PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
September 27, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana.

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

Mr. Breitzke stated there have been a number of people who did get proper notice for Case 06-Z-8 hearing. He stated this case will be continued to a date certain.

At this time, Mr. Cole joined the meeting.

Attorney Elwood stated he thinks it is unfair to the people who did not get notified for any portion of a public hearing being conducted without them being present. These people have a right to make comment and a right to participate in the public hearing.

The petitioner was told that he needs to notify these people.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-Z-8 to the November 8, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Beverly Caldwell, 98 W. 700 N., asked what if anyone has any general questions.

Mr. Breitzke stated we will not discuss the case specifically just the matter of the continuance and the date.

Terry Nelson, 680 N. 50 W., asked who are the proper parties they did not notify.

Mr. Thompson stated they must notify those within two property’s or 500 feet which ever is less.

Pete Soutsas, 715 N. 50 W., asked if the letter and pictures his wife submitted will be kept.

Mr. Breitzke stated yes.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-DP-4. Petition of Damien Gabis, 71 N. 500 W., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking Development Review for TalTree Arboretum for an office building to be located at 71 N. 500 W., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Donald Bengel representing TalTree Arboretum and Mr. Damein Gabis. The proposal is for a modular office building, 50 feet by 28 feet. The office will sit on piers with very little excavation. No new entrance onto CR 500 W. There will be a new septic system installed and a new well.

At this time, Mr. Burge joined the meeting.

Mrs. Marshall asked what is this zoned.

Mr. Thompson stated it is a Permanent Use Variance.

Mrs. Marshall is concerned that this is a business and why we are allowing this to happen.

Mr. Bengel stated there will be no additional employees.

Mr. Hutson asked are you considered a business or a not for profit.

Mr. Bengel stated not for profit.

Mrs. Marshall is concerned about the traffic on CR 500 W. and she sees this as a business. She asked how many acres do you have there.

Mr. Gabis stated 360 acres.

Mr. Read is concerned about the foundation under this modular. He would like to see the proper footings and foundation under this modular. His other concern is that the Advisory Committee raised the issue of septic field information. He wants to know how many people will be in the building, what type of soil, what is the dimension of the septic field and what type of septic system will it be. He has no objection on putting a structure there but certain things need to be taken care of.

Mr. Bengel stated we did not get a permit from the County because we had to go down State. He stated it is designed for three people and a minimum of 350 gallons a day.


Mr. Detert stated they are going to go down State and with 360 acres I don’t see that you will have a problem.

Mr. Bengel stated we have submitted this down State.

Mr. Gabis explained that this building has 30 piers, 24-inches in diameter and 42-inch deep, poured concrete. The method of assembly and structure has been approved by the State.

Mr. Cole asked if they are mortared blocks.

Mr. Gabis stated no.

Mr. Cole asked is that according to the specifications.

Mr. Gabis stated that is the way they do these buildings.

Mr. Read asked are the voids in the blocks filled with anything.

Mr. Gabis stated no.

Mr. Burge stated I have no questions.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comments.

Mr. Detert stated I have made my comments already.

Mr. Hutson stated none.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-DP-4 subject to meeting all State requirements and proof of such meeting of State requirements be provided to the Director of the Plan Commission. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read asked if the motion includes both structure and the septic system.

Mr. Detert stated it means that we are approving it provided they meet all the State and County requirements and show proof of it.

Mrs. Marshall asked who is going to watch that they get those permits.

Mr. Breitkze stated the Building Department checks the permits and does periodic inspections all the way through.


Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Case 06-FP-17. Petition of 100 North Properties, c/o William Ferngren, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Sagamore Subdivision, Phase I, to be located on the North side of 100 N. and the East side of 350 W., in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 92 lots on 165 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

William Ferngren stated this is Phase I of Sagamore Subdivision, which consists of 96 acres with 103 lots. The site in its entirety consists of 164 acres. Primary plat was granted May 10, 2006. This is the conservation design subdivision with 60% of the site reserved for open space. No changes from primary plat. Letter of credit amount has been submitted to County Hwy Engineer.

Mr. Burge stated no questions.

Mrs. Marshall stated taking ten houses off the plat constitutes a change. Her concern is that they are outletting water onto an adjoining property and is wondering why they did not obtain an easement from that property owner. She has a letter from Mr. Nelson who is concerned about the traffic and safety on CR 100 N. Her concern is also about the safety and traffic on that road. She would like to know what the developer has done with Mr. Nelson’s concerns.

Mr. Ferngren stated in regards to the 10 lots, at the meeting on May 10 they agreed to eliminate the 10 lots. In regards to the easements the plat was granted according to the terms of County’s Storm Water Ordinance. The Plan Commission determined that the defined waterways were in existence.

