 |
PORTER COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Regular Meeting M I N U T E S The regular meeting of the Porter County Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Porter County Administrative Center, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 205, Valparaiso, Indiana Those members present were Rick Burns, Tim Cole, Robert Detert, Commissioner Bob Harper, Todd Hutson, Elizabeth Marshall, Herb Read, Rita Stevenson and Kevin Breitzke, President. Staff members present were Robert W. Thompson Jr., Attorney Ken Elwood and Patricia S. Gibson. Mr. Cole moved to waive the reading of the December 13, 2006 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Cole moved to waive the reading of the January 10, 2007 minutes and approve them as received in the mail. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous voice vote. Old Business: Case 06-Z-9. Petition of the Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Ave., Suite 311, Valparaiso, Indiana for a proposed amendment to the Master Plan to rezone a parcel of land from I-2, General Industry to RR, Rural Residential to be located approximately 1,000 feet North of Evans Avenue, between CR 325 E. and SR 2 in Washington Township, Porter County, Indiana. Mr. Thompson stated this is back before the Plan Commission because the Commissioners amended the original petition that was being sent down by the Plan Commission. Since there is an amendment by State Statute it must be present before the Plan Commission for a vote. Attorney Elwood stated for clarification the vote is still to either approve the amendment, which means the ordinance would pass tonight or to send an unfavorable recommendation back to the Commissioners again. Those are the two choices. Mr. Hutson moved to forward Case 06-Z-9 to the County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation. Mrs. Marshall seconded the motion, which carried on the following roll call vote:
Burns - No Cole - Yes Detert - No This will be heard by the County Commissioners on February 6, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. New Business: At this time, Mr. Breitzke read the rules of conduct for a public hearing. Case 07-P-4. Petition of Torrenga Surveying, LLC, 351 W. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, Indiana seeking primary plat approval for Judy Acres Subdivision to be located at 503 E. 900 N. in Jackson Township, Porter County, Indiana. (To contain 2 lots on 4.97 acres. Property is zoned RR.) Greg Babcock stated I am here tonight with Eric Banschbach and John and Margie Judy the property owners of one of the lots. This is located in Jackson Township. The property is nearly five acres in size, which was purchased in 1968. The owner is 83 years old and in a nursing home. His son Joe is his representative and couldn’t be here tonight. The reason why they are selling the barn and farm house as one unit and the other lot to the Judy’s is to raise dollars to handle his care in the nursing home. Lot one is 2.3 acres and lot 2 is 2.3 acres. We have the appropriate road frontage necessary for both lots. We have set aside that is indicated on the plat for a conservation easement. We have direct access to CR 900 N. We also had soil borings on lot 2. Karen Mitchell, 508 E. 900 N. Her concern is drainage, the number of houses and what kind of houses. Linda Curley, 511 E. 900 N. Her concern is directly across the street from her there is an open parcel of land that was approved for four homes. Those four homes have never gone up but a big barn went up and now there are all weeds outside and people may be living in the barn or in the RV’s. Her concern is also that a barn might go up before the house. Her concern is that this might happen again.
Mrs. Judy stated I live in Liberty Township, 73 E. 950 N. We are trying to buy this parcel to put in under an 1800 square foot ranch with a basement and an attached garage. We are not sure of the time table. Mr. Banschbach stated in terms of the drainage, as you can see by the topography the natural flow goes to the existing ditch by there which is Sand Creek. He stated we have been to the Drainage Board and they merely requested that it be regulated but with no assessments. He stated with normal lot grading and with the finished grade elevation that is stated on the plat the natural drainage will continue to the same place. When they construct the house the house will be constructed to meet the final grade elevations that are stated on the plat, which is basically the same elevation as the house to the west the existing house and basically keep the drainage going north into the existing regulated drain, Sand Creek. Mr. Breitzke stated without a variance they would not be permitted to put a barn or a secondary structure prior to a house. I can only assume that they got that sometime in the past. We are going to verify it. Mr. Thompson wrote down the information about it and he will have the Zoning Inspector check that out as soon as tomorrow. Mr. Thompson stated I will give him the information. Mrs. Curley’s concern is that if they build up that land what is going to happen to the Johnson’s that are next door to them. Mike Magio, 510 E. 900 N. His concern is the water that is out there. Mrs. Mitchell’s concern is the water and how wet the ground is.
