PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION

Regular Meeting
November 8, 2006

M I N U T E S

The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, November 8, 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, Commissioner Bob Harper, Herb Read and Kevin Breitzke, President. Those members absent were Jim Burge, Todd Hutson and Elizabeth Marshall. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Ken Elwood, Patricia S. Gibson and Fred Siminiski.

Mr. Detert moved to waive the reading of the October 25, 2006 Plan Commission minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Old Business:

Case 06-DP-5. Petition of Mike Niloff, 284 W. 1050 N., Chesterton, Indiana seeking Development Review for H20 Industrial Services for a building addition, to be located at 284 W. 1050 N. in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned I-2. Con’t form 10-25-06 meeting.)

Steve DeBold is here this evening with owner, Mike Niloff. Mr. DeBold stated we are here seeking approval for a storage addition building and we are proposing a pond at the rear of the property. Comments brought up last time were noise, frost law and the barrier to the east property line. Regarding the concerns with the noise condition within the shop area the answer to that is yes, but it is going to be maintenance items to the existing equipment, such as oil changes, tire changes and things of that nature. The main purpose of this building is for storage. As far as the frost law, I spoke with Dave Schelling and the Town of Chesterton and they do not have a problem with this. The frost law has not been posted for two or three years and they don’t anticipate that this is going to be a problem. If for some reason the frost law did come into affect, Mr. Niloff’s vehicles would be regulated. As far as the screening on the east property line, there is an existing screening barrier in place and it is very affective and very thick. Some of those trees are very tall.

Commissioner Harper asked did we put up a notice.



Mr. Thompson stated yes.

Mr. Breitzke asked if there was anyone here this evening to speak about this case specifically.

Peter Peque, 101 Sylvan Dr. I am in favor of this petition.

Commissioner Harper asked, Peter, where is your business located.

Mr. Peque stated just north of Crocker.

Commissioner Harper asked there is an open field on the east side of you.

Mr. DeBold stated yes.

Commissioner Harper asked what is that zoned.

Mr. Niloff stated it is zoned R-1.

Commissioner Harper what is it zoned right north of you.

Mr. Thompson stated I assume it is residential but it is the Town of Chesterton.

Commissioner Harper stated while we are doing this we want to make sure that we have something in place legally for that tree line. He stated there is an open field right now but we all know what it is going to be shortly. I think while we have chance to ensure as much as we can, we should do it.

Mr. Niloff stated there is a 20 or 30 foot barrier right now with full grown trees and brush that is already acting as an existing barrier now. The noise level in my trucks are relatively low.

Commissioner Harper stated I just want to make sure that barrier isn’t cut down.

Mr. Thompson stated per our ordinance you can request a commitment on them to maintain that barrier there.

Commissioner Harper asked is that barrier enough.

Mr. Breitzke stated what we would like is a preservation easement.



Mr. DeBold stated we don’t have a problem with putting an easement around those trees.

At this time, Mr. DeBold submitted pictures of the tree barrier.

Commissioner Harper asked what footage are you suggesting, Kevin.

Mr. Breitzke stated I haven’t yet, but a minimum of 30-feet. He asked what does our ordinance require.

Mr. Thompson stated we don’t have anything in our ordinance.

Mr. Breitzke stated 30-feet should cover it.

Mr. Burns stated I feel comfortable with 30-feet.

Commissioner Harper asked can you deal with that.

Mr. Niloff stated if you could give me 20-feet to 30-feet I think I can maintain that. I have no intention of developing to the east side, whatsoever.

Mr. Breitzke stated why don’t we just say 30-feet and then if you need a variance to that just come back.

Mr. Read stated my only concern was the screening where you bumped up against the residential area.

Mr. Cole stated I have no problem with this.

Mr. Detert stated if you remember I moved to past this last time but I backed off because Mr. Burns had some concerns about the Eagle property. He asked did you look into that or do you have any comments concerning this.

Mr. Burns stated I am satisfied.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-DP-5 with a recorded preservation easement document that says the tree line that exists there continue to exist and should trees die they will have to replant so that it will be there forever. This is to have a thirty (30) foot barrier starting sixty (60) feet from the road. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.




Case 06-FP-19. Petition of Carmen Good Builders, 275 S. 150 E., Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Meadowgate Subdivision, Phase “B” to be located on the West side of CR 150 E. between CR 600 s. and CR 700 S. in Pleasant Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 24 lots on 37.38 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

Don Bengel, engineer and surveyor in Porter County. He is representing Carmen Good the owner of this subdivision. The subdivision is just as you approved it a couple of months ago and we did make all the changes that DAC asked of us. All the streets are in and all the signs are in.

Mr. Burns asked if the bond was in place.

Mr. Bengel stated we didn’t put a bond up for this. We are waiting to find out how much of a maintenance bond we will need.

Mr. Cole was concerned that there were some areas that should have silt fence, especially in the open space area.

Mr. Bengel stated the whole thing has been seeded. Where do you need the silt fence?

Mr. Cole stated in Phase I there were some lots that were not seeded yet.

Mr. Read was concerned about the ownership, the management and the restrictions of the open space areas.

Mr. Bengel stated the open space will be owned by the POA.