Mr. Carlson stated on the south and south east portion of the property are the dry detention basins and the last is basin is an infiltration basin. He explained once constructed it will be completed with prairie grasses. He stated they will infiltrate the water into the ground and still have an emergency overflow that is designed and approved for heavy storm events. As far as the letter from Mr. Nelson, Mr. Carlson said that he has spoken to him and he has also had conversation with David Schelling to try to determine whose problem and concern it is as far partly in County right-of-way and partly on private property. No agreement has been made on what should be done there.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is about 1000 feet from Mr. Nelson’s driveway to what will be a four way stop. He stated the issues


are really on Mr. Nelson’s property. He stated we have indicated to Dave Schelling that should the county elect to use some of the road agreement funds to correct to what they perceive to be a dangerous condition that is fine with us.

Mrs. Marshall stated that in Mr. Schelling’s letter he specifically said that something should be worked on. Mrs. Marshall is also concerned about the drainage.

Mr. Burns stated I have no comments.

Mr. Read stated he thinks this is a good overall plan. He does remember the discussion on storm water. He asked wasn’t there a portion of the storm water that went to the west to another property owner. He stated this is actually in Phase 2 and not in Phase 1. He stated this property owner raised some concern and when you come back for future phases that should be taken care of. He stated I would also like to see the road matters put to rest as soon as possible and hopefully at this meeting.

Mr. Ferngren stated we met with Dave Schelling and they talked through those issues. He stated there will be road agreement money that would be available at the time building permits are issued and that money can be used for whatever improvements that the County feels are necessary to make that situation work better.

Mr. Read asked where is Mr. Nelson’s property located.

Mr. Ferngren stated to the east.

At this time, Mr. Read recognized Mr. Nelson to speak.

Eugene Nelson, 307 W. 100 N. He stated my property adjoins this subdivision.

Mr. Read asked what was your original concern.

Mr. Nelson stated when you back down my driveway on the gulley side you can’t see until your car is partially out in the road. He stated on the other side is my hill, which you can’t see.

Mr. Read asked Mr. Carlson and Mr. Ferngren, how can you address that.

Mr. Ferngren stated it is really up to Mr. Schelling what he would elect to do.


Mr. Breitzke stated the question is are you as the developer willing to participate in as far as what Mr. Schelling’s recommending. He stated the other thing is Mr. Schelling is not in the position to approve what you are asking. He stated that is up to the County Commissioners in reference to road agreement issues.

Mr. Ferngren stated we are not creating any issues on his property. He stated he is talking about backing out of his driveway and the hill that has been in existence and neither of which we created. He stated these are on Mr. Nelson’s property. He stated Mr. Nelson can elect to remedy those if he so chooses. He stated the county funds may be available. He stated Dave Schelling has indicated that he is willing to try to do that.

Mr. Breitzke stated that is an agreement between the developer and the Commissioners. He asked the developer if he was willing to financially participate to some degree too.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is $750 per lot and that is more than a substantial amount of money that would cover anything…

Mr. Breitzke stated we are also trying to maintain roads around the perimeter of your development with that same money.

At this time, Mrs. Marshall read a letter from Dave Schelling.

Mr. Ferngren stated Mr. Carlson has indicated that he is willing to share the cost of whatever improvements would be equally one-third paid by Mr. Carlson, one-third paid by the County and one-third paid by Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Breitzke stated we cannot commit for the County and that is up to the County Commissioners.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is Mr. Nelson’s property and there are things that are on his property. He stated Mr. Nelson is electing to back out of his driveway. He stated 1000 feet away there is a four-way stop sign and he can see. He stated I was out there today and I was able to see.

Mr. Detert stated I would like to see the problem solved. He stated one of the solutions is for him to provide a turnaround where he comes out forward. He asked do you have to back out of your driveway.

Mr. Nelson stated no I don’t have to. He stated Mr. Carlson asked me if I would try to do my part and pull out. He stated I have been and it is still a problem.

Mr. Breitzke stated you have to remember traffic will be increasing and you have to think about not only for Mr. Nelson’s safety but also for your new resident’s safety.

Mr. Detert asked is there any outside source of engineering that we could have come in and address that situation and make recommendations for safety reasons.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t think we need an outside source. He stated I think Mr. Palm is fully capable of figuring out the problem as is Mr. Schelling.

Mr. Hutson asked is 60% going to be open space. He asked how many acres do you actually have and is it all going to be in native prairie grasses.

Mr. Carlson stated it is a combination of re-planted native prairies, preserve woodlands and wetlands.

Mr. Hutson asked who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of this.

Mr. Carlson stated of that open space we have approximately 20 acres of the 95 that will be re-planted prairie and this is maintained by the POA.