Mr. Banschbach stated to address the water issues, I would argue the fact that it is a swamp. I wouldn’t use that verbiage. It is wet and soils basically dictate that it is a wet soil but with proper drainage it can be easily alleviated. Like I talked about earlier with basically the normal drainage from that house when it will be built up the drainage will continue to go north into the existing regulated drain. There is proposed on both sides of lot 2 on the west and on the east swales to take any water from the raising of the house for the drainage that goes east and west off the sides of the house to take it and continue it north. There should be no additional water going on to the existing lot for lot 1 and no additional water going onto the Johnson’s property to the east. It will all be taken north. There seems to be some confusion on the number of houses that are going out here. This is a two lot major subdivision. There is going to lot 1, which is the existing house on the west. The only additional building site will be lot 2 between the Wilson’s and the Johnson’s. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Burns stated the way I am reading this plan you are raising the foundation up five feet above grade. Mr. Banschbach stated correct. Similar to the house to the west. Mr. Burns asked is that garage floor the number you are showing here. Mr. Banschbach stated that is finished grade. Mr. Burns asked where is Johnson’s grade. Mr. Banschbach stated I don’t know specifically what their grade is at their house. It appears to be similar to the house on lot 1. Mr. Burns asked do you know what the grade is at the property line.
Mr. Burns stated I would like to know that. Mr. Banschbach stated the contour lines extend to the east property line and it continues to slope northward. Mr. Burns stated my concern is the Johnson’s property. Mr. Banschbach stated we are proposing a swale along the east line to take any water. There are three tree lines that basically stand as almost a natural wall for any of the water because the bottom of the trees raise the grade a little bit more. Any water that may come through any of the trees will be taken up by the swale. Mr. Burns asked what will stop a new home owner from coming in and filling in the swales. Mr. Banschbach stated the swales are on the plat that you see. Mr. Detert asked who is going to maintain them. Mr. Banschbach stated the property owners. Mr. Detert stated I have a serious concern on the drainage and the fact that there is no kind of covenant that would insure that the property owner maintained that swale. Mr. Banschbach stated my answer to that would be if you don’t allow it then nothing is going to happen. They had no motivation to do anything to the lot so nothing would be resolved. He stated if they are allowed to build and allowed to build it correctly the drainage would be able to be taken farther to the north and not go into the Johnson’s and hopefully alleviate some of the problems that are existing out there right now. Attorney Elwood stated the one thing that I would say generally is if somebody comes in with a drainage plan, not a conceptual drainage, but a drainage plan and the drainage plan calls for a soil to take care of the water on that side of the property. If it is discovered that the swale is not being maintained by the property owner you can force the property owner to do so or the Storm Water Drainage Board can do so themselves to enforce the plat. I am comfortable with it just being on the plat.
Mr. Detert stated that would put the burden on the Johnson’s or a neighbor to enforce that. Attorney Elwood stated they would not enforce it. They would be the ones to come to us and say that it is causing more problems. Mr. Hutson asked on that particular soil type what is the internal drainage of that soil type. Mr. Banschbach stated it is severe. Mr. Hutson stated you are going to be taking care of the surface water. He asked are you going to be taking off any of the water that is the internal drainage at all. Mr. Banschbach stated with the construction of the septic system, yes. Mr. Detert asked is that going to be conventional septic system. Mr. Banschbach stated yes. He stated a conventional septic system with a perimeter drain. Mrs. Stevenson asked are all of the trees going to stay right where they are. Mr. Babcock stated unless they fall down. Mr. Judy stated yes they will stay. Mr. Cole stated as Mr. Detert has said drainage is becoming an issue in the county and I have seen a lot of it too. The one thing that hasn’t been mentioned and I have a hard time seeing a severe amount of water coming off of this property that would be very much greater than it is now. My concern is the ravine in the back. That ravine, I believe, goes into Jackson Heights and into a dammed pond. My concern is about that pond on the neighbor’s property. I don’t think that is a detention or retention pond. That is evidently someone’s private pond. Mr. Breitzke stated it is a retention pond for the subdivision. Mr. Thompson stated I think it is in the very first phase. Mr. Cole stated it is not that far away from the north edge of the property so I would have concerns about that. I would