Mr. Read stated I would like you to run this past our attorney to see if it accurately reflects the intent and wording of the open space ordinance.

Mr. Thompson stated we have specific dedication that goes on the plat.

Commissioner Harper asked don’t we normally have this information.

Mr. Thompson stated Attorney Elwood is currently looking at the covenants and restrictions that are within the subdivision. Staff generally does not farm that information out to the Plan Commission. We feel that this is part of the petitioner‘s responsibility. As far as the language that goes on the plat, if the Plan Commission wants it on and approves it contingent upon that, I don’t sign off on anything until I see that language on


the plat and in place.

Commissioner Harper stated I think that we should have these things ahead of time so those that are interested can read those things.

Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-FP-19 subject to getting the language on the plat and to have our Attorney look over the covenants and contingent on the maintenance bond. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-DP-6. Petition of Fyock Properties, LLC, 812 E. Jefferson Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking Development Review for The Chapel at Aberdeen to be located at 214 Ballantrae and SR 2 in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Property is zoned PUD.)

Bill Ferngren representing Chapel At Aberdeen. This property is located in Aberdeen on lot VC-17, V-2. It is part of the Aberdeen Planned Unit Development. We have been to DAC on October 6, 2006. This is located at the southeast corner of Ballantrae and SR 2 south of the Family Express gas station and also located east of what is commonly known as the Aberdeen Banquet and Reception Hall and is operated by Fyock Properties at this present time. This project is designed to provide chapel services for people to get married. Valparaiso Fire Department has looked at the plans and reviewed them and approved them. It is just under 3000 square feet in size. There is an assembly area upstairs where the wedding can occur and a lower level where the bride and groom can prepare for the ceremony. They will have sanitary sewer through Nature Works Conservancy District and Valparaiso Water. They will share a common entrance with the banquet facility to minimize the traffic out onto Ballantrae.

Mr. Burns stated I have no questions.

Mr. Detert stated I have no questions.

Mr. Cole stated this is a good idea and I have no problem.

Mr. Read had a concern on the water runoff.

Mr. Ferngren stated Aberdeen Conservancy District is actually controlling that. The Aberdeen PUD has its own storm water management system through pipes located under the streets.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions.



Mr. Detert moved to approve Case 06-DP-6. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Case 06-FP-20. Petition of SW Developers LLC, 409 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking secondary plat approval for Tower Meadows Subdivision to be located at 531 N. 250 W. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 125 lots and 3 outlots on 51.497 acres.)

Rich Hudson representing SW Developers seeking secondary plat approval for Tower Meadows. This is bounded on the north by CR 550 N. on the west by CR 250 W. and by the south by CR 500 S. Sanitary sewers are in place and they are actively working on storm sewers. The streets have been rough cut. We have worked with the Porter County Highway Department on our bond.

Mr. Burns stated no questions.

Mr. Detert stated no questions at this time.

Mr. Cole stated I have no questions.

Mr. Read had concerns on the Covenants, Article 3, Section 1.

Mr. Ferngren stated the intent to that is to ensure that the adjoining property be developed by the same person or its successors or assigns that those easements there can then be used for extension of utilities, drainage and infrastructure and those sorts of things. So in your planning if an adjoining development occurs then that would be available. This property by virtue of the plat being recorded that common area is dedicated to the Tower Meadows Property Owners Association.

Commissioner Harper asked what can they put on this property? A road?

Mr. Ferngren stated again the purpose of this is to provide the ability that this could be used for drainage of adjoining subdivisions, extension of utilities.

Attorney Elwood stated a road can only be approved by the Plan Commission. Maybe some language needs to be tweaked so that is more clear. I think that it is an error to the language that you can’t have a utility easement, drainage, a road without it having been approved on the plat, but I think it could be a little better defined.

Mr. Ferngren stated we could pull that into the plat.


Attorney Elwood stated you could not put in a road in the open space area without this Boards prior approval.

Mr. Read had another concern under Article 10, General Provisions. At this time, Mr. Read read Article 10, general Provisions.

Mr. Fergren stated it shall run with and binds with the real estate. This is very common language. It is renewed every 15 years forever.

Mr. Breitzke stated the deed of dedication is permanent. He stated that is in perpetuity. I think they are affording the Property Owners Association periodically to reassess their use of the property but it can’t be inconsistent with what the commitment is to the county. They might want to make it more stringent or get together with the POA and make some investment in those open spaces.

Mr. Detert stated it was said that the legal document, the plat, could not be changed without coming back here. If the plat shows open space, then the only way you could get it changed is to come back to this Body.

Attorney Elwood stated Article 10 has nothing to do with what has been brought up. He stated it is a normal provision that is in virtually all declarations of covenants and restrictions and it simply gives the home owners that are part of the POA the ability to modify these rules, which does not in any way impact what is recorded on the plat and the designation of the open space. As far as whether or not a future Board could come in here and tweak the open space ordinance, absolutely.

Mr. Read’s other concerns are Section 6, Amendment. At this time, Mr. Read read from Section 6, Amendment.

Mr. Breitzke stated they cannot change our ordinances, our law by the POA. They have to adhere to the minimum or the standard that we set forth in our ordinances. Their covenant just gives them within the flexibility of the covenant that is binding to the property owners themselves. They cannot change our open space ordinance.