Mr. Hudson do you address that in your covenants.

Mr. Carlson stated yes.

Mr. Cole stated I have no comments.

Mr. Burge moved to approve Case 06-FP-17 contingent on the $2,210,000 performance bond. Mr. Hutson seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Read stated I don’t think we have the authority to tell a developer to go onto property that is not part of his. He stated only the Commissioners can deal with the road. He stated I think it would be a good idea just for public relations on your part to see if you can work it out.

Motion carried on the following roll call vote:

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



New Business:

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

Case 06-P-15. Petition of Marty Rogness, 157 York Circle, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Rogness Subdivision to be located at 624 W. 100 S. in Porter Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 10 acres. Property is zoned RR.)

Aaron Taylor from Duneland Group presented Rogness Subdivision, which is located on the south side of CR 100 S. in Porter Township. It consists of 10 acres divided into two lots. There will be two homes to be served by individual septic systems and wells. Lot 1 is 1.73 acres gross with one acre net usable soil and currently has a single family home on it. Lot 2 is 7.99 acres gross with 7.3 acres net usable soil, which is designed to have a new single family home constructed on the rear or south side of the lot. The drive serving the home on lot 2 will access CR 100 S. an existing access point at the northwest corner of the lot. There are drainage easements on the lots to protect existing storm water flow lines as well as future drainage. They attended the Drainage Board meeting on September 11 and the Board agreed to our request not to make these easements regulated. There is 20% designated for open space, which is two acres of the original ten acres. There are open space easements shown on the plat, which is accessible by both lot owners per the open space ordinance. There are restrictive covenants that will be recorded with the final plat.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Jim Webster, 119 Teton Ct. Mr. Webster asked if the drawings were going to be available so he can see where the homes are going to be built. He is also concerned whether everyone that should have been notified was notified. He did not get notification.

Mr. Taylor stated the plat has been in the Plan Commission office.

At this time, Mr. Thompson gave Mr. Webster a copy of the plat to look at.

Mr. Taylor stated I know that we have notified all of the properties within two properties or 500 feet. He stated as for the new home it will be located at the rear of the property on lot 2.


At this time, the public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge asked Mr. Webster if he had any objection.

Mr. Webster stated I have none.

Mrs. Marshall asked where is the existing driveway.

Mr. Taylor stated at the northwest corner of the lot. He stated it is on the ten acres and once it is subdivided that area will be dedicated as county right-of-way.

At this time, Mr. Taylor pointed out to Mrs. Marshall where the driveway was located.

Mrs. Marshall asked is the new driveway going to run to the back where the house is proposed.

Mr. Taylor stated right.

Mrs. Marshall stated it is right next to a ten foot drainage easement.

Mr. Taylor stated that was at the request of the Development Advisory Committee.

Mr. Read asked where is the new driveway.

Mr. Taylor stated it was on the northwest corner of the property between two existing driveway markers and goes over the existing 21 feet of 12-inch corrugated metal pipe where there is an existing entrance there already.

Mr. Breitzke stated there is a “no access” easement across that and they cannot introduce the driveway.

Mr. Taylor stated eventually there will be a driveway for a home to be built back here on Lot 2 that would enter there and it would follow back to that home.

Mr. Read stated we are talking two houses.

Mr. Taylor stated yes.

Mr. Read asked what kind of septic field is planned for back there.

Mr. Taylor stated the Porter County Health Departments Field Investigation Report would designate what type of field it would be and what size.

Mr. Cole stated I have nothing.

Mr. Hutson asked do you address the manmade pond the maintenance in your restrictive covenants for responsibility for that particular pond.

Mr. Taylor stated I don’t believe in the restrictive covenants there is a direct reference to the manmade pond as far as the maintenance of it. He stated I think the responsibility would fall on lot 2.

Mr. Breitzke stated we need it spelled out.

Mr. Detert stated the enforcement of the restrictive covenants is not very clear. He stated if action is unjustly brought against the property owner by the other or some other person and that property owner is judged to be innocent of that charge I would like to see something in there that says he can recover damages. He stated also not being able to further subdivide that lot.

Mr. Burns asked does the petitioner agree to the 12 foot wide driveway and a turnaround driveway.

Mr. Taylor stated we have addressed those in the restrictive covenants.

Mr. Burns asked how about the turnaround.

Mr. Taylor stated I have not received any information from Mr. Schelling about a turnaround at the end of that. He stated I can request that information from him and we can also add this to the restrictive covenants.

Mr. Read stated the “Effective Period and Renewal” doesn’t seem to me to be in perpetuity, which is what the intent of the open space law is. At this time, Mr. Read read from the covenants.

