PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
September 13, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Avenue, Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

Those members present were Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Jim Burge and Bob Harper. Staff members present were Fred Siminski, Attorney Scott McClure and Tracy Burrell.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the July 26, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the August 9, 2006 minutes and approved them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-FP-13. Petition of DBL Development, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Augustine Subdivision, Phase I, to be located on the East side of CR 325 E., the South side of CR 400 N. and the West side of CR 400 E. in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 56 lots including outlots and retention areas, on 92.44 acres. Property is zoned RR. Con’t from 8-9-06 mtg.)

Larry Bucher, 215 S. 75 E., Valparaiso, Indiana. He stated we are here tonight seeking secondary plat approval for Augustine Subdivision, Phase I. He stated we have decided to comply rather than contest the interpretation of a forested area. He stated what you have before you tonight is our 20% open space plan. He stated what has changed is some lot lines were moved to transfer property from future homeowners to the future Home Owners Association. He stated we have included the forested area in our open space plan. He stated what has not changed are roads, curbs, berms, the ball field, the playground, the drainage facility, the drainage calculations or the number of lots. He stated the only change to the infrastructure was one storm drain was moved less than two feet. He stated we have presented this plan to the DAC on September 1 and no changes were recommended.



Mr. Burns stated so what you are saying is that you decreased some lot sizes to gain the 20%, but still kept the same number of lots.

Mr. Bucher stated correct.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read stated I have no questions.

Mrs. Marshall stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-13 contingent on the bond of $1.15 million. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-15. Petition of Stephen L. and Diane L. Davis, 698 East Burrell Dr., Crown Point, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Davis Subdivision to be located on the West side of CR 325 W., South of CR 100 N., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 13.87 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Eric Banschbach stated I am from Emil Beeg Land Surveyor Inc. representing Stephen and Diane Davis in the final plat approval for Davis Subdivision. He stated this is a two lot major subdivision on 13.87 acre parcel, which is owned by my clients who are the petitioners. He stated there is an existing home on lot 2, which my clients’ daughter and son-in-law live in. He stated lot 1 is the proposed building site. He stated my clients are planning to build their new home. He stated there are existing gravel drives servicing both lots. He stated there is an existing pond located on lot 1, which was constructed back in 1977 by the previous owners in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service. He stated its current condition and capacity is sufficient to handle the calculated detention required for this subdivision. He stated the existing outlet falls under the definition of a defined waterway. He stated the parcel is zoned RR and no variances are needed as both lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements. He stated the language of the conservation easement is shown on the plat was provided by the Plan Commission office. He stated the primary plat was presented to this Board on June 28 and approved with a unanimous vote. He stated the plat before you today was presented for final review to the DAC on August 18 and forwarded with no comments.

Mrs. Marshall asked how much is going to be left to lot 1. She asked how many acres.

Mr. Banschbach stated lot 1 has 12 acres and lot 2 has 1½ acres.

Mr. Read stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns asked are there any changes from the primary.

Mr. Banschbach stated no.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-15. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-16. Petition of Walnut Ridge LLC, 307 W. 500 N., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Carrington Subdivision to be located on the Southwest corner of SR 149 and CR 550 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 34 lots on 18.53 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Todd Leeth stated I am here on behalf of Walnut Ridge LLC, which is the developer of Carrington Subdivision. He stated Carrington Subdivision is located immediately north of the existing Walnut Ridge Subdivision on SR 149. He stated on the south side of CR 550 N. is where our property fronts. He stated as you indicated 34 lots are platted or proposed on a little over 18 acres. He stated it is zoned R-1 and it has municipal sewer and water. He stated the plat before you is one of a secondary plat and it has no changes from your primary plat which was approved at your May 10 meeting. He stated we would ask for your favorable approval of the secondary plat subject to the public improvements guarantee by the Board of Commissioners.

Mr. Detert stated I didn’t get a mailing on this one. He stated I had to go back and find the primary. He asked was that delivered. He stated I think it would be appropriate for older subdivisions to let us know that we can use the old primary plat.

Mr. Leeth stated it certainly was not intentional that you did not get one. He stated it was my understanding that this was mailed out. He stated we are not expecting you to compare the primary to the secondary. He stated you are entitled by your


rules to receive a secondary plat.

Mr. Burns asked is there a letter on record that South Haven will provide sewer.