Attorney Elwood stated it is common language that is in all covenants and restrictions. The covenants and restrictions are really the by-laws or the governing document of this POA. One thing that we said that they have to do is maintain the open space and our ordinance dictates on how that is to be done.



Commissioner Harper asked where is this designated.

Attorney Elwood stated wherever it is on the plat and that is recorded.

Commissioner Harper stated so over and above the covenants it is designated on the plat and recorded.

Attorney Elwood stated correct.

Mr. Burns moved to approve Case 06-FP-20 contingent on the bond of $892,000. 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-8. Petition of Pat Kleihege, 10 Washington Street, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from RR, Rural Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential to be located at the Northwest corner of CR 700 N. and CR 50 W. with CR 750 N. bordering the Northern boundary of the parcel in Liberty Township, Porter County, Indiana. (Con’t from 9-27-06 mtg.)

Attorney Clark Holesinger is here on behalf of the petitioner, Pat Kleihege. John Hannon has done the plans for this. This property consists of 80 acres and CR 50 W. lies to the east, bounded on the south by CR 700 N., bounded on the west by a farm field and bound on the north by an additional parcel of farmland. There are 134 lots for houses. The lots sizes would be 11,000 square feet or greater. Developer is not asking for any intensity bonus. They will enhance wild life and preserve it. The wetlands will be to help preserve the animal life and the wild life habitat that is there. This is not low income housing. Houses will be in the range of $350,000 to $450,000. There will be sewer and water from Damon Run Conservancy District. No septics and wells. There will be 27% of open space on this property. There are neighboring subdivisions within a mile of this property. There are concerns from the neighbors that we would like to address. There is an adjacent farm acreage that may eventually be developed by someone at sometime. In that case, it would be best to have utilities in that area. This would be possible if this could be rezoned from RR to R-1.

John Hannon from Great Lakes Engineering. There will be two points of access to the property. One at the northwest corner


that would line up with CR 75 W. and another road that would come out to the east onto CR 50 W. There is a road network but there is no connection whatsoever of this subdivision to CR 700 N. This is farm field except for the fringes. There is a fringe of trees and growth along the southeast and north boundary of the property. The intent is to maintain that fringe. The lots have a minimum of 90-feet, an excess of the 80 required in R-1. There is the fringe that would be maintained and the other natural area that is there is up on the north end. There are two wetland areas. One is very high quality wetland with some trees and the proposal is to maintain that entire space as is. There are a couple other wetlands that receive water where the natural drainage from the property gets to it at this point. The property has three drainage basins. This section of the property drains to this low area here. This part of the property drains to this low area here and releases it to an existing high quality wetland and this property actually drains to this area and releases out to this wetland also. The intent is to maintain the drainage patterns that exist on the property. This will be done by placing detention areas in the low spots on the property and releasing clean water. Modern silt removal detention design will be used. The water will naturally release to the wetlands as they do now in a controlled manner.

Mr. Holesinger stated this parcel is not in a protected waterway nor is it on a scenic roadway.

David Brandt, 67 W. 700 N. He is concerned about the 277 year old tree that is there, the wetlands, wildlife, the power lines going through the property, the traffic on CR 700 N.

Peter Soutsis, 715 N. 50 W. He is concerned about the drainage and his property getting flooded. He had to dig three ponds to drain the water from his property.

Linda Soutsis, 715 N. 50 W. She is concerned about the green space under NIPSCO power lines and the density.

Chuck Harold, 717 N. 50 W. He is concerned on the density and the drainage.

Frank Kan, 717 N. 50 W., is against this petition.

Beverly Caldwell, 98 W. 700 N. She wants to see this property remain rural. Where is the sewer coming from? She is concerned about the density, the fire department and the schools.

Robert Bobca, 721 N. 50 W. He is concerned about the road coming out in front of his house. He is also concerned about the


drainage and density and the future phases. He is concerned about the open space under the power lines.

Les Krause, 725 N. 50 W. He is concerned about loosing the rural setting. He is concerned about his animals.

Marilynn Krause, 725 N. 50 W. She is concerned about the traffic and the flooding.

Terry Loudenber, 723 N. 50 W. His concern is too many subdivisions going in this area. He is also concerned on the traffic, the water, the density.

David Niclaus, 709 N. 50 W. He is concerned about the R-1 zoning and how this fits into the present area.

Debra Manchard, 72 W. 700 N. She is concerned about the traffic and the density.

Susan Williams, 70 W. 700 N. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Alexis Brandt, 66 W. 700 N. Her concern was a question of trust on the developer. Also, she is concerned about the 277 year old tree and other trees in the neighborhood.

Michael Murray, 189 W. 700 N. He wants it to stay rural.

Pam Murray, 189 W. 700 N. She is concerned about the schools and the safety of the roads. She is also concerned on the density and keeping the area rural.

Marsha and Eddie Guess, 218 W. 700 N. left the meeting.

Spencer Cortwright, 6510 Tanglewood Trail. He agrees with everything that has been said. He is concerned about the wetlands being severely impacted by this development and the future ones. He is also concerned about the school system.