Mr. Breitzke stated the deed of dedication on the recorded plat will have a perpetuity as far as the open space.

Mr. Read asked Mr. Elwood if this wording meet the intent of our open space ordinance.

Attorney Elwood stated it is customary language that is in the restrictive covenants do exactly as Mr. Breitzke has said to allow for the modification of them. He stated one of the things that we have relied upon in the restrictive covenants is the


maintenance of these open space areas. He stated could they modify the restrictive covenants in 15 years to say that they are going to do away with this Rogness Subdivision restrictive covenants. He stated the answer is yes but you still have the permanently recorded item and the County could still go in and enforce each of these property owners individually to maintain the open space. He stated they could dissolve the Home Owners Association.

Mr. Read asked the ownership of this would remain with who.

Mr. Taylor stated the ownership remains with each individual lot owner and they are responsible for the maintenance of their property as well as it is protected with an easement that would be recorded on a final plat in the county.

Mr. Read stated my concern is with the change with that paragraph permit them to completely remove the restrictions on the previous paragraph that says there should be no development or buildings on the open space.

Mr. Detert stated the answer to that is no if it is recorded on the plat.

Attorney Elwood stated regardless of the covenants we are making approval of this plat and we are stating these things. He stated so they would be in violation of the plat regardless of the covenant.

Mr. Taylor stated I would like to point out that not only did I make it no. 1 on the restrictive covenants that no portion of the lot would be further subdivided and it is also on the primary plat as no. 14 that lot no. 2 shall not be further subdivided.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-P-15 contingent on changing the restrictive covenants to specify the maintenance on the manmade pond and also to include this on the recorded plat; turnaround on Lot 2 for emergency vehicles. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burge - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

Case 06-Z-7. Petition of Shirley Rainford, Revocable Living Trust, 645 W. 450 N., Hobart, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-1, Light Industry to RR, Rural Residential to be located at 645 W. 450 N. in Union Township, Porter County, Indiana.

Attorney Elwood excused himself due to the fact that a few years back he handled the establishment of the revocable trust for Shirley Rainford.

John Hannon from Great Lakes Engineering representing Shirley Rainford in this rezoning. The rezone is for 20 acres of land located in the Northeast corner of CR 450 N. and CR 650 W. The objective is to develop four (40) pieces of property. This will be brought back to the Planning Commission for a subdivision, but before this can be done the property must rezoned. The purpose they are here today is to ask that this be rezoned from I-1 to RR.

No one spoke in favor of this petition.

Richard Orelup, 518 W. 450 N., Mr. Orelup is concerned about the intersection at CR 450 N. because of the trees right on the corner. He has no problem with additional houses going up.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burge stated I am in favor of this.

Mr. Burns stated I am always in favor of down zoning.

Mr. Detert stated I am in favor of down zoning.

Mr. Hutson stated I have no problem.

Mrs. Marshall stated I would like to know what the reason was for the I-1. Mrs. Marshall stated I personally would like to see more detail than just drawing lines on a piece of property. She stated she would like to know if it is just the 20 acres that is zoned I-1 or is there more.

Mr. Read stated I have no objection to rezoning this except that there could be a problem in the future if the rest of the triangle remains industrial and is developed as industrial.

Mr. Cole stated I think the thinking was that areas around town should have an industrial zone and the powers that were at the time simply went out and made areas industrially or commercially zoned. He stated driving down that road is most definitely rural residential. He stated I am concerned on what would happen to the flying field that abuts this to the north if this were rezoned rural residential.

Mr. Thompson stated I believe they have a special exception on that.


Mr. Cole stated at one time there was concern about the wells in the area and the Waste Management Landfill. He asked is there any concern here.

Mr. Hannon stated I can tell you that the two existing houses are not experiencing any problems. He stated Wheeler does have water now.

Mr. Hutson stated the only industrial in that area is Waste Management.

Mr. Breitzke stated Waste Management is further west.

Mr. Hutson asked does the Northeast corner of that property have a stream going through it.

Mr. Hannon stated there is a little drainage way that runs through there.

Mr. Breitzke stated I don’t have a problem rezoning this because we are down zoning it.

Mr. Cole moved to forward Case 06-Z-7 to the County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on the following ballot vote:

Burge - Yes Burns - Yes Cole - Yes
Detert - Yes Hutson - Yes Marshall - Yes
Read - Yes Breitzke - Yes

The case will be heard at the County Commissioners on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Thompson stated on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 starting at 8:00 a.m. they will be doing interviews for the RFQ’s. He stated they will be ½ hour interviews.

At this time, there was a discussion on Prairie Landing Subdivision and the issue of silt fence.


There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


/Kevin D. Breitzke, President

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