Mr. Leeth stated yes there is.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated my only concern as was mention we are not expected to go back and compare with the primary plat upon secondary. He stated that being the case I guess I am…some of the people that aren’t available to the Review Committee meeting on this and the previous case we have a plat here without contour lines. He stated I think contours are an issue in this. He stated not that I feel that is any reason to deny. He stated I am suggesting that in the future I would like to see contours and topographical. He stated it may not have to be every foot but every five feet would be some what beneficial.

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Cole if I could address that. He stated as part of our subdivision requirements on the primary plat we do require topography. He stated on final plat it starts to get very busy with all sorts of extraneous lines and we are trying to get focused on the more important lines. He stated I know that topography is important but we still have on record the topography, regardless.

Mr. Leeth stated the primary plat is where your review and the drainage, the topography and the slopes are all very important and that is why your ordinance requires topography lines at that point in time. He stated where we are at now is really a title document. He stated this is the document that gets recorded. He stated it is what creates lot 1 and lot 34. He stated so they strip away where your ordinance doesn’t require the topography lines or a title document that gets recorded. He stated I think that is the justification why your ordinance doesn’t require it at this point in time.

Mr. Cole stated I guess I should clarify that I wasn’t looking for a requirement. He stated I was looking for an aid. He stated it has been a while from the primary. He stated topography is important in this case.

Mr. Breitzke stated often we receive the primary plat with the final plat. He stated not always.

Mr. Cole stated I think I am happy with what I see here so far but I do have some reservations or some clouded issues.


Mr. Read had concerns on the type of ownership for the open space, the access to the open space, whether the pond is to be wet or dry, the maximum height that the detention pond would reach before it overflows.

Mr. Banschbach stated the spillway is going to be at 648 and the top of the standpipe is at 647.

Mr. Read stated his concern is that at times you would have to walk through water to get to the open space and that it does meet the intent of the Open Space ordinance.

Attorney McClure stated as it is laid out in the ordinance the developer chooses the ownership subject to the approval of the Plan Commission. He further went on to say that the types of ownership are not completely laid out because they may include but are not limited to. He stated there are four examples given and of those four examples he doesn’t find one that is a for-profit organization. He stated he would say that it seems to be that the intent is for that not to be a for-profit organization and that the ownership is subject to the approval of the Plan Commission.

Mr. Breitzke asked what the nature of the ownership was.

Mr. Leeth stated it was their intent that the Outlot be owned, maintained and controlled by Christopher White Conservation Corporation.

Mr. Read stated you took it out.

Mr. Leeth stated Christopher White Conservation Corporation is a 501 organization, tax exempt, not-for-profit whose sole purpose is to maintain the open space not only in Carrington but also in Walnut Ridge. Mr. Leeth stated the intent is to have the ownership of Outlot A in that ownership.

Mr. Breitzke asked could you state that in the plat for us and be specific to the type of organization it is.

After a brief discussion on the language on the plat for ownership of the open space it was decided that the language needs to be modified to convey the ownership of Outlot A to Christopher White Conservation Corp.

Mr. Read stated he believes that they should find another location for the detention basin. Mr. Read stated the revised contour lines that you show in some cases show a 90º turn. He commented that he thinks that the petitioner has some work that


they have to do and some rethinking of this. He stated there are a few things that they need to change in order to meet the intent and the stated requirements of the Open Space ordinance.

Mr. Leeth stated he thinks what is appropriate that they talk about tonight is whether or not the plat complies with the requirements of the ordinance in that regard. He stated they will certainly willing to correct the certification, the language of the plat to make sure that they get the Christopher White Conservation Corp. in ownership of Outlot A.

Mr. Read asked what about the radical change to the slope.

Mr. Leeth stated this was addressed at primary plat.

Mrs. Marshall stated she agrees with Mr. Read and he had valid points that he was making.

Mr. Read moved to continue Case 06-FP-16 until the petitioner returns with revisions on the plat based upon the various points that I have raised. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Detert stated I am not sure if I agree with Mr. Read. He stated his motion will compel him to make his changes.

Mr. Burns asked Counsel if we could do that legally where it compels the petitioner to make the changes.

Mr. McClure stated his intention was to make a motion that would require changes beyond what has already been suggested and agreed to. He stated then no.

Mr. Breitzke stated Herb is suggesting changing the detention pond and other design features at this point.