Terry Nelson, 680 N. 50 W. His concerns are that the Duneland School Corporation is overcrowded now and he is concerned about the traffic.

Katherine Nelson, 680 N. 50 W. She is concerned also about the schools and overcrowding.

Linda Krause, 747 N. 50 W. She agrees with everything that has been said. She is also concerned about the coyotes coming and killing their lambs when the houses are built. There will be no place for the coyotes to go.

Kurt Krause, 747 N. 50 W. He agrees with everything that has been said and it is way too dense.

Ingrid Norris, 682-6 N. 50 W. She is concerned on the property value of her home and loosing the rural setting. She asked where is the R-1 area. She is concerned about the open space.

Deborah Gramke, 675 Slalom Lane. She agrees with what has been said this evening.

Frances Nicolaus, 709 N. 50 W. She agrees with what has been said this evening.

Ernie Gallegos, 698 N. 50 W. He agrees with everything that has been said tonight. He is concerned that the tax payers will have to pay to improve the roads and the traffic.

Carole Ann Gallegos, 698 N. 50 W. She is concerned with the traffic.

Doris (inaudible), 673 Slalom Lane. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Chris Krause, 747 N.50 W. He raises cattle and is afraid he will loose his cattle.

Cynthia Reed, 60 W. 700 N. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Keith Reed, 60 W. 700 N. He is concerned on the traffic and he agrees with everything that has been said.

Ernest Gonzalez, 15 W. Ridgeway Dr. He agrees with everything that has been said.

Judith Gonzalez, 15 W. Ridgeway Dr. She agrees with everything has been said.

Mark Gramke, 675 Slalom Lane. He agrees with everything that has been said.

Jason Coons, 63 Tanglewood Tr. He agrees with everything that has been said.

Cindy Coons, 63 Tanglewood Tr. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Arnold Coon Jr., 63 Tanglewood Tr. He agrees with everything that has been said.

Randy Logstan, 179 W. 550 N., has left the meeting.

Paige Mosher, 632 Deer Meadow, has left the meeting.

Vickie Sowards, 573 E. 700 N. She is concerned about the traffic, the retention ponds, the drainage and the water in Johnny Sanders barn that was never there before. She also agrees with what has been said this evening.

Kim Lyon-Moser, 173 W. 700 N. She agrees with what has been said.

Tim Nay, 12 W. 700 N. He is concerned with the drainage, the density and he has horses and is concerned about them.

Donna Nay 12, W. 700 N. She agrees with what has been said this evening. She is also concerned about the traffic, the wildlife, the schools.

Harold Lundstrom, 127 W. 700 N. He agrees with everything that has been said.

Mildred Lundstrom, 127 W. 700 N. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Pat Panichi, 89 Gingerwood Ct. She is concerned about the road and the traffic.

Betty Kerin, 42 W. Onyx, left the meeting.

Frances Marton, 666 Slalom Lane. She is concerned on the traffic.

Joshua Ringer, 745 N. 50 W. He asked how long will construction take.

Kelly Cavanaugh, 614 Winding Creek Path. She agrees with everything that has been said. She also is concerned on the small lots.

Brian Reed, 80 W. 700 N. He is concerned on the traffic and he agrees with what everything that has been said.

Daniel Witkowski, 45 W. 700 N. He concurs with everything that has been said.

Chris Koenig, 749 N. 50 W. He is concerned on the traffic.

Steve Dunne, 32 W. 625 N., left the meeting.


Jim Wuletich, 2 E. 700 N. He is concerned on the traffic and he agrees with everything that has been said.

Jennifer Picciola, 64 Deer Meadow Trail. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Margaret Danyi, 749 N. 50 W. She is concerned on the water, the traffic and agrees with everything that has been said.

Kes Truelove, 4 W. Ridgeway Dr. His concern is on the open space being under the power lines. He also agrees with everything that has been said this evening.

Sandy Truelove, 4 W. Ridgeway Dr. She asked why do we have to pay with our quality of life, our safety and our dollars to pay for all the infrastructure that will be needed to make it an affordable thing for them to do. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Florence Whiteley, 749 N. 50 W. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Stephanie Danyi, 749 N. 50 W. She agrees with everything that has been said and this should be left rural. She is also concerned about the song birds and their population. She is concerned about the future lot owners taking down the barrier where the song birds are located. She is concerned with the crowding of the schools, and the density.

Arpid Marton, 666 Slalom Lane. He agrees with everything that has been said. His concerns are traffic and environmental.

Rachael Danyi, 749 N. 50 W. She agrees with everything that has been said tonight.

Jane Jones, 682-7 N. 50 W. She concurs with what everyone has said.

Bruce Jones, 682-7 N. 50 W. He agrees with what has been said this evening.

Katheryn Konig, 749 N. 50 W. She agrees with everything that has been said.

Ray Briski, 760 N. Meridian. He concurs with what has been said so far.

Eileen Briski, 760 N. Meridian. She agrees with what has been said this evening.


James Wardrup, 242 W. 700 N., left the meeting.

John Stocks, 641 Deer Meadow Trail. He is concerned on the traffic and the noise that will come from this subdivision.

Wendy Stocks, 641 Deer Meadow Trail. She agrees with everything that has been said this evening.