Mr. Banschbach stated we are not going to add a whole lot of more water coming off the parcel that is impervious. In terms of the pond to the west we are not adding…it is a pretty minimal amount of water that is not going to be going into the ground that the house is taking off. In order to preserve the sediment control or erosion control when the site plan is done for the construction of the house and the construction of the site plan all that should be addressed with proper erosion control measures with silt fences or whatever to make sure that none of that sediment goes into that ditch. Mr. Cole stated I would imagine that Mr. Mullet was probably a conscientious man and probably mowed that grass all the way in the back as far as he could. I don’t know, maybe he didn’t. Maybe he left that somewhat weedy. Mr. Banschbach stated it is fairly wooded back there. Mr. Cole asked is that your open space. Mr. Banschbach stated correct. Mr. Cole stated if you would include in your covenants that minimal mowing be conducted in that area that would at least give a little more guarantee to the fact that you are not going to increase the rate of runoff. You allow water to dissipate along that natural channel so it is not over whelmed with a sudden rush of water. Mr. Read stated I have a serious problem with not having all the information that I feel is necessary to address the runoff problems at primary. Mr. Read is concerned about the contour lines not going very far off the boundary lines because it is a little difficult for him to analyze what is going to go on off the site. He is concerned on how much surface drainage is going to go from lot 2 to the Johnson property. He is concerned about the swales and whether or not the swale is sufficient to prevent storm runoff from lot 2 to the Johnson property. Mr. Read stated you have to show that the water does not leave the property without the permission of the private property line, whether it is increased or not. Mr. Breitzke stated what I am going to suggest to you Eric, is to run a swale along the west line. We apparently have an issue with water at 500 E. and 900 N. as it is. It would be helpful to direct that water and construct a swale all the way back to the creek. Mrs. Marshall stated I also find that this plat lacks some information that I think is crucial to approving this primary plat. Will the house have a basement because it may not be feasible on this particular lot. I am also concerned about the swales. I think that the plat lacks some of the information that I think is crucial in approving a new house. I would like to know if you are going to have to bring in fill. Mr. Banschbach stated we are obviously going to have to bring in fill to match the existing elevations basically for the house to the west. Mrs. Marshall stated even the watershed USGS Topo map indicates that there will be water coming across the street and the street being higher than the proposed building the height of the building, indicates that we can have some water coming under this property. Mr. Banschbach asked what else does the Commission need. Mrs. Marshall stated you just stopped the contour lines at the border. Mr. Banschbach stated that is someone else’s property and we don’t have the right to just go onto someone else’s property. Mrs. Marshall stated the swale is going to divert some of the water from going where it now goes. Mr. Banschbach stated the house is going to be built up essentially the same as the house to the west on lot 1. The water that is coming off that build up is going to be diverted north into the existing drain line. Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Breitzke do we have calculations in things presented here that after we have this independent drainage review in place that they would require to approve this. Mr. Breitzke stated I believe we do. We have been changing the rules for subdivision presentation like when we are bringing up the swales along the side. Commissioner Harper stated under our existing ordinance right now if this was presented to DLZ have they have done all their drainage calculations and everything do they have their plan in place that you think that they would require. Mr. Breitzke stated as far as I recall. I just have a few other things that I would like to say. Sand Creek isn’t regulated. We ask for a portion of that to be set aside for easement. It is a long standing creek and it flows. Your elevations are very low. As long as you get the water back to the back of the lot. I am serious about the swale along the east side of Jackson Heights. I would suggest that you might examine a swale along the west side of the tree row and train all the way back to where it gets to the back of the lot and not stop short of that but pass that barn. I would also like to see an elevation
Mrs. Johnson stated it is okay. Mr. Breitzke stated I would also like an elevation on the barn for the same reasons. Mr. Read stated there should be the same treatment of the west side as there is to the east side. I want to see it on the drawing at primary. Mr. Breitzke stated on the west there are existing houses lot 1 is an existing and barn. He stated the thing is if they take the swale down right now they are high between the houses. If they have a swale, it can do nothing but help the drainage between the two. I don’t think that need to intrude on those people but we do need a definite drainage plan and the things re-shot from that pipe at the intersection all the way to the north. Mr. Detert moved to continue Case 07-P-4 and send it back to DAC for more detailed information on the drainage. Mr. Burns seconded the motion, which carried on a unanimous roll call vote. Discussion: Mr. Banschbach asked what additional information do you need. Mr. Breitzke stated we want to see the design of the swales between the houses and on each side of the house. We want to see elevations to the east of this structure onto Mrs. Johnson’s and some spots up to her house. Get us a first floor elevation, maybe a garage elevation. At this time, there was a discussion concerning the barn across the street from Mrs. Curley’s house and the RV’s that have been there since last summer.
At this time, the Commission had a discussion concerning storage sheds on McCool Road south of Rt. 6 concerning drainage problems that the neighbors are having. A public hearing has been set for Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. for the Unified Development Ordinance. At this time, Larry Bucher read a letter concerning the Plan Commission putting them on the agenda for the next meeting to have their case for their industrial park heard. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
PORTER COUNTY
Attest: Robert W. Thompson Jr. AICP, Executive Director/County Planner |
 |
Please enter a search term to begin your search. |
January 24, 2007