Mr. McClure stated it can’t be required in the motion. He stated it can be a request but it can’t be required in the motion.

At this time, there was a discussion on how the motion is to read.

Motion reads as follows:

Mr. Read moved to continue Case 06-FP-16 contingent upon the changing of the language that was talked about concerning the


conveyance of the open space and a request that the detention pond be modified to reflect the concerns that he has raised. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which failed due to a lack of majority vote.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-16 contingent upon the changing of the language be changed before the plat is signed with Bob Thompson reviewing it before it is recorded. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes Read - No
Breitzke - Yes

New Business:

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

Case 06-Z-6. Petition of Syed S. Quadri, 4937 Pheasant Ct., Schererville, 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 located on the North side of U.S. Hwy 6 with CR 200 W. bordering the West side of the property in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Jim Keilman stated I am an architect with Keilman & Associates Architects located at 111½ West Joliet Street, Crown Point, Indiana. He stated they would like to rezone a 54 acre parcel from Rural Residential to R-1 Single Family Residential to develop a 73 lot subdivision. Lots will be one-third to one-half acre each.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Emery Brazil, 168 W. 850 N. Mr. Brazil is concerned on where the water will go, the traffic going to U.S. 6. and what this will do to the school system.

Frank Britton, 164 W. 850 N. Mr. Britton is concerned with the high density that R-1 brings. He is opposed to this rezone change.

Gloria Sellhorn, 140 W. 850 N. Mrs. Sellhorn is opposed to this petition. She is concerned with small houses and small lots.

Dawn Chavez, 152 W. 850 N. Ms. Chaves is opposed to the rezone. She is concerned that this will open the door for more development and wall to wall people.

Sheryl Oksimowicz, 146 W. 850 N. Mrs. Oksimowicz is concerned about the change from one acre lots to quarter acre lots, the traffic, the overcrowding of the school due to Timberland and Abercrombie Subdivisions, the noise, property values, annexation to Portage or Chesterton, the police and volunteer fire department.

Valerie Drummond, 140 W. 850 N., is concerned on the wildlife being disturbed and she strongly opposes the rezone.

Peggy Koedyker, 847 N. 200 W., opposes this petition. She has concerns on the traffic, the schools, the rural development.

Marilyn Moehl, 174 W. 850 N., is concerned about the wildlife.

Barbara Makowiecki, 167 W. 850 N., agrees with what everyone else is saying.

Byron Ruge, 812 N. 200 W., asked if legal notification was required for this public hearing.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Mr. Ruge stated I received none. He is concerned about the traffic and the sewers.

J.F.Schrader, 978 Meridian Rd., passed out copies of the latest Swanson-Lamport Watershed Assessment. He is concerned about draining into the Swanson Lamport Ditch, the sewers, storm water contamination and the density of the proposed subdivision.

Donald Tracey, 153 W. 850 N., is concerned on where the water is going to go.

Gerry Hebert, 45 E. Hwy 6, is concerned on the taxes and high density.

Robert Bodza, 721 N. 50 W., is concerned about the water problems.

Monique Herron, 846 N. 200 W., received no notification. She is concerned about traffic and wetlands.

Linda Easton, 903 N. 200 W., received no notification. She is concerned about the traffic.

Mr. Breitzke asked the petitioner if he can guarantee him that he has notified all the people on the west side of the street.

Attorney McClure stated either prove that you notified everyone or prove that there was defective notice and we have already heard from them here today meaning they showed up anyway.

It was suggested for the petitioner to go to a Title Company and have them verify that these get to the right addresses.

Mr. Breitzke stated you now must re-file and go through the whole process of a public hearing.

Mr. Burns moved to continue Case 06-Z-6 with the public portion of the meeting still open. Mr. Detert seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mrs. Marshall asked if that is to a date certain.

Mr. Breitzke stated we need a date certain.

Mr. Burns moved to table Case 06-Z-6 with the public portion of the meeting still open. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-M-2. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 304, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Storm Water Control Ordinance.

At this time, Mr. Siminski read the amendment to the Storm Water Ordinance and the definition of a “waterway.”

Mr. Read stated his concern is that this could be taken as any low place you can dump water where it stays, but what our lawyer has added is a phrase that says, “And a bottom in a definite direction in a course or intermittent flowing.” He stated in other words they can’t dump it into a low lying area that has no outlet.

