metal pipe comes underneath CR 250 and the water from the north and through Eden Ridge Subdivision comes into this land.

Commissioner Harper stated so that is subdivision water dumping off onto your land.

Mr. Leeth stated that is correct.

Commissioner Harper asked is that more water than what would be coming off of Eden’s Ridge if it was just a farm field.

Mr. Leeth stated no because Eden’s Ridge has a detention pond and they meter outlet their water.

Commissioner Harper stated so that depression has always been there on that property.

Mr. Leeth stated I saw it today.

Commissioner Harper stated I am talking about even before Eden’s Ridge was there.

Mr. Leeth stated I have to believe that this was there before Eden’s Ridge but I don’t know that to be true.

Commissioner Harper stated I’m sure you are correct because I’m sure there is no way that a subdivision can throw off more water into the detention pond after it was there. He stated so I am sure you are probably right about that. He stated let me say this. He stated it bothers me when I read this proposed Land Use Plan when it says Rural Agricultural Development. He stated where does it say Rural Agricultural and where is just Rural Agricultural in our Land Use Plan. He stated it seems to me that there should just be some agricultural areas. He stated it further seems to me that there has been some spot zoning done here in a couple of places. He stated these folks are absolutely right. He stated if we should do that we should tell them that if they want theirs tomorrow they should have theirs. He stated that is the way it is going to go and that is the problem. He stated if it goes that way we are not going to have any agricultural land left in Porter County. He stated that is what is going to happen and it is a tough choice. He stated everyone is so concerned about these houses along the roads. He stated if a couple of young kids come out and buy ten acres and put up a house and want to have a horse. He stated that kind of family is not going to be bothered by a farm tractor going down the road because they expected that and they came out there. He stated everybody is right about this subdivision. He stated if you put this subdivision in here that is going to be there two years and they are going to be bothered by this farm operation. He stated this area can only be described as a fringe area because there was probably a couple of bad decisions made in the past. He stated if we are going to have agriculture area this is an agricultural area. He stated I just don’t see this right now. He stated I think it is agricultural.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 06-Z-2 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated I would just like to say that I disagree with the R-1 zoning on Eden Ridge. He stated this was done before my time. He stated likewise, Ridge Meadows is R-1 to the east. He stated I am not sure that this was appropriately done. He stated they stripped out along the highway. He stated those are one to two acre parcels. He stated that put a burden


on our roads. He stated I think we are headed towards a more positive direction. He stated this is a tough decision.

Motion 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 County Commissioners on February 21, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Harper moved to suspend the operation of the Technical Advisory Committee and call it Site Review, which will be a pure Development Review or Site Review Committee from here on. The Plan Commission will start appointing an eight (8) member organization. The Department Head can then send their representative. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Thompson stated on another note. He stated I have been talking to Kevin on this and I have also been talking to Ken on this. He stated Ken is going to develop up some procedures for the Development Review Committee and I am going to be looking at some other things and trying to get some research to Ken.

Mr. Breitzke stated we really need to have rules and procedures because there was some misunderstandings by some other individuals. He stated my understanding is that this Body wants to be the ultimate decision makers on site review and anything else referring to development in Porter County.

Commissioner Harper stated one other thing. He stated we are going to be trying to set up a joint meeting with County Council and the Commissioners to present to the Council some funding requests that different people have or to get them it to get a study done on the Marquette Plan.

At this time, the Commission had a small discussion on the Marquette Plan and the Heritage Trail.

Mr. Thompson stated I will be asking for a couple of college interns with planning backgrounds to hopefully work this summer since we will be working on the new codes and a new Land Use map.

Mr. Thompson stated I was also asking for the possibility of consideration for an entry level planner to work in the office.


Mr. Detert stated I would like to jump back to TAC for a minute. He stated there is a lot of work that goes into TAC and everyone that sits on it spends a good amount of time. He stated all the members of TAC right now get paid except our lay person from the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke stated no that is not correct.

Mr. Detert stated well you get paid because you are working there during working hours.

Mr. Breitzke stated well I suppose the extra time that I am working over to try to make it.

Mr. Detert stated years ago we used to have Inspection Committee that were comprised of Plan Commission members and we paid them. He stated somewhere along the line we got away from that and we now use staff or yourself as an Inspection Committee. He stated I don’t know whether our budget will allow us to do this but I think that it would be appropriate at this time and since the Board at that time was raised from $35 a meeting to $50 I think it would be appropriate to pay our lay person $25 per meeting if we could see clear to do that out of our budget.

At this time, there was a discussion concerning the budget and possibly going before Council for an addition to allow us to do this.

Mr. Detert moved to direct Mr. Thompson to look into this and see if we can come up with somewhere between $15 and $25 per meeting for the lay member of the Plan Commission attending TAC. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Thompson stated when we made the motion to continue Falling Waters to the February 22 meeting and always trying to save money for line items there is no business for the February 22 meeting and there is potential that there is no old business for the February 22 meeting. He stated I would like to cancel meetings like that so that way we save money. He stated I was just wondering for the Falling Waters motion for the February 22 meeting if there is a possibility if I could push that back to the first meeting in March.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 05-P-13 to the March 8th Plan Commission meeting if the February 22 meeting is canceled. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.




There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.


PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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