Deb Bodza, 721 N. 50 W. She is concerned on the traffic, the overcrowding of the school, drainage issues, and the safety of Valparaiso’s athletes jogging up and down 50 W.

Chris Kozlowski, 193 W. 550 N. left the meeting.

David Bobrowski, 102 W. 775 N. He is in favor of the development because you can’t stop development but we can control it. He complimented Mallard’s Landing Subdivision and how nice it was developed.

Elizabeth Misch, 80 W. 700 N. She would like to see this remain rural residential and she agrees with what everyone has said.

Bernard Misch, 80 W. 700 N. He agrees with what everyone has said.

Gail Mayton, 681 Slalom Lane. She is concerned on the overcrowding of the schools.

Larry Mayton, 681 Slalom Lane. He agrees with what has been said.

Jeff Cooper, 644 N. 50 W. He is concerned on the drainage and the traffic.

Gale Cooper, 644 N. 50 W. She agrees with what has been said.

Rebecca Christy, 262 W. 700 N. She agrees with all that has been said this evening.

Maro Allen, 816 N. 75 W. He is concerned about the roads and who is going to pave them after the construction goes through and who is going to pay for the acceleration and deceleration lanes, whether there is going to be a section two and a section three to this development. He asked where is the developer located and is there going to be tax dollars from this developer into Porter County. He is also concerned about the unregulated ditch that all the Damon Run water runs through his property.


Mr. Brietzke stated this isn’t their problem. He stated this is the County’s problem and they are bonded and that is why we were fixing the things that we were fixing last week.

Barbara Sacha, 634 Deer Meadow. She agrees with what everyone has said this evening.

Gregg Sacha, 634 Deer Meadow. He agrees with everything that has been said by his neighbors.

Scott West, 619 Meridian, left the meeting.

Mike Schumacher, 627 Hazelwood Path, left the meeting.

Kathryn Hepko and Shawn Hepko left the meeting.

John Christos, 1609 Woodvine Dr., representing the Greek Orthodox Church. He is in favor of this development.

Natalie Jackson, 94 Tanglewood. She is concerned on the traffic and the overcrowding of the schools.

Marlene Cosby, 109 W. 700 N., CEO for Drifting Dunes Girl Scout Council, Camp Meadowbrook. She asked the Commission to think about the future and the Girl Scouts. She is concerned on the traffic. She asked the developers how do they plan to keep the girls safe on this road.

Dennis Misch, 90 W. 700 N. He is concerned on the density.

Frank Schrader, 978 N. Meridian. He is concerned on the density, the drainage and the wetlands.

Kate Loudenber, 723 N. 50 W. She is concerned about the entrance of this subdivision and the traffic.

Jim Rydlewski, 659 N. 50 W. He wants to see this stay rural residential and the traffic concern.

Daryl Huber, 37 W. 700 N. He agrees with what everyone has said this evening.

Chet Micinski, 758 N. 75 W. He is concerned about CR 75 W. He is concerned about the density.

Glen Franzen, 690 N. 50 W. He is concerned about the density and the impact it will be on the rest of the neighbors.




Joseph Danyi, 749 N. 50 W. He is concerned about the drainage, about Damon Run and how to keep loosing trees every Spring.

Carol Misch, 90 W. 700 N. She is concerned about the density and loosing the rural setting.

Maro Allen, 104 W. U.S. 6. He asked how many additional acres will be taken up by streets and curbs and set asides that you have to set back for the houses. He asked how much open space do you really have left.

Stephanie Wicki, 171 W. 700 N. She stated most people who turned in the form letter made additional comments on it. She addressed the open space calculation. She stated the 21.6 acres is wrong. According to the County Code you do not include the manmade storm water detention/retention facilities or your drainage areas or your utility easement. The traffic issue was just sort of addressed. Our Commission says you figure ten (10) cars per house per day and that is 1500 work cars per day on CR 700 N. She submitted a picture of the Loon, which is another rare bird. She is concerned about the green space on the edge about the brush being important even if you put a covenant or an easement along the edge she would like to know how wide that is. She is not sure if that even qualifies for open space according to the code. She is also concerned about the chemical run off from the chemicals that are put on the lawns. She is concerned about the middle of the night bangs on the doors because of accidents on the curve. She asked how are you going to sell these houses because the housing market is down. She is concerned about the noise and light pollution. She asked is the sewer and water lines going to be owned by the county and is the county going to get the money from the hook-ups. She was informed by the fire department that their calls have gone up 15% in the last year. She submitted additional pictures of flooding on the road. She is concerned that the wetland will be able to handle the water that this subdivision is going to produce. She is concerned that the County is not following the Land Use Thoroughfare Plan.

Mr. Holesinger stated we are here not to approve the final plans of this subdivision but rather a subdivision that is going to fit into the plans of Porter County. He stated we can put a subdivision there either in RR or R-1 but the realty is how are we going to do that so it fits into the Master Plan to try to get these areas that where we can bring utilities to and sewer to fit into that Master Plan. This area because of the traffic and because of Hwy 6, this is actually the urban fringe that the Master Plan is trying to deal with. This subdivision would be best suited with the change to R-1 to have those sewer lines and


to have those utilities run into this location. Traffic is a problem but we can’t do anything about Meridian and CR 700 and we can’t do anything about these turn lanes on Rt. 6. What we can do things about the two corners here, the one on CR 75 and CR 750. We intend to straighten that out and eliminate that curve so that there is less of a problem there. As to CR 700 and CR 50, there is a hill on our side of the property. We intend to improve that sight line. There are things that we will do at these intersections to make this subdivision work. As to the expansion of this subdivision, we don’t own the other land and there is no contract to purchase that at this time. But we want to acknowledge that there are farm fields there that at some point will probably be developed. It is not our land that is next to those. The issue as to the green space, even if you take out that berm we still have 20% of this as green space on this land. As to the wetlands, the map that was provided, those are general pictures. We brought in Soil Solutions and they told us about where these wetlands were on this property and that is how we arrived at these locations with these plans. The wetlands will be preserved by covenants. This is a local developer who works out of Valparaiso and lives in Chesterton. We intend to preserve that tree.

Mr. Hannon stated the name of my company is Great Lakes Engineering and I happen to be working for Great Lakes Development. It is just a coincidence. We are actually two separate companies. The preservation areas that are shown on the map will be preserved by language that will be approved by this Plan Commission on the plat itself. The intent is for all the open spaces and all the green spaces in the subdivision to be fully protected in a manner that is approved by the Plan Commission. It will be a permanent protection for that area. It is shown as a thirty-foot wide on our conceptual plan. Bringing water to the subdivision is a benefit for the fire department because there will be fire hydrants in the subdivision if this is R-1. The wetlands were delineated and they are very specifically shown on this drawing. As far as the intersections, the intent is to knock down that hill at the northwest corner of CR 50 and CR 700 N. to improved sight lines. The intersection of CR 75 W. and CR 750 N. is clearly going to have to be reconfigured and modernized as part of this project. We did have conversation with the school system and it is our understanding that the Intermediate, the Middle and the High School all have capacity for development. We will provide sidewalks in the subdivision. This subdivision would be a good place to be walking.

Mr. Holesinger stated there was a question as far as density and the size of these lots. What we are talking about in this rough draft is .6 acres or 1.68 houses per acre.


The public hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Harper stated I have no questions at this time.

Mr. Read stated there were 47 concerns brought up. Alot of these would be considered premature. One of the things I ask myself before I vote on this is how does this fit in to the objectives and aims of the Master Plan. Basically our Master Plan encourages denser development in circles around high density with cities and towns that are already there. One of the reasons is that it is assumed that access to sewer and water would be available and in this case you meet the requirement although we haven’t delved into capacity and so forth. Another reason to that is to discourage the plopping down higher density areas out in the boonies away from towns. So I have to ask myself here whether that particular objective is met or not met and I have to look and see how it fits into the overall surroundings. There are a lot of questions I would have on the open space definitions, surface runoff but that is not the core issue at this time in my view.

Mr. Burns stated my view is that this is spot zoning. The proposed zone change will change the character of the area that being RR. This proposed development will have an impact on the following items; traffic, noise level, lighting level, drainage, schools and wetlands.

Mr. Cole stated when you look at this picture you essentially see a development with a boundary but you don’t see the overall community and the overall neighborhood. I am against the R-1 zoning. This area in our Master Plan for the Porter County Land Use is Conservation Development. It is not just Rural Residential. That means that this is way too dense for that type of area. You have a Girl Scout Camp just down the road that is already struggling with the development that has already occurred in this area. You can solve the traffic problems around the borders but you can’t solve it for the neighborhood and it has to be solved for the neighborhood. People are raising cattle in this area and that is not city development. I am sorry but I cannot buy the argument that this should be R-1.

Mr. Detert stated I think that there has been adequate testimony the affect that this is very, very dense and a bad area and my knowledge of it says that is not the way it is. We are not talking about denying you putting in a subdivision. You can do that rural residential but if you are going to keep with what is there than R-1 is too dense. I understand your argument and we all believe that sewer is better than septic but I am living


proof that I went from septic to sewer and had more trouble with that than I had with septic.

Mr. Detert moved to forward Case 06-Z-8 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Breitzke stated Mr. Burns pretty much stated our findings as well. He stated I would like to add that I am one of those people that really advocated the Damon Run Conservancy District for the purposes of getting a number of package plants, which are on and North of Rt. 6 off line, also having an alternative for Fox Chase Farms, which has some unfortunate consequences. To date they did take Mallards Landing Condominiums off line and I think they added that to the sewer.

Motion carried on the following ballot vote:

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

This case will be heard by the County Commissioners on December 5, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

Case 06-P-19. Petition of David and Brighitte Snemis, 2701 Beech Street, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Cherokee Woods Subdivision to be located at 199 W. 550 N. in Center Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 3 lots on 12.003 acres. Property is zoned R-1.)

William Ferngren from Hoeppner, Wagner and Evans representing Dave Snemis for Cherokee Woods Subdivision formerly known as White Tail Woods. This is about 12 acres and the property is zoned R-1 and is located on the north side of CR 550 N. in between CR 250 W. and CR 175 W. What is proposed is a three lot subdivision and all lots front on CR 550 N. One of the lots has an existing home and there is a driveway here that would access that parcel. Working with the Highway Department they requested that they connect these two driveways together to provide one common access off of the road. DAC asked them that they clear the brush along CR 550 N. They have a preservation easement here. There is a wooded area back here and there are some other woods along this location. This area here will be preserved as the preservation easement. This is the primary storm drainage feature on the site. It is an existing pond that is very large and oversized for what they are trying to do. The smallest lot is just under 2 acres and they range up in size to 4


acre and then on up to 5.6 acres. The Health Department has issued their letter and all the soil borings have been done and the soils are conducive to the septic systems as required.

Chris Kozlowski, 193 W. 550 N. His concern is that this was subdivided in about 1972. There are land covenants on the 32 acres from what he understands. His concern is about water and drainage. He has issues about how they want to subdivide this property and the common driveway. He is concerned about the lot width. Will the pole barns going to be torn down prior to any subdivisions? Will Mr. Snemis live there? One of the neighbors that opposes this has a letter from the Health Department stating that the soils are not fit for anymore septics. This letter is in the primary plat file. Mr. Kozlowski totally opposes this petition.

Bob Romanoff, 189 W. 550 N. In this front area here, they have a problem with the ditch on the south side of the road. The county has never made the ditch go completely to the west. He is concerned about what type of septics systems will there be. His biggest concern is the water and how is it going to affect him because every time it rains his front lawn is flooded.

Randy Logsdon, 179 W. 550 N. His concern is that he wants to keep this area rural. His question is when is it going to stop with all these subdivisions.

Mr. Ferngren stated the barns are located in this area over here, on the northwest part of the parcel. The barns would stay. Mr. Snemis will not operate his business from that location. The lots comply with the ordinance as far as the 100 foot frontage on the county public road. The homes will be 1000 feet possibly more from the county road. Mr. Snemis is not intending to occupy the existing home.

Bob Palm stated there is about 94 acres of water shed south and about 17 on the north side of the road that comes across Mr. Snemis’ property that goes into the detention area. This water comes through a 24-inch culvert is indicated as an intermittent stream on the USGS maps. There will be no building going on in that area at all. The septic grades will be up in here and the soil borings that were submitted to the Health Department will be conventional gravity systems. Lot 3 had a perimeter drain.

Mr. Ferngren stated these are large lots and only three lots. This will be a rural type of development on R-1 property.

Mr. Kozlowski is concerned about what this driveway is going to be made of and why does it have to be there. How close


is it going to be to his property. Will there be a buffer of trees.

Mr. Romanoff stated Frank Zoll the person that Snemis bought the property from held the covenants and I was curious on what evolved from that and how is that being handled.

Mr. Ferngren stated Mr. Palm explained the drainage clearly. He stated this site is not draining towards any of the neighbors. We are not aware of any covenants. Mr. Snemis bought the property and there were not covenants of record when he closed on the property. Mr. Schelling specifically asked that the driveway be here in this location and to put them together. The driveway would be a shared common drive back into this area and filter out to each lots of two and three. We don’t think that there is any need to buffer.

Mr. Kozlowski stated Mr. Snemis does know about the covenants and he does have a copy of that. Again, what will the driveways be made of and where will they lie.

Mr. Ferngren stated the driveways will be an asphalt type of surface. The driveways would straddle the property line as required by the Highway Department to keep them together. Mr. Palm has answered the drainage questions. They have a pond that is enormous.

The public hearing was then closed.

Mr. Burns stated this reminds me of a spaghetti subdivision and it causes a lot of concerns. He stated I have a concern with the driveway and I also have a concern with the house on lot 3 that would be facing right into the neighbors back yard. He stated also, is there covenants on this property. He stated this should be investigated before we vote on this.

Attorney Elwood stated there are covenants but there is nothing in the covenants that would prevent this development.

Mr. Burns stated on one of the pages it says that it couldn’t be subdivided but I am not sure that this pertains to this development.

Mr. Ferngren asked are these covenants recorded.

Mr. Detert stated it is a spaghetti subdivision. He asked what is to prevent somebody from buying one of these lots and then subdividing it again.



Mr. Ferngren stated they wouldn’t have any frontage.

Mr. Detert stated you could have a long driveway in there.

Mr. Ferngren stated this is a private driveway.

Mr. Detert stated this driveway serves lots 2 and 3.

Mr. Ferngren stated yes.

Attorney Elwood stated I have exhibit “A” Restrictive Covenants running with the land. He stated paragraph two says, “No parcels shall be resubdivided so that more than one single family home may be built on any parcel.” He stated my concern and questions that would need to be resolved to tell what impact this has on this proposal is that these were dated in 1973 and I don’t see that they were recorded, which I need to determine. Secondly Mr. Kozlowski said that there was a 32 acre parcel at one point but I would have to look at it and see what it was in 1972 to see if that provision has in fact already been violated. The other question is what impact this has on this Boards actions.

Mr. Ferngren stated they are unrecorded at best. So what legal affect do they have and I suppose if this is all one property owner then that would be binding on them. This is the first time that I seen this.

Attorney Elwood stated the other thing that I have is that there is no legal description describing what property they even apply to. He stated quite frankly, I don’t know if I can even answer the questions tonight because of the deficiency’s in that document.

Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 06-P-19. Mr. Burns seconded the motion.

Mr. Read stated I agree that we should research this matter. He stated if we continue this in the meantime there are other things that need to be addressed.

Mr. Breitzke stated I very much encourage you if you are going to have drives on the east side, my first preference would be just to get one drive for all three lots. If you are going to do the two driveway, work them as west as far as possible and have large enough culverts under those drives at that draw and continue that draw up through to the lake to help better manage the water and make sure that is seeded and grassed to help protect the lake too. Also to have some very large culverts under


that driveway so you are not blocking.

Mr. Read stated on the declaration of covenants and restrictions for Cherokee Woods, Page 3, Article 2, Section 2, Platting and Subdivision restrictions. At this time, Mr. Read read from the covenants and restrictions. He asked does that plat replat or vacate include the open space area.

Mr. Ferngren stated I didn’t write the covenants but I can answer your question. He stated the covenants are a private contract between property owners and the plat is the approval granted by this Body. He stated if that is going to happen we can’t just vacate the plat.

Mr. Read stated do I interpret that as a no that they can’t do that to the open space.

Mr. Ferngren stated that is correct.

Mr. Read stated on Page 6 has to do with water drainage. He stated I go to your map and I see some arrows on this sheet, primary plat. He stated there are some arrows, which I assume is water going offsite. He asked is that water going offsite.

Mr. Palm stated it is a natural drainage way.

At this time, the Plan Commission members had a discussion on the drainage and the natural water way.

Mr. Read stated we have a provision is our Storm Water Drainage Runoff Ordinance, which says that when land is subdivided that permission from the adjoining land owners must be granted if it passes over or enters his land.

Attorney Elwood stated I am not sure I understand your question other than the defined water way question. He stated I am not sure it is a legal question. He stated I am going to defer it to either Kevin or Bob.

Motion carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

This case is continued to the December 13, 2006 meeting.

Mr. Detert stated Tim Cole, Todd Hutson and myself were appointed to a committee and I don’t know if you want a report on their meeting concerning Walnut Ridge situation and the drainage there. He stated everybody agrees that there is a serious problem and it needs to be resolved. He stated we are meeting with the builders tomorrow and DAC or our drainage engineers will


be and what we are looking for is a resolution from the builders on how they are going to contain and handle the water that is flowing to Mr. Talmage’s property. He stated we hope that this will resolve it. He stated we don’t know what they are going to come up with. He stated the builders have been forewarned that at our meeting tomorrow they will be expected to come forward with something to resolve that problem. He stated in the meantime it is my opinion that we probably ought to vote to give Bob direction not to issue any more certificates of occupancy until we do get it resolved.

Mr. Detert moved give the authority to Staff not to issue any more Certificates of Occupancy in Walnut Ridge Subdivision until this is resolved and to give the Committee the power to lift it. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

At this time, the Commission had a discussion on the independent engineers interviews.

Mr. Detert moved to accept DLZ as our engineer for storm water on a trial basis for the first couple of jobs. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Cole stated he feels that we should be discussing this.

Mr. Breitzke stated we can just appoint them for the first job or two and see how they perform.

Mr. Burns moved to have a fourth public hearing on December 13 for the amendment to the Storm Water Ordinance. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote.

Commissioner Harper stated he would like the committee of Bob Detert, Tim Cole and Todd Hutson to check to see if John Sanders barn has been flooded. He stated he would also like to have them check to see where we are at with this pipe that suppose to take care of that lot. He stated I know it is moving along but I would like them to see if they could take a look at it.

Commissioner Harper stated also these guys are running out on these silt fences and they keep getting ignored. He stated I would like to see Ken put together a two-prong ordinance. He stated here is what I am concerned about that we don’t run a bunch of big fines up and then we don’t get any use from them. He stated I also think that we need to get some fees because I think every time our guys have to go out and re-inspect we should have fees to do that.


Attorney Elwood stated we met about a month ago with Jack and Bob and talked about that. He stated one of the reasons we met is to make sure we had the authority to shut them down, not only the developer but also the individual builders if the developer was not complying. He stated we determined that we did. He stated the second thing that was discussed was instructing us to draft a modification of the ordinance, which increases the fines substantially. He stated I can have that ready for the December 13 meeting.

Commissioner Harper stated the other thing is that I am concerned about what Herb is bringing up and the language in these things. He stated Ken I am asking you to take a look at them.

Attorney Elwood stated I can tell you that the two provisions that were brought up by Herb tonight I am 100% confident in my answer.

Attorney Elwood stated Herb if you could identify any additional language that concerns you and give it to me before the next meeting I would be happy to research it thoroughly.

Commissioner Harper moved that the Plan Commission and the Building Department be instructed to formally inform the Plan Commission members by putting on the agenda for every meeting any complaints they have received regarding drainage problems with any subdivision that has been put in within the last two (2) years and that this be done at the next meeting after that complaint is received. Mr. Detert seconded the motion, motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Commissioner Harper stated he will meet with the Council to ask for one additional full-time employee for the Plan Commission office.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

PORTER COUNTY
PLAN COMMISSION


S/ Kevin Breitzke, President

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