Mr. Breitzke stated this was always the intent and by cleaning up the language it is consistent with the legal definitions of the waterway.

J.F. Schrader, 978 Meridian Road. He asked is this basically what is in the drainage law.

Attorney McClure stated we are amending the ordinance and this is our definition…



Mr. Breitzke stated what we have been trying to do is exceed even what the Statute calls to some degree and make it as good as we can.

Mrs. Marshall asked under the definition for a regulated drain, is the old term the legal drain.

Mr. Breitzke stated it could be referred to both a legal drain or a regulated drain.

Mrs. Marshall asked does it require a public hearing to establish a regulated drain.

Mr. Breitzke stated only on new drains. He stated it is the Boards decision as a Drainage Board whether they make it a regulated drain. He stated the other alternative is through court petition through the neighbors.

Mrs. Marshall asked so those records are at the Drainage Board.

Mr. Breitzke stated as they happen through the meetings.

Mrs. Marshall asked is this ordinance now going to set up the seven resumes that I have at home for Storm Water Engineering firm that the county wants to hire. She asked is this setting that up.

Mr. Breitzke stated no, not at all. Mr. Breitzke explained that the consultants for review are a separate issue for the development review for the subdivisions.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 06-M-2 to the Board of Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burns - Yes Cole - Yes Detert - Yes
Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes Read - Yes
Breitzie - Yes

Other Business:

At this time, the Commission members had a discussion concerning the erosion control problems in Troon Subdivision on CR 700 N. Pictures taken today were also passed around to the Board members to view.





Mr. Detert moved to issue a stop work order in Troon Subdivison and to inform the Director that he is to issue no more Improvement Location Permits or Certificate of Occupancy Permits be issued until the subdivision is in complete compliance with the Erosion Control Ordinance as re-inspected by our erosion control inspector. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time, Mr. Read brought up a concern of his regarding an industrial type building located on the East side of SR 149 and bordered by the B & O Railroad Tracks on the North and the Toll Road on the South. One of the conditions for approval was that the owner was to construct a screen along SR 149 due to the objections raised by the neighbors on the opposite side of the road. The screening has not been done.

Mr. Detert moved to notify the owner of the property and notify him of his non-compliance and ask him to reply to us within thirty (30) days or we will take legal action. Mr. Read seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.


At this time, Mrs. Marshall voiced her concern about building permits and occupancy permits being issued in Timberland and there is no sewer system servicing those houses. Her concern was that they were receiving occupancy permits.

Mr. Breitzke stated he will have the Director answer that question at the next meeting.

It was decided for staff to put them on notice.

Mrs. Marshall asked to have a follow up on this concern.

Another concern Mrs. Marshall brought up was that there was a meeting where the Porter County Plan Commission was involved on a hearing on Salt Creek and the quality of water at Salt Cree. She asked why isn’t the members of the Plan Commission notified that there was a hearing last week on this.

Mr. Read stated that there was a water shed meeting.

Mr. Breitzke stated that it wasn’t a hearing or that type of issue. He stated they are doing some water shed planning.

Mrs. Marshall stated that she would like to be notified that we are supporting or that we are conducting hearings.

Mr. Breitzke stated we are not conducting hearings on Salt Creek.

Mr. Read stated that it was a private work shop type of thing. He stated he will inform the person who does the notification on this and will have her include every member on this Plan Commission.

Mr. Cole stated getting back to Timberland. He asked what about the water.

Mr. Ray stated yes.

Charlie Ray informed the members that as far as he knows the lift stations are working and he will check on it tomorrow. As far as the water, American Water has been making taps and it has all been approved. As far as the water on the corner at the Gator property, Friday the developers will be talking to the Gators again to see if they still want to sell their place or not. If not, the developers have given Kevin a plan to run storm line down CR 900 N. over to a wetland area. Dave Schelling said it looks okay.

Mr. Schrader’s concern regarding Timberland on Outlot B and that no one seems to know where it drains.

Mrs. Marshall asked about the sewer treatment for those houses in Timberland.

Mr. Ray stated that it goes to the lift station in Timberland and that has been energized and then to Portage. He told Mrs. Marshall that he will find out what is going on.

At this time, Mr. Ray introduced Jim O’Brian a developer. Mr. Ray would like some input on the Michaels property. He stated they would like to have some input before they design it. He would like to get some comments or feedback from the Commission at a later time.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION

S/Kevin D. Breitzke